Ryan Young v. Monsanto Company

Case Background

On June 23, 2022, Plaintiff Ryan Young filed a Roundup lawsuit in the Court of Pennsylvania Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (Case number: 220602423). Judge  Angelo Foglietta presided over the case.

Cause

The plaintiff, a citizen of Pennsylvania, developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) after prolonged exposure to Roundup, a chemical herbicide product designed, manufactured, and distributed by Defendant Monsanto. He began using Roundup in 1998 and used it numerous times annually for years after that. This repeated use resulted in over 180 exposures to Monsanto’s allegedly carcinogenic product. The plaintiff applied Roundup as intended and marketed by Monsanto, unaware of its potential health risks. His NHL diagnosis followed this continuous exposure, with the lawsuit asserting that this exposure substantially contributed to and directly caused his cancer development.

Injuries

As a direct consequence of his extensive Roundup exposure, the plaintiff developed NHL, a severe form of cancer that affects the lymphatic system. This diagnosis led to significant and permanent physical and emotional injuries. The plaintiff endured considerable pain and suffering due to his cancer. The subsequent medical treatments required to combat the disease added to his discomfort. The NHL diagnosis impacted his physical health significantly. It also caused substantial emotional distress and mental anguish. As a result, his quality of life and future prospects were dramatically altered.

Damages

The plaintiff sought compensatory damages exceeding $50,000 for both economic and non-economic losses. Additionally, he requested punitive damages to punish the defendants for their alleged gross negligence and indifference to the safety of others, as well as to deter similar conduct in the future. The lawsuit also sought prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and other costs associated with bringing the action.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Ryan Young
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Kimberly Spangler-Loutey|  Andrew F. Kirkendall | Matthew Leckman | Rosemary Pinto
  • Defendant(s): Monsanto Co.|  Nouryon Surface Chemistry LLC | Nouryon Chemicals LLC | Nouryon USA LLC
    • Counsel for Defendants: Joseph H. Blum| Erin Leffler | Chanda A. Miller | Jennifer Saulino | Michelle Ramirez | Ken Murphy

 Claims

The plaintiff alleged several causes of action against the defendants in a Roundup Lawsuit:

Strict Liability – Design Defect:

The plaintiff claimed Roundup was defectively designed, unreasonably dangerous, and carcinogenic. He argued that the risks associated with Roundup use outweighed its benefits, making it more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect.

Strict Liability – Failure to Warn:

The defendants allegedly failed to provide adequate warnings about Roundup’s carcinogenic risks. The plaintiff asserted that the minimal warnings disseminated with Roundup were inadequate and failed to communicate the true dangers associated with the product’s use.

Negligence:

The plaintiff asserted the defendants were negligent in testing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling Roundup. This included allegations of failing to sufficiently test Roundup, misrepresenting its safety, and failing to disclose known risks.

Breach of Implied Warranties:

The plaintiff claimed Monsanto breached implied warranties that Roundup was of merchantable quality and safe for its intended use as a horticultural herbicide. He argued that Monsanto failed to disclose Roundup’s dangerous propensities when used as intended.

Defense

Monsanto presented a strong defense against the plaintiff’s claims, citing several scientific and regulatory findings to support their position. They argued that a team of scientists from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) unanimously classified glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” in a 2015 document. Furthermore, Monsanto contended that the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) released a comprehensive issue paper on glyphosate in 2016, which included CARC’s conclusions and expanded upon them. According to Monsanto, the OPP’s analysis provided the strongest support for classifying glyphosate as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

In addition to these scientific arguments, Monsanto raised a legal defense based on federal preemption. They contended that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq., preempted the plaintiff’s claims. Monsanto argued that the plaintiff’s allegations were fundamentally based on the theory that the company had a state law duty to warn Roundup users about cancer risks. However, Monsanto asserted that FIFRA expressly preempted such claims because the warning in question differed from FIFRA’s labeling requirements. This preemption argument aimed to invalidate the plaintiff’s state law claims by demonstrating that they conflicted with federal regulatory standards for pesticide labeling.

Jury Verdict

On September 12, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant in a Roundup Lawsuit.

Court Documents:

Available Upon Request