Martel, K. v. Nouryon Chemicals
1259 EDA 2024
Pa. Super. Ct.Jun 25, 2025Background
- Kelly J. Martel filed a products liability suit in Philadelphia County, claiming she developed follicular lymphoma from exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup, which contains glyphosate (by Monsanto) and POEA (by Nouryon).
- The case was part of Philadelphia County’s mass tort program handling Roundup-related cases.
- Martel alleged strict liability and negligence claims against Monsanto and Nouryon, and breach of implied warranty against Monsanto.
- A jury returned a $3.5 million verdict (including $3 million in punitive damages) in favor of Martel; Monsanto’s post-trial motions were denied.
- Monsanto appealed, raising issues of federal preemption, sufficiency of causation evidence, excessiveness and propriety of punitive damages, and denial of motion to transfer venue for forum non conveniens.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FIFRA Preemption of Failure-to-Warn | State law claim not preempted | Claim preempted under FIFRA per Schaffner | Not preempted; state law claim allowed |
| Sufficiency of Causation Evidence | Evidence showed Roundup was factor | Exposures insufficient; expert failed to rule out other causes | Sufficient evidence; jury’s verdict upheld |
| Propriety and Amount of Punitive Damages | Evidence of reprehensible conduct | No reckless conduct; compliance w/EPA & consensus; too high ratio | Punitive damages supported, not excessive |
| Denial of Venue Transfer (Forum Non Conveniens) | Venue proper; hardship not shown | Venue oppressive, witnesses and evidence far from Philadelphia | Denial proper; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Hutchinson v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., 876 A.2d 978 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard for granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict – JNOV)
- Rost v. Ford Motor Co., 151 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2016) (plaintiff need not exclude all other potential causes; substantial factor standard)
- Bert Co. v. Turk, 298 A.3d 44 (Pa. 2023) (framework and standards for punitive damages)
- Bratic v. Rubendall, 99 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014) (defendant’s burden for forum non conveniens transfer; detailed proof of witness hardship required)
- Daniel v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 15 A.3d 909 (Pa. Super. 2011) (compliance with regulations does not bar punitive damages)