Products Liability Law Reporter

Consumer Products

You must be a Products Liability Law Reporter subscriber to access this content.

If you are a member of the Products Liability Section or a subscriber, log in below. Not yet a Section member? Join today!

Join the Products Liability Section

Failure to warn of Roundup’s carcinogenic risk

April/May 2024

Starting when he was a teenager, Michael Dennis took care of the yards for four different family homes. He sprayed Roundup weedkiller while performing the yard work, per his father’s instructions. At age 51, Dennis was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. He underwent multiple rounds of radiation and endured pain from skin lesions on his hands and feet. He is now in remission.

Dennis sued Monsanto Co., alleging that it had failed to warn consumers of known carcinogenic risks associated with Roundup. The plaintiff did not claim past medical expenses or lost income.

The jury awarded $332 million, including $325 million in punitive damages.

Citation: Dennis v. Monsanto Co., No. 37-2021-00047326-CU-PO-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct. San Diego Cnty. Oct. 31, 2023).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ member Scott Love and Adam Peavy, both of Houston; and AAJ members Paul Kiesel and Melanie Palmer, both of Beverly Hills, Calif.

Comment: In Bulone v. Monsanto Co., 2024 WL 102213 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2024), Monsanto moved to strike the plaintiff’s general causation expert Luoping Zhang, arguing that Zhang’s report did not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). Under that rule, expert witnesses are required to provide written reports containing a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them, facts or data considered by the witness, any supportive exhibits that will be used, the witness’s qualifications, a list of other cases the witness has testified in over the previous four years, and a statement of the compensation to be paid. Denying the motion, the district court—noting that Zhang’s report is far from a model document— rejected Monsanto’s argument that the report failed to disclose the information required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B).

For instance, the court reasoned, the publications incorporated by reference in the expert’s declaration set forth conclusions about the carcinogenicity of glyphosate-based herbicides and the possible mechanisms by which glyphosate-based herbicides might be implicated in lymphomagenesis. The court also concluded that although Zhang’s report failed to disclose compensation information, this failure was harmless and did not justify excluding Zhang. The plaintiff was represented by AAJ members Jamie R. Rutkoski, John D. Kassel, and Theile Branham McVey, all of Columbia, S.C.; and AAJ member Erin M. Wood, John Russio, and Gibbs Henderson, all of Dallas.