Or so the facebook memes would have us believe. Personal injury lawyers are apparently reeling in the customers. Some law firms even have sections of their web site devoted to Roundup.
Apparently, two people who toiled in the fields for years and now have lymphoma are suing the agritech company, claiming their ailments were caused by exposure to glyphosate. The move towards litigation was probably helped by the IARC’s recent reclassification of glyphosate as a “probable” carcinogen (right up there with alcoholic beverages, coffee and working the night shift).
The legal general question here is - wouldn’t the burden of proof be on the plaintiffs to prove causation, and not merely rest their case on the “probable carcinogen” claim? I don’t know much about how personal injury cases work out but I suspect most settle out of court or get thrown out due to lack of evidence beyond an assertion and probable cause.
Sorry, I know responses like this aren’t particularly encouraged in GQ, but my first response on reading the OP title was:
“Who’s Sue Monsanto and what do Americans do to her once they reach the front of her line?”
The plaintiffs must prove that the chemical was more likely than not the cause of the injury–i.e., 51% certainty. There are several routes to proving that, and classification of the chemical as a probable carcinogen is relevant evidence to all of them.
It could be sufficient evidence under the right circumstances. For example, if these plaintiffs could show they hadn’t been exposed to any other probable carcinogens that could have caused the condition (or, more often, a particular version of the condition), then a reasonable jury could infer that this chemical did it.
No, not necessarily. It depends on the cause of action. Negligence, for example, requires only that they did not take reasonable care, which is a lesser showing than recklessness (which is conscious disregard of a known risk).
The burden is indeed on the Plaintiffs, but they do not have to prove anything at the complaint stage of the lawsuit. Instead, they merely need to show a cause of action for for bringing the complaint. Monsanto’s lawyers would then submit their answer, and, assuming the case doesn’t get dismissed at this stage (almost never happens), the court would schedule a conference and Plaintiffs would seek discovery of Monsanto’s emails, documents, laboratory reports, etc – in order to find evidence to prove their allegations. Assuming the parties do go to trial, Plaintiffs would also bring in their own expert witnesses. So Plaintiffs’ counsel here is not simply relying on the IARC’s reclassification as a basis for recruiting clients into this lawsuit.
And probable cause is a criminal law concept, so it’s not a basis for throwing out a civil complaint.
