- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jury returns $2 billion verdict against Monsanto for couple with cancer
Posted on 5/13/19 at 10:32 pm to rowbear1922
Posted on 5/13/19 at 10:32 pm to rowbear1922
quote:
I would like to know before I sign another years lease though.
We work together. The schedule shift right and TIC jump is more threatening than the lawsuits. The Germans knew well before but it is kind of baffling. They can still make money on global market with the overall seed business.
1
Posted on 5/13/19 at 10:35 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Get this---the California judge would not allow Monsanto to introduce the EPA declaration last week that glyphosate was not a carcinogen in the trial. They could only use previous EPA statements.
EPA Reaffirms Glyphosate No Danger to Public Health
If I was Monsanto's lawyer, I'd risk the mistrial and the sanctions to make sure the jury knew about this.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 10:48 pm to BuckyCheese
Tort reform please.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 10:57 pm to udtiger
I don't understand how anyone could make a definitive statement that Roundup caused their cancer. Sounds to me like this judge is not capable of running a fair courtroom.
30-40 years ago, a massive amount of houses and businesses were built using asbestos insulation or siding etc...
Breathing in asbestos is likely the cause of the boom in cancer among that age group, but you rarely hear about it due to people seeming content just blaming it on cigarettes.
Edit: I am not saying the smoking does not cause cancer (it does), I am saying that you could not prove that a specific person's cancer was caused by smoking, when breathing in asbestos fibers has been proven to cause cancer at a massive rate and was everywhere in that time period. My grandparents smoked inside their asbestos free home for 40 years, neither one has cancer. Possible and definitive are not equal.
30-40 years ago, a massive amount of houses and businesses were built using asbestos insulation or siding etc...
Breathing in asbestos is likely the cause of the boom in cancer among that age group, but you rarely hear about it due to people seeming content just blaming it on cigarettes.
Edit: I am not saying the smoking does not cause cancer (it does), I am saying that you could not prove that a specific person's cancer was caused by smoking, when breathing in asbestos fibers has been proven to cause cancer at a massive rate and was everywhere in that time period. My grandparents smoked inside their asbestos free home for 40 years, neither one has cancer. Possible and definitive are not equal.
This post was edited on 5/14/19 at 7:54 am
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:05 pm to East Coast Band
Good.
There is only one way to get a multi-billion dollar company to listen up, and change what they’re doing- and that is to hit them in the pocketbook.. It’s the only recourse we have.. of course the couple doesnt need $2 billion, who does? It’s about making the company stand up and pay attention.
There is only one way to get a multi-billion dollar company to listen up, and change what they’re doing- and that is to hit them in the pocketbook.. It’s the only recourse we have.. of course the couple doesnt need $2 billion, who does? It’s about making the company stand up and pay attention.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:17 pm to AutoYes_Clown
quote:
AutoYes_Clown
Now I am interesting to find out who you are. I just went through quite a few pages of your post and have it narrowed down to a few possible
ETA: I figured it out.
This post was edited on 5/13/19 at 11:43 pm
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:20 pm to ThatMakesSense
quote:
This is all so fricking stupid it ridiculous.
Obviously the reason these people caught lymphoma was because of Round-Up.
No way it had to do with the myriad of any other reasons this EVER happens.
Could have been nail clippers. Everything in Cali causes cancer
Posted on 5/14/19 at 12:45 am to udtiger
The jury must consider the EPA statements that were in effect during the plaintiffs' usage of the product, not those issued last week.
This post was edited on 5/14/19 at 2:30 am
Posted on 5/14/19 at 12:59 am to el Gaucho
quote:
el Gaucho
Am I the only one that finds his shtick to be very old and worn out. Give a rest, man. THat joke should have ended around 2012 or so.
Posted on 5/14/19 at 1:26 am to lammo
quote:
"Clear violation of due process."
IDIOT
Actually, it isn't idiotic. Most appeals on punitive damages alone question the constitutionality of the award based on the 14th amendment.
The US Supreme Ct considers punitives to not be fact-based but law based so they can be tried de novo on appeal.
Punitive normally have lots of control via code and are highly limited in the scope of application. There is generally a fairly high bar to even make a punitive argument.
The public interest behind punitives is often compensatory damages have little if any deterrent to a huge company.
To put in in simple terms it is like if murder had a simple $100,000 fine someone like Bill Gates could kill someone every day and the fine wouldn't be a deterrent to him.
