Jurors have sided with plaintiffs in all three cases over Bayer AG’s herbicide Roundup to go to trial so far, finding that glyphosate causes cancer and awarding a total of more than $2.2 billion in damages.
Those results underscore a growing skepticism of juries to trust the science conducted by regulators, which, if it continues, could have profound impacts on the ability of companies to defend themselves in product liability cases ….
“Over the past 10 years, jurors have become increasingly skeptical of government regulators ….” said Allan Kanner, a plaintiffs’ attorney with Kanner & Whiteley LLC who handles toxic tort cases.
Monsanto, which was acquired by Bayer AG last year and which makes Roundup, has been accused of covering up the chemical’s health risks.
Despite losing at trial in each of the three cases to go before a jury, the company remains confident that appellate judges will be more willing to side with the company’s toxicology evidence, which includes findings by both federal and international regulators.
But Kanner said that strategy is based on a premise that regulatory experts still hold a deciding influence over jurors. “That model …. is based on a world view among jurors that no longer exists, or is rapidly eroding,” he said.
Read full, original article: Bayer Jury Awards on Roundup Underscore Legal Rift Over Science