ST. LOUIS — A state appellate court has upheld a jury verdict against agribusiness giant Monsanto, rejecting the company’s argument that federal law preempts the plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claim.
The ruling affirms the lower court’s decision, ensuring that the plaintiff's victory remains intact, according to the Feb. 11 Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District opinion.
In the case, Monsanto appealed a $1.25 million jury verdict in favor of John L. Durnell for strict liability failure to warn, arguing federal law preempted the claim.
The court rejected Monsanto’s argument, affirming the trial court’s decision that federal law does not expressly or impliedly preempt the claim.
The court’s decision, released this week, denies Monsanto’s appeal, which argued that federal law either expressly or impliedly preempted the claim.
The company had sought a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), a legal motion that would have overturned the jury’s decision.
The appellate court ruled that the trial court acted correctly in denying Monsanto’s motion, thereby affirming the original verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
The lawsuit stemmed from allegations that Monsanto failed to provide adequate warnings about the risks associated with its product.
The plaintiff claimed that the company’s negligence led to significant harm, prompting legal action.
A jury sided with the plaintiff, awarding damages and holding Monsanto responsible for failing to disclose the potential dangers.
"The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff on his strict liability failure to warn claim, but found in favor of Monsanto on Plaintiff’s strict liability defective design and negligence claims," the opinion states. "The jury awarded Plaintiff $1.25 million in compensatory damages, and the trial court entered its judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdicts. Monsanto subsequently filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and in the alternative a new trial, which again argued, inter alia, that federal law both expressly and impliedly preempted Plaintiff’s strict liability failure to warn claim. The trial court denied Monsanto’s motion. This appeal followed."
Monsanto’s appeal focused solely on the issue of federal preemption, contending that federal regulations governing product warnings should override state-level failure-to-warn claims.
However, the appellate court found that neither express nor implied preemption applied in this case, allowing the plaintiff’s claim to stand.
While Monsanto has not yet announced whether it will seek further review of the ruling, the decision marks a significant legal setback for the company.
The case adds to a growing body of litigation surrounding Monsanto’s products, with several high-profile lawsuits resulting in substantial verdicts against the corporation.
"Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s failure to warn claim is not expressly or impliedly preempted by federal law, and the trial court did not err in denying Monsanto’s motion for JNOV," Judge Robert M. Clayton III wrote in the opinion. "Monsanto’s sole point on appeal is denied."
The appellant was represented by Timothy J. Hasken and Booker T. Shaw.
The respondent was represented by William W. Blair, James G. Onder, Gregory J. Pals and Mark E. Berns.
Attorneys for the parties declined to comment further on the case.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District case number: ED112410