When you are able to clear the bar for a punitive argument you can bring the financials of a company into evidence. This is designed to allow the jury to determine a number that they feel is adequate to prevent the behavior in the future. The original near $3 million in punitives in the infamous McDonalds coffee case were arrived at by the jury because it was 2 days of coffee sales revenues for McDonalds.
As a side note, it is my understanding, having never practiced in LA, that punitive damage awards are practically impossible in Louisiana.
Posted on 5/14/19 at 1:28 am to Charlie Arglist
quote:
Unless it is you or your family.
I don’t give a shite about you or your family.
Posted on 5/14/19 at 1:31 am to East Coast Band
they just pull dollar amounts out of their arse 
Posted on 5/14/19 at 1:54 am to ZIGG
quote:
they just pull dollar amounts out of their arse
IME that isn't accurate. In most of my post-verdict questioning of jurors they had a logical arithmetic formula, they used to determine the punitives.
During the punitives part of their argument, an effective plaintiffs attorney will lay out a framework that helps the jury come to a verdict. If you can show a logical movement from the company financials to the verdict amount you have a much better chance of prevailing at appeal. Most every punitive award is appealed.
My argument always centered around a child who had behaved poorly, either by throwing a baseball through a window intentionally or hitting his little sister. If he received $5 a week allowance and the only means of punishment was to take away his allowance how many weeks would it take to deter the behavior in the future. They would have the companies revenue/profit per week in evidence and can apply my framework to it.
That said as a plaintiffs attorney you worry about excessive punitives almost as much as small ones. How excessive or not I consider these would require me to see the total of evidence presented. It didn't help the that Monsanto, in general, has a pretty bad PR rep deserved or not.
Posted on 5/14/19 at 5:01 am to East Coast Band
These verdicts are ridiculous,
Posted on 5/14/19 at 5:17 am to GeauxOCDP
quote:
capeable
Posted on 5/14/19 at 5:32 am to East Coast Band
It’s seems as if there is at most a possible link between roundup and cancer. Did the company know more and purposely hide the info?
If not, who cares? Cigarettes are, and should be legal, but they definitely increase the risk of cancer and multiple other diseases.
Weeding is a som bitch of a job. I’m still using roundup. I won’t have my kids use it, but at my age, hell yes.
Use it in food products, but label it clearly. Let the consumers make educated decisions about the food. If roundup makes foods tons cheaper, people will still buy it.
If not, who cares? Cigarettes are, and should be legal, but they definitely increase the risk of cancer and multiple other diseases.
Weeding is a som bitch of a job. I’m still using roundup. I won’t have my kids use it, but at my age, hell yes.
Use it in food products, but label it clearly. Let the consumers make educated decisions about the food. If roundup makes foods tons cheaper, people will still buy it.
Posted on 5/14/19 at 6:33 am to Charlie Arglist
quote:
So YOU are willing to drink a glass of water drawn from the ground under these fiel?ds?
Yes, no problem whatsoever.
Posted on 5/14/19 at 6:56 am to Arkapigdiesel
Capable* You found a typo, I bet you feel so edgy and cool 
Posted on 5/14/19 at 7:14 am to rowbear1922
quote:
Does every topic ever have to have trump brought into it now?
This epa factor does.
"Nothing to see here".
Posted on 5/14/19 at 7:31 am to junior
quote:
Did the company know more and purposely hide the info?
They had a bunch of Monsanto internal docs and presented a case that hinged on the following, this general info is the basis for all three of the Roundup cases.
Monsanto never conducted epidemiology studies for Roundup and its other formulations made with the active ingredient glyphosate to evaluate the cancer risks for users.
Monsanto was aware that the surfactants in Roundup were much more toxic than glyphosate alone.
Monsanto spent millions of dollars on covert public relations campaigns to finance ghostwritten studies and articles aimed at discrediting independent scientists whose work found dangers with Monsanto’s herbicides.
When the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry sought to evaluate glyphosate toxicity in 2015, Monsanto engaged the assistance of EPA officials to delay that review.
Monsanto enjoyed a close relationship with certain officials within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), who have repeatedly backed Monsanto’s assertions about the safety of its glyphosate products.
The company internally had worker safety recommendations that called for wearing a full range of protective gear when applying glyphosate herbicides, but did not warn the public to do the same.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News