Posted on 07/08/2020 2:33:11 PM PDT by JeepersFreepers
A federal judge cast doubt on Bayer AG ’s proposal to neatly resolve all future lawsuits over the safety of its Roundup weedkiller, potentially snagging the German company’s attempts to move past the massive liability.
Bayer said recently it would pay up to $10.9 billion to settle tens of thousands of current Roundup cases and create a system for handling future cases. The deal came after three juries in recent years awarded large verdicts to plaintiffs alleging Roundup caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma, spooking investors.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco, who must approve the class action, said Monday he was skeptical of the plan and likely to reject the idea. In a four-page order refusing to delay a July court hearing in the case, he questioned “whether it would be constitutional (or otherwise lawful)” to hand the issue to a panel of scientists instead of judges and juries.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
They’ll go back to nastier stuff like paraquat
It should have refused to pay 10.9 cents.
“All this because some sleazy lawyer convinced a gullible jury that a guy that probably ignored all the safety warnings and happened to get cancer deserved a multi-million dollar payout. Roundup has been around probably 50 years and no probable cause of cancer if used right”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Right. I read some of the lawsuit some time ago. It stated two brand names of herbicide, one being Roundup and another brand I was not familiar with, but digging on my part found both items contained glyphosate. I don’t remember if the other herbicide (not Roundup) was made by Monsanto.
The dude that won this case was a groundskeeper/lawn maintenance guy. Now... it’s been my experience if you are doing a full-bore job of turf care, you are exposed to FAR more broadleaf herbicide like 2,4-D than you are non-selective herbicides containing glyphosate.
Wonder if this was brought up in litigation?
You are exactly correct...on my little ranchito I use much more 2,4-D than Roundup. I spot spray Roundup, but broadcast 2,4D in my boomless nozzle sprayer.
And just so you know, the woman got ovarian cancer. Asbestos is linked to mesothelioma, not ovarian cancer. NO LINK WHATSOEVER. J & J had BAAAAAAD LAWYERS.
Re “Scientists with Black Lives Matter will be weighing in soon”.
Their group will be known as “Black Livers Matter”.
The Round-Up case was bullshit from the beginning with only one or two possible, and I say POSSIBLE, legitimate claims re usages/proximity. Otherwise, it’s ambulance chaser shysters, anti- Big Business juries, and leftist judges with no scientific background. How do you say dumb, stupid, blind, deaf, leftist and ignorant re this case? The answer is OBAMA! PERIOD.
What sort of nonsensical comparison is that?
LOL
You can hire a lot of hitmen for 10 billion dollars.
I’m just sayin’...
Of course you do, JUST FIND THE RIGHT LAWYER AND JUDGE!
Just so YOU know, some talc - SOME - is naturally “contaminated” with asbestos; it is minute. THAT was the basis of the claim against J&J Baby Powder. That is was contaminated and to a degree that J&J knew was of a “cancer causing” degree. But there was no empirical evidence - only corollary anecdotal claims.
I DO KNOW. And asbestos causes Mesothelioma, not Ovarian cancer.
As I said, there is no empirical proof of talc containing asbestos to cause ovarian cancer.
What studies of the question that have been done do not arrive at a scientific claim in support of talc containing asbestos to causing ovarian cancer.
Still that is and was the claim against J&J. The claimants cherry picked any study they liked and discarded any study that disputed their claim.
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/talcum-powder-and-cancer.html
Agree. Not wise for J & J to roll over, except for the PR disaster if J & J had fought the case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.