Monsanto Verdict Forewarns of Claims for Failure to Warn

Robinson+Cole Manufacturing Law Blog
Contact

By now, we have all heard about the $289 million verdict against Monsanto in the Roundup litigation. A California jury awarded the sum to Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, a school groundskeeper who claimed that exposure to Roundup contributed to his lymphoma. Johnson claimed that Monsanto’s product was defectively designed and that Monsanto failed to warn consumers of the potential risks associated with its product. The jury found for Johnson on all counts.

One of the more important takeaways from this verdict for all manufacturers is on Monsanto’s failure to warn of the potential risks associated with Roundup. Yes, I said potential. To support his claims, the plaintiff relied heavily on a 2015 study conducted by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). This study found glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, was a “probable human carcinogen”. The IARC report stated that, while there is convincing evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in laboratory animals, there is limited evidence that it causes cancer in humans. Despite this caveat, as well as testimony from Monsanto experts about the lack of a causal connection between glyphosate and cancer, the jury found that Monsanto had a duty to warn, even of the potential harm. In fact, when asked whether a reasonable manufacturer, distributor, or seller under similar circumstances would have warned of the danger or instructed on the safe use of its products, the jury answered, in a word, “Yes.”

The requirement to warn when the harm is classified as potential, and sometimes disputed, is difficult to define. Oftentimes, scientific evidence is unclear, even contradictory. But the Monsanto verdict seems to require manufacturers to try to make that call, perhaps on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that consumers are aware of all identifiable potential risks. That undertaking is easier said than done, and such warnings may be more complicated than a few words on a product label. But, given this verdict and the potential uptick in failure to warn claims that may follow, manufacturers may want to reevaluate the “potential” harms associated with their products.

[View source.]

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Robinson+Cole Manufacturing Law Blog | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Robinson+Cole Manufacturing Law Blog
Contact
more
less

Robinson+Cole Manufacturing Law Blog on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.