By Sara Randazzo and Jacob Bunge
This article is being republished as part of our daily
reproduction of WSJ.com articles that also appeared in the U.S.
print edition of The Wall Street Journal (October 23, 2018).
A California judge on Monday reduced by more than $200 million a
jury verdict linking Bayer AG's Roundup weedkiller to cancer but
upheld the jury's findings that the company acted with malice.
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Suzanne Ramos Bolanos said
the $250 million in punitive damages awarded by the jury must be
slimmed down to match the $39.25 million in compensatory damages
that the jury found appropriate. If the plaintiff agrees to the
reduction by Dec. 7, no new trial is needed.
Bayer inherited thousands of Roundup-related lawsuits in its
recently closed acquisition of Monsanto Co. and has worked to
assuage investor concerns about potential liability from the
litigation.
The decision is the latest turn in the first Roundup case to go
to trial, which resulted in an August verdict in favor of a
groundskeeper who said prolonged use of glyphosate-based herbicides
caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the world, has
become a go-to product for farmers, landscapers and homeowners
because of its ability to shrivel dozens of different weed
species.
The ruling on Monday diverges from a tentative decision the
judge reached earlier this month to completely throw out the $250
million in punitive damages and order a new trial. In the 11-page
ruling released on Monday, the judge said that "regardless of the
level of reprehensibility of Monsanto's conduct, the
constitutionally required ratio is one to one" between the two
types of damages.
Bayer said it would appeal the verdict. The company had asked
the court to overturn the award, arguing that attorneys for
plaintiff Dewayne Johnson relied on flimsy scientific evidence to
prove a link to his cancer and that they had swayed the jurors with
overly emotional and speculative arguments.
"The Court's decision to reduce the punitive damage award by
more than $200 million is a step in the right direction, but we
continue to believe that the liability verdict and damage awards
are not supported by the evidence at trial or the law," the company
said in a statement.
Attorneys for Mr. Johnson said they believe the reduction in
punitive damages is unwarranted and are weighing their options, but
"are happy the jury's voice was acknowledged by the court, even if
slightly muted."
Several jurors wrote letters to the court in the wake of the
tentative ruling, urging the judge not to set aside their decision
and saying that they dutifully followed instructions.
In interviews before the judge's final ruling, two of those
jurors, financial adviser Gary Kitahata and residential contractor
Robert Howard, said they decided to award the $250 million in
punitive damages after considering what would be a sufficient
deterrent for a company of Monsanto's size.
Monsanto attorneys argued that comments made by the plaintiff's
counsel, Brent Wisner, during closing arguments inflamed the jury.
They included comparisons to the tobacco industry and a remark that
Monsanto executives were waiting to pop champagne in their board
room if they won the case.
Mr. Kitahata said it is absurd to suggest that the remarks
influenced them. "Obviously he was being theatrical, but that's
what attorneys do," Mr. Kitahata said.
Mr. Howard said Mr. Wisner's comments were quickly brushed aside
in the deliberation room, as jurors did in-depth reviews of every
witness presented to them. Many of the jurors have stayed in close
contact, as their verdict is dissected, and had attended an Oct. 10
hearing before Judge Bolanos.
During that hearing, Judge Bolanos chided Mr. Wisner for his
remarks in the closing, saying she had ordered him not to make any
references to champagne in the boardroom, but "then in front of the
jury, you disregarded my order." Mr. Wisner, a Los Angeles-based
attorney with Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman PC, disputed
that he disobeyed her instructions.
Michael Miller, another attorney for the plaintiff, said in
court that Monsanto dismissed 27 potential jurors on grounds they
appeared biased against the company and ended up with a jury "free
from passion, free from prejudice." Only after the jurors issued a
verdict against the company, he argued, did Monsanto say a
miscarriage of justice took place.
Monsanto invented glyphosate and began marketing it in 1974, and
about two decades later introduced the first crops genetically
engineered to survive the spray. "Roundup Ready" crops simplified
farming and formed the basis for Monsanto's world-leading business
in seeds, which made about $11 billion in sales last year.
Glyphosate's safety came under scrutiny after the International
Agency for Research on Cancer, a unit of the World Health
Organization, in 2015 classified glyphosate as likely having the
potential to cause cancer. Monsanto and other agricultural groups
pushed back, but the classification prompted a wave of lawsuits and
regulatory challenges in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere.
Write to Sara Randazzo at sara.randazzo@wsj.com and Jacob Bunge
at jacob.bunge@wsj.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
October 23, 2018 02:47 ET (06:47 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2018 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (PK) (USOTC:BAYRY)
Historical Stock Chart
From Aug 2024 to Sep 2024
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (PK) (USOTC:BAYRY)
Historical Stock Chart
From Sep 2023 to Sep 2024