Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Not a political topic, just curious: how can Monsanto be sentenced to pay, when the roundup is officially safe (by several US federal agencies about chemicals and environment) ?
Just curious to understand how can this be a thing ?
While I don't know the specifics of this case, most of the famously 'bonkers' damage awards that come out of the U.S. are i) a result of their tendency to hear civil trials before a jury ill-equipped to handle civil litigation; and ii) only half the story.
They're almost always massively reduced - and often overturned - on appeal.
They're also often massively mis-represented by a media that lacks the technical skills to convey a nuanced judgment to a lay audience.
The "McCoffee" case, for example, ticks all these boxes.
EDIT - In terms of the actual question, the answer is that the plaintiff/claimant's lawyer(s) convinced a factfinder, be it judge or jury, that it was more likely than not that Monsanto was liable for whatever harm was alleged, despite any and all evidence presented as to its effects by Monsanto's lawyer(s).
A plaintiff/claimant prevails in civil litigation if the balance of probabilities is in their favour, even by as little as 1%.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/16 17:08:55
godardc wrote: Not a political topic, just curious: how can Monsanto be sentenced to pay, when the roundup is officially safe (by several US federal agencies about chemicals and environment) ?
Just curious to understand how can this be a thing ?
The World Health Organization labelled Roundup as 'probably carcinogenic' in 2015. The EPA has it labelled as 'not likely carcinogenic'. So basically nobody knows for absolute certainty if it is or is not carcinogenic, so there's room for lawsuits. It usually boils down to 'did the company selling the product properly warn the customer of the risks of the product?'
Civil litigation can be weird that way, like how OJ was found liable in a civil suit for the deaths of persons a criminal case found him not guilty of.
Civil litigation can be weird that way, like how OJ was found liable in a civil suit for the deaths of persons a criminal case found him not guilty of.
The burden of proof is different. You have to demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. A civil trial requires only that you succeed on the balance of probabilities; that is 'more likely than not'.
I think it also, more deeply, comes down to the kinds of evidence you're allowed to present. In civil litigation, there's a lot more leeway for what kinds of evidence can be admitted and what you can do with that evidence.
If for example, you wanted to charge Monsanto criminally with reckless endangerment, you'd first have to prove both that Monsanto's product caused cancer and that Monsanto knew this fact and obscured it. If you can't in some way present evidence to the effect of all those facts then you can't even get the charge out of a Grand Jury room.
In a civil case, you don't have to "prove" any of that. You just have to present evidence that it's possible Monsanto's product causes cancer and that Monsanto didn't warn costumers of the risk. It's a much easier case to fight.
I think you're right in pointing out that fact finders are often ill-equipped in these regards. There's lots of studies and research on how hyper-technical many court cases have become and how many juries and judges simply don't have the knowledge base necessary to properly weight evidence of a highly technical nature. You see the same thing in tax fraud cases where the best defense is literally to bury the jury in technicals until they have no idea what anyone is talking about anymore.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/16 17:43:25
Well, not really. The probative value still has to outweigh any prejudicial value, rules of disclosure and discovery are broadly the same and you still have to prove all of that in a civil trial, it is just that the level of proof required is lower.
Juries are necessarily ill-equipped to hear civil trials, in my opinion. Judges are not, though the judgments of trial judges are still often problematic
Juries are necessarily ill-equipped to hear civil trials, in my opinion. Judges are not, though the judgments of trial judges are still often problematic
Honestly, I see no reason to consider a judge any more capable of properly weighing the evidence of what is/isn't carcinogenic than a typical American who mind wind up on a jury. Their degrees are in law, not biochemistry and when you get thick in the muck of jargon and big words may be only a few thousand people in the whole country can actually define, it starts becoming a little silly to expect non-experts to be able to properly render a decision. Reminds me of the debates among law and medicine about whether its even possible for clients to be well informed about what's happening to them because that stuff can end up being so complicated that you have to be a lawyer or a doctor to understand it.
Um... Based on the context of the other stuff you said, I'm going to assume you aren't referring to the time McDonald's successfully sued someone to change the name of their coffee shop, and are instead referring to Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, and that case gets my blood up every time I'm reminded of it. Especially the way the media portrayed McDonald's as the victim.
What you're really talking about is a failure of the advocates, not the factfinder. A factfinder can only make decisions on what is before them, so if expert evidence and the means to understand that evidence isn't before them then they can't consider it.
This is why appellate courts exist and why they have much more experienced and, dare I say, much more competent advocates and judges.
Um... Based on the context of the other stuff you said, I'm going to assume you aren't referring to the time McDonald's successfully sued someone to change the name of their coffee shop, and are instead referring to Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, and that case gets my blood up every time I'm reminded of it. Especially the way the media portrayed McDonald's as the victim.
I don't know the citation off the top of my head, but I'm talking about the skin-burns via coffee one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/16 18:28:38
Civil litigation can be weird that way, like how OJ was found liable in a civil suit for the deaths of persons a criminal case found him not guilty of.
Excommunicatus wrote: What you're really talking about is a failure of the advocates, not the factfinder. A factfinder can only make decisions on what is before them, so if expert evidence and the means to understand that evidence isn't before them then they can't consider it.
No, I mean that seems like an issue too, but I can't tell if your misunderstanding me or assuming courts are far more discerning in what goes before a jury than they are.
If I have Expert A (the EPA for example) explaining Product Y does this, and the other side has Expert B (WHO) explaining Product Y does that and not this and then we have experts C-E come in and offer their opinions on which of those opinions is actually correct, expecting a jury uneducated in the subject matter to come to a rational conclusion is like rolling dice on the presumption they're capable of understanding what any of the experts was talking about and that they can effectively decide A/B was less compelling than the other on the sole basis of evidence. The court itself probably isn't even capable of properly understanding the evidence, so even expecting them to properly discern the value of different testimonies is kind of dicey.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/16 19:07:36
Excommunicatus wrote: I don't know the citation off the top of my head, but I'm talking about the skin-burns via coffee one.
Yes, that one. The one that gets cited as the textbook example of frivolous litigation, where a poor innocent company can be sued for millions because the coffee was a wee bit too hot.
Meanwhile the facts of the case are that Stella Liebeck received third degree burns over her thighs, buttocks and groin, requiring skin grafts and rehabilitation, asked for $20,000 to cover medical expenses and loss of income, was offered $800 which McDonald's would not budge from even after Liebeck retained a lawyer, or after going to mediation. The jury argued that McDonald's should pay two days of coffee sales (2.7 million dollars!) in punative damages - specifically because McDonald's was availing themselves like villains in a trashy courtroom drama. That figure, which is the one everybody remembers, was actually reduced by the judge at the time to $480,000, on top of the now $160,000 compensatory damage.
That last one basically made it clear that McDonald's couldn't win on the merits of the case. They did appeal and settled with Liebeck for a sum less than $600,000, which paid for a nurse for Liebeck until she died in 2004.
It bothers me so much that it's described like she sued them for millions because of a little accident. She asked them to cover the medical costs of a gruesome injury, then the legal costs when it became clear they weren't going to budge from their offensively small $800 offer, and the Jury argued that the 2.7 million figure might convince them to change their practices to avoid such horrible accidents in the future, or at least dissuade them from playing legal games with senior citizens in the hopes that they'll keel over before the final judgement.
godardc wrote: Not a political topic, just curious: how can Monsanto be sentenced to pay, when the roundup is officially safe (by several US federal agencies about chemicals and environment) ?
Just curious to understand how can this be a thing ?
Here's the thing, and its a common misunderstanding, the regulatory bodies involved in most of these decisions don't put out a blanket "yeah its safe, do wtf you want" decision. They do "acceptably safe at X concentration" or "acceptably safe in Y use" or "acceptably safe in z context". It involves a metric ton of tedious and mind numbingly boring (for most folk) data science. The kicker is, even with all the data they crunch, there's no way to test every eventuality.
And this is assuming that the data provided to them is in fact true (which is a whole nother ball of wax entirely).
As a result, circumstances can quite easily arise where a "safe" product is deemed harmful. Furthermore, regulatory remedies are notoriously slow to arrive, and litigation is often used as a front-line means of consumer protection warfare in the US.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
It also doesn't help that the media often doesn't distinguish between a Civil and a Criminal court case in how they report it. If a company pays out a civil court judgement, the headline will often be about how they were guilty of such and such and had to pay massive fines, when thats really not what happened.
Civil judgements are little different to settling out of court in terms of what actually happens. X person just pays out an arbitrary amount of money to Y person. Only difference is it gets mandated by a judge vs an agreements to prevent it from going to court.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Excommunicatus wrote: I don't know the citation off the top of my head, but I'm talking about the skin-burns via coffee one.
Yes, that one. The one that gets cited as the textbook example of frivolous litigation, where a poor innocent company can be sued for millions because the coffee was a wee bit too hot.
Meanwhile the facts of the case are that Stella Liebeck received third degree burns over her thighs, buttocks and groin, requiring skin grafts and rehabilitation, asked for $20,000 to cover medical expenses and loss of income, was offered $800 which McDonald's would not budge from even after Liebeck retained a lawyer, or after going to mediation. The jury argued that McDonald's should pay two days of coffee sales (2.7 million dollars!) in punative damages - specifically because McDonald's was availing themselves like villains in a trashy courtroom drama. That figure, which is the one everybody remembers, was actually reduced by the judge at the time to $480,000, on top of the now $160,000 compensatory damage.
That last one basically made it clear that McDonald's couldn't win on the merits of the case. They did appeal and settled with Liebeck for a sum less than $600,000, which paid for a nurse for Liebeck until she died in 2004.
It bothers me so much that it's described like she sued them for millions because of a little accident. She asked them to cover the medical costs of a gruesome injury, then the legal costs when it became clear they weren't going to budge from their offensively small $800 offer, and the Jury argued that the 2.7 million figure might convince them to change their practices to avoid such horrible accidents in the future, or at least dissuade them from playing legal games with senior citizens in the hopes that they'll keel over before the final judgement.
Exhalted! It's agonizing when people bring this up as an example against frivolous law suits.
Yep. In the last few days there's been a story going round that Boris Johnson (UK politician) has been 'ordered to appear in court, charged with misconduct in public office', but very few reports actually point out that it's a private prosecution.
Here, if someone developed Cancer, blamed Monsanto and wanted to sue them?
1. Need to decide if, on balance of probability, Monsanto’s product was the sole cause of the cancer - or at least a significant contributor.
2. The reasonable person rest. If I’m right in thinking, Roundup is a weed killer, yes? I think a reasonable person would realise something that nukes weeds may pose some sort of risk to other forms of life. If it was just you or I doing the pathway once in a while, fine. But if we’re talking a professional gardener or horticulturist, would we not expect a reasonable person to wear say, gloves and a face Mask?
See, this is why stuff like Peanuts has ‘warning, may contain nuts’. It’s not because people are stupid in that way. It’s their legal team getting in their disclaimer now, to prevent shady Lawyers trying to sue them because they didn’t later down the line.
Same with Calpol, a well known children’s medicine in the U.K. read the warning, and people scoff ‘Do Not Drive Or Use Heavy Machinery After Taking Calpol’. That’s there because whilst intended for kids, it’s still used by Adults. It causes drowsiness, so on the warning goes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: All about Tort...
There are four elements to tort law: duty, breach of duty, causation, and injury. In order to claim damages, there must be a breach in the duty of the defendant towards the plaintiff, which results in an injury. The three main types of torts are negligence, strict liability (product liability), and intentional torts.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/03 08:29:25
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Glyphosate works on plant cell WALLS though, not membranes and animal cell membranes are not affected by it - and animal cells do NOT contain cell walls.
It's been extensively studied, and is LESS toxic than caffeine (although even with caffeine, the toxic dose is so high, you will die from "water toxicity" (hyponatremia, brain swelling, etc) before the caffeine kills you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/03 11:22:47
I'm OVER 50 (and so far over everyone's BS, too).
Old enough to know better, young enough to not give a ****.
That is not dead which can eternal lie ...
... and yet, with strange aeons, even death may die.
Hmm... One of the problems I have with this topic is that it's difficult to find information I can trust. For example, am I going to trust a report from the USDA whom have a vested interest in maximising US agricultural output regardless of the risks to consumer health, or should I trust the organic truth society along with their treatises on the spiritual health benefits of crystals?
In the end, I just read this IARC pamphlet and decided that I probably ought to take their word that, yeah, Roundup is probably a little bit carcinogenic, but not really anything to lose sleep over. On the other hand, if the EU want's to ban it, what do I care? It's not like I give a gak about Monsanto's share prices.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/06/03 12:37:14
I spent a summer spraying glyphosate on the sides of the M62 and I coughed all the way through and for months afterwards. Course, I was also stood next to a motorway nine hours a day, so...
Excommunicatus wrote: I don't know the citation off the top of my head, but I'm talking about the skin-burns via coffee one.
Yes, that one. The one that gets cited as the textbook example of frivolous litigation, where a poor innocent company can be sued for millions because the coffee was a wee bit too hot.
Meanwhile the facts of the case are that Stella Liebeck received third degree burns over her thighs, buttocks and groin, requiring skin grafts and rehabilitation, asked for $20,000 to cover medical expenses and loss of income, was offered $800 which McDonald's would not budge from even after Liebeck retained a lawyer, or after going to mediation. The jury argued that McDonald's should pay two days of coffee sales (2.7 million dollars!) in punative damages - specifically because McDonald's was availing themselves like villains in a trashy courtroom drama. That figure, which is the one everybody remembers, was actually reduced by the judge at the time to $480,000, on top of the now $160,000 compensatory damage.
That last one basically made it clear that McDonald's couldn't win on the merits of the case. They did appeal and settled with Liebeck for a sum less than $600,000, which paid for a nurse for Liebeck until she died in 2004.
It bothers me so much that it's described like she sued them for millions because of a little accident. She asked them to cover the medical costs of a gruesome injury, then the legal costs when it became clear they weren't going to budge from their offensively small $800 offer, and the Jury argued that the 2.7 million figure might convince them to change their practices to avoid such horrible accidents in the future, or at least dissuade them from playing legal games with senior citizens in the hopes that they'll keel over before the final judgement.
I think it is important also, for the purposes of this discussion to mention HOW she received the burns. . . In the litigation process, it came out that that McDonald's had been warned in writing on two prior occasions about the temperature of their coffee. They had also taken numerous customer complaints in store about its temperature, and yet they refused to turn down the temp. It was so hot that it literally melted through the waxy "liner" that those cups have to hold warm/hot liquids, and that in turn weakened and destroyed the cup, thus burning her.
In my business ethics course, this "case study" was brought up, and our prof, who is a lawyer who's practiced business/contract law for a couple decades was talking to us about how her initial approach to McD's was for "only" the medical costs, and that part of the reason it went to court in the first place is that after she refused their reply of zero money, they later offered her a lengthy time span of free coffee (like that's gonna help anything). This however, I am not 100% sure on being entirely accurate, without actually looking into court transcripts and the like.
As for this topic at hand, I know it was mentioned that the EU banned Round-Up, and to that I would say that any group/body of people, whether its a jury or a panel deciding law, can be just as susceptible to buying in to hype (either for or against) and make decisions without having proper knowledge or expertise in the subject.
She also had her award reduced due to contributory negligence, IIRC.
The court said that it was 80% McD's fault; 20% hers, so she got 20% knocked-off what she would otherwise have been awarded. Very few media accounts bother to mention that.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/06/03 14:42:43
