After judge suggests she will overturn $289m verdict, those behind it call for justice for Dewayne Johnson
Jurors who ruled that Monsanto caused a dying man’s cancer are fighting to uphold their landmark $289m verdict, publicly urging a judge not to overturn their decision in a groundbreaking trial.
Four California jurors told the Guardian that they were shocked and angry to learn that the judge overseeing their trial had moved to throw out their unanimous verdict, which said the agrochemical corporation failed to warn consumers that its popular weedkiller product posed health risks.
The ruling in August, which sparked concerns across the globe about the Roundup herbicide, included $250m in punitive damages to the plaintiff, Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, who has terminal cancer. But San Francisco superior court judge Suzanne Bolanos stunned campaigners and jurors last week when she issued a tentative ruling on Monsanto’s appeal motion, saying she would likely grant a new trial due to the “insufficiency of the evidence”.
“I was just gobsmacked and outraged. I was astonished,” Robert Howard, juror No 4, said in an interview on Thursday. “Why do we have a jury system if the judge can just toss it out?”
Bolanos hasn’t yet made a final ruling, leading to an unusual public plea from the jurors and mounting pressure on the judge in recent days. Some jurors said they became emotionally invested in the trial and now felt it was their duty to advocate for their decision and fight for Johnson to receive his award.
It’s a high-stakes moment in a years-long battle surrounding glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, which studies have shown is linked to cancer. Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, the German pharmaceutical company, has long sold the chemical under the brands Roundup and Ranger Pro, and has continued to argue that it is safe to use and does not cause cancer. Johnson, who could have months to live, has become a hero to some cancer patients and families, and thousands have filed similar legal claims across the US.
Gary Kitahata, another juror, said he was swayed by the evidence presented by Johnson’s attorneys, especially internal Monsanto emails suggesting the company had worked to stifle critical research while promoting and contributing to studies that concluded glyphosate was safe.
“They were protecting a product that was very important to the corporation’s bottom line,” said Kitahata, a 64-year-old consultant for local governments, who served as juror No 1.
Monsanto’s private communications about science made it easy for the jury to rule that the company “acted with malice or oppression”, which led to the punitive damages award, Kitahata said. “That should be the corporation’s job, to make sure their product is safe … If there are any questions, that should be on the product warning label.”