January 30th 2025 | Havana Mullaly
Edited by Jacqueline Rosenkranz
Pesticides have left the agricultural industry in a chokehold since the 1940’s due to their high success rates in protecting crops from pests [2]. Once thought of as a harmless solution for pest management, their unanticipated impacts have proven to cause catastