(Reuters) -Bayer was ordered on Friday to pay $2.25 billion to a Pennsylvania man who said he developed cancer from exposure to the company’s Roundup weedkiller, the man’s attorneys said.

A jury in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas found that John McKivision’s non-Hodgkins lymphoma was the result of using Roundup for yard work at his house for a period of several years. The verdict includes $250 million in compensatory damages and $2 billion in punitive damages.

“The jury’s punitive damages award sends a clear message that this multi-national corporation needs top to bottom change,” Tom Kline and Jason Itkin, McKivision’s attorneys, said in a joint statement.

  • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    97
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    These are the kind of financial hits these companies should be taking. Which means, as usual, this’ll get knocked down due a few hundred million tops in appeals.

    • Kusuriya@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      well this is appeal 4 I think and its been swinging back and forth between Bayer owes shit and Bayer owes billions. Let’s not count any dollars until this guy starts collecting.

      Full transparency, Bayer is my employer, these thoughts and opinions are my own and do not reflect my employer, My bonus would look a lot better without this news, but the dude totally deserves to win because boy did Monsanto fuck him over.

    • SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      5 months ago

      That’s still crazy high for a single person. Imagine what this kind of penalty would to do an oil or tobacco company.

        • squiblet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          The legal system routinely attaches prices to human lives and illnesses and it is almost never anything like two billion.

        • SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          If ExxonMobil has this kind of penalty per person, they would have to pay $450 trillion dollars. Yes, they should go bankrupt, but this is literally 1000x their market cap.

          If Boeing has this kind of penalty per person, they would have to pay $600 billion for just one of the 737 Max crashes. Which would completely bankrupt the company, giving Airbus a monopoly.

          Yes, we do need larger penalties on corporations 99% of the time. It’s laughable how tech companies keep getting away with slaps on the wrist for grotesque privacy violations. But $2.25 billion for a single cancer case is a bridge too far. It should be somewhere around $2-15 million depending on the severity of the case, plus the people involved in the scandal should be fired.

          However, the penalty should double with each appeal. Maybe that’s how they got to $2.25 billion.

          • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            If Boeing has this kind of penalty per person, they would have to pay $600 billion for just one of the 737 Max crashes. Which would completely bankrupt the company, giving Airbus a monopoly.

            if boeing cant be fucked to tighten bolts and have basic safety shit.

            Or worse, they make necessary safety shit a expensive optional extra (ala the boeing crashes a couple years ago where the planes would nose dive randomly)

            Then they deserve to go bankrupt.

            They don’t deserve to exist as an entity if they are killing people with carelessness and greed.

            Let some other group pick up the pieces in bankruptcy auctions.

  • lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    After dealing with Monsanto trolls who admitted to taking a paycheck from them as they disseminated pro-Monsanto rhetoric, this pleases me to no end.

    • negativeyoda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Shit. My dad worked for Monsanto for decades on their environmental legal team (even worked with Clarence Thomas for a bit)

      I’ll talk no end of shit on them

    • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      admitted

      That’s wild.

      It’s more likely they were weak and unfaithful to their unethical contract, vs. paid by a foreign state actor to stir division, right?

      Imagine admitting you’re such a joke! (Or poor + reckless (could get caught), etc.)

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        They basically argued that because they work work with the products directly, that made their position on the issue superior, hence why they admitted it.

        They also said it wasn’t a conflict of interest, lmao.

    • VonCesaw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      I have drank a quart of Perfectly Safe Roundup Product daily, as was instructed as being safe by an Independent Advocate, Patrick Moore

      Plants now quake in my presence, and the giant growths on my body and in my blood are probably just muscle tissue

  • squiblet@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    I don’t see how $2 billion to one person is what they need to be doing, but sure.

    • rdyoung@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 months ago

      The jury has some say in what they have to pay. Sometimes they go higher than you would expect so that when it’s cut down by a judge they still get something.

      • squiblet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        It would be better to have something like a class action where they have to pay out $40 million each to hundreds of people rather than 10 people get ridiculous sums that are way more than they need and everyone else get nothing because the company went bankrupt after the first 10 settlements.

        • rdyoung@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          It was probably easier to prove this single one rather than finding enough people for a class action.

          • Iceblade@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Yeah, but it still shouldn’t go to a single person. Better pay it as a fine to the state or distribute it to charities. Or, better yet pit the money into creating a foundation to help cancer victims.

            Somewhere above the 10-100m$ range it loses any sort of compensatory purpose, both you and your eternal decendants could live off of just interest at that point and buy essentially anything.

            • rdyoung@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              No one ever actually gets paid out the full sum like this. I don’t disagree that there are things that could and maybe should be done with this kind of cash but in cases like this its not always easy to prove a causal link between whatever chemicals and whatever illness. Regardless of what is done with the money this still sets a precedent and others will have an easier time suing for damages.

        • rdyoung@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          I am not a lawyer but from what I understand there are 2 levels of penalty, 1 that has some kind of basis like medical costs and then jury can add punitive on top.

    • fidodo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I was very surprised this wasn’t a class action. Since what bayer did was so horrible that one person deserves 2 billion then they should be dissolved with all their money distributed to all their customers.

    • jwt@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Agreed. I’m just wondering how this even works in practice. Bayer’s total assets are $125bn; If they poisoned ~1000 people, do they sell off all assets to pay the first 62 people and from the 63rd guy on they’re all shit out of luck?

      Or is this like those rulings where they give a murderer 6 times life in prison + 327 years (and 3 death sentences)? America has a weird judicial system.

      • squiblet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        Pretty much that is how it works, yes. Most likely they’d try to pull a J&J and restructure where the debt is given to a subsidiary that then declares bankruptcy. Thankfully that strategy was rejected but they’re still plotting to declare bankruptcy somehow.

    • Illuminostro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Fuck them, that’s why. Maybe they’ll do the right thing before The Cock of Justice slaps then in the face 10 times, next time.

      • gencha@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        The people actually responsible are laughing on their way to the bank right now.

        • Illuminostro@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          And that’s why billion+ judgements should be the norm. And no, I don’t care about the precious shareholders.

  • RBWells@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    I hate that shit. Who thinks it’s safe for the world to use a chemical herbicide? It’s just such a stupid idea.

    • UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Not that more evidence is required, but I when I was a kid were had this dog who would just have random – what seemed like – asthma attacks, while out on walks. They would go away if I picked him up, and we would continue on. Eventually, I noticed it only happened in certain spots, and that those spots all used some herbicide (because they would have the ads on the lawns).

      Anyway that cemented a deep disgust for that tech from a young age. Absolutely disgusting. All so you can try to get your lawn to resemble the most boring PS1-ass green polygon imaginable.