Judge Reduces Jury Award Against Bayer's Roundup to $ 78.5 Million

The decision is the latest in the first Roundup to the case, which resulted in an August verdict in favor of groundskeeper who said prolonged use of glyphosate-based herbicides caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the world, has become a go-to product for farmers, landscapers and homeowners because of its ability to shrivel dozens of different species.

The ruling on Monday diverges from a $ 250 million trial in the first place. In the 11-page ruling released on Monday, the judge said that "regardless of the level of reprehensibility of Monsanto's conduct, the constitutionally required ratio is one to one" between the two types of damages.

Bayer said it would appeal the verdict. Dewayne Johnson relies on the evidence of the world, arguing that it is more likely that the patient will be diagnosed with the disease.

"The Court's decision to reduce the price of $ 200 million is a step in the right direction, but we continue to believe that the verdict and damage awards are not supported by the evidence at trial or the law," the company said in a statement.

Attorneys for Mr. Johnson said that they believe in the punitive damages and are weighing their options, but "are happy the jury is acknowledged by the court, even slightly muted."

Several jurors wrote letters to the court in the wake of the attempted ruling, urging them to make their decision and saying that they dutifully followed instructions.

Gary Kitahata and residential contractor, Robert Howard, said they would be awarded $ 250 million in punitive damages after considering what would be a sufficient deterrent for a company of Monsanto's size.

Monsanto attorneys argued that comments by the plaintiff's counsel, Brent Wisner, during closing arguments inflamed the jury. They included comparing to the industry and observing Monsanto executives were waiting to pop champagne in their boardroom if they won the case.

Mr. Kitahata said it is absurd to suggest that the remarks influenced them. "Obviously he was being theatrical, but that's what attorneys do," Mr. Kitahata said.

Mr. Howard said Mr. Wisner's comments were promptly brushed aside in the deliberation room, as jurors did in-depth reviews of every witness presented to them. Many of the jurors have stayed in their contacts, have had their verdict dissected, and had attended an Oct. 10 hearing before Judge Bolanos.

Judge Bolanos chided Mr. Wisner for his remarks in the closing remarks, but "in front of the jury, you disregarded my order." Wisner, a Los Angeles-based attorney with Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & PC's Goldman, disputed that he disobeyed her instructions.

Michael Miller, another attorney for the plaintiff, said in court that, "Monsanto dismissed 27 potential jurors on grounds they were biased against the company and ended up with a jury of" free from passion, free from prejudice. the company, he argued, did Monsanto say a miscarriage of justice took place.

Monsanto invented glyphosate and began marketing it in 1974, and about two decades later. "Roundup Ready" crops simplified farming and forms the basis for Monsanto's world-leading business in seeds, which made about $ 11 billion in sales last year.

Glyphosate's safety comes under scrutiny after the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a unit of the World Health Organization. Monsanto and other agricultural groups pushed back, but the classification prompted a wave of lawsuits and regulatory challenges in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere.

Write to Sara Randazzo at [email protected] and Jacob Bunge at [email protected]