Johnson v. Monsanto Co.
52 Cal.App.5th 434
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiff Dewayne Johnson was a heavy user of Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup Pro and Ranger Pro as a school grounds manager and was diagnosed with mycosis fungoides (a rare form of non‑Hodgkin’s lymphoma); he filed suit alleging design defect and inadequate warnings.
- Trial evidence included the IARC Monograph classifying glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic," epidemiological studies and expert testimony (for both general and specific causation), and internal Monsanto documents about genotoxicity concerns and testing.
- The jury found Monsanto liable on strict-liability and negligent failure‑to‑warn theories and on a design‑defect (consumer‑expectations) theory, awarding about $39.3 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages.
- The trial court conditionally denied Monsanto’s post‑trial motions but reduced punitive damages to equal compensatory damages on due‑process grounds; parties appealed and cross‑appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed liability (failure‑to‑warn, design defect, and causation), rejected Monsanto’s FIFRA preemption and evidentiary challenges, but found the future noneconomic damages unsupported and reduced both compensatory and punitive awards accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation (general and specific) | Experts show glyphosate/Roundup can cause NHL and caused Johnson’s disease given heavy exposure | Evidence insufficient to prove Roundup was a substantial factor; idiopathic causes not ruled out | Substantial evidence supported both general and specific causation; jury verdict stands |
| Failure‑to‑warn—"known or knowable" standard | Monsanto knew or should have known of cancer risks from studies (IARC, genotox papers) and failed to warn | No consensus; regulatory agencies (EPA etc.) did not find glyphosate carcinogenic, so no duty to warn | Substantial evidence that risks were "known or knowable" to Monsanto; failure‑to‑warn verdict affirmed |
| Design‑defect (consumer‑expectations vs. risk‑benefit) | Ordinary users reasonably expect herbicide use not to cause cancer; consumer‑expectations theory applies | Product is complex; consumer‑expectations inapplicable; risk‑benefit test should govern | Court applied and sustained consumer‑expectations verdict (design defect) because ordinary users could form safety expectations |
| Preemption under FIFRA | State tort claims not preempted; FIFRA allows state regulation and Bates permits state claims consistent with FIFRA | FIFRA (and EPA approvals) preempt state failure‑to‑warn claims; impossibility where EPA would not approve cancer warning | Court declines to find FIFRA preemption on the record; Wyeth/Albrecht impossibility defense not proven here; design‑defect claim independently survives |
| Damages and punitive ratio | Requested $37M noneconomic; punitive damages appropriate based on Monsanto’s conduct | Jury inflamed; awards excessive; punitive not supported by clear and convincing evidence | Future noneconomic damages reduced (remitted to $4M future; total compensatory $10,253,209.32); punitive reduced to equal that compensatory amount; punitive liability otherwise sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Owens‑Corning Fiberglas Corp., 53 Cal.3d 987 (1991) (discusses "knowable" risk standard for failure‑to‑warn liability)
- Finn v. G. D. Searle & Co., 35 Cal.3d 691 (1984) (warnings not required for speculative or isolated reports)
- Carlin v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.4th 1104 (1996) (manufacturer held to knowledge of an expert in the field; duty to keep abreast of scientific advances)
- Valentine v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 68 Cal.App.4th 1467 (1999) (distinguishes potential risks from those likely to be dangerous)
- Soule v. General Motors Corp., 8 Cal.4th 548 (1994) (consumer‑expectations and risk‑benefit tests for design defect)
- McCabe v. American Honda Motor Co., 100 Cal.App.4th 1111 (2002) (describes both design‑defect tests)
- Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005) (FIFRA does not categorically preempt state failure‑to‑warn claims; preemption limited to requirements "in addition to or different from" FIFRA)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (preemption; manufacturer must show clear evidence FDA would not have approved stronger warning)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (constitutional limits on punitive damages; guidepost factors)
- Cooper v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., 239 Cal.App.4th 555 (2015) (California standard on proving causation without excluding every other possible cause)