He is about to end up run over, his mother saves him
Lack of evidence. The San Francisco Superior Court judge has started a new trial that sees Monsato on one side and Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, the cancer gardener who had brought the agrochemical giant to trial, on the other. The mega-compensation obtained by man is also under discussion.
Months ago we told you about the historic sentence taken by an American judge. The trial, which began in June in the California Supreme Court, ended in a historic decision by a "hero" federal judge, who could have led the way in thousands of lawsuits against glyphosate by cancer patients.
Back then, according to the judge, there was enough evidence for the jury to be able to consider cases that accuse glyphosate of having favored the onset of cancer. The decision by US District Judge Vince Chhabria, in San Francisco, came after years and years of litigation and weeks of hearings over controversial information regarding glyphosate, the key ingredient in the herbicide sold by Monsanto.
Upon completion of the trial, Lee is awarded a mega-compensation of $ 289 million, of which 39 million for damages and 250 million for punitive damages. The latter had even accused Monsanto of not having correctly warned about the risks associated with the use of the herbicide. In September, the agrochemical giant takes a counterattack by challenging a historic ruling.
Now a California judge has granted the company a retrial.
Suzanne Bolanos, magistrate of the Superior Court of San Francisco, has motivated through "insufficient evidence to justify the recognition of punitive damages," and arguing that Johnson has not presented "clear and convincing evidence of malice or oppression" on the part of Monsanto.
Monsanto is therefore trying to overturn the verdict by arguing that glyphosate is safe.
Timothy Litzenburg, one of the attorneys who represented Johnson in the trial, told the Guardian that, regardless of the outcome, the original ruling would still have a long-term impact: "There was a strong and clear message."
A Bayer spokesman praised Judge Bolanos' interim decision, adding: "The Company continues to believe that the evidence at the trial does not support the verdict and the damage received."
A process of historical significance, which still has many points to be clarified. The final decision will come after the lawyers present further arguments.
In any case, regardless of the outcome of the dispute, it is legitimate to ask whether once again the agrochemical lobbies have "other" interests, which do not coincide with human health.
We leave you with many questions, which probably not even justice will ever be able to answer. Does glyphosate cause cancer? And if so, did Monsanto know and keep silent?
To reconstruct the story, read also:
- The trial of the terminally ill patient against Monsanto accused of having covered the cancer risk of glyphosate begins
- Glyphosate and cancer: historic decision by a US judge, will lead the way in other lawsuits by patients against Monsanto
- Monsanto appeals against the conviction of compensation for a terminally ill cancer patient
Francesca Mancuso
Gallery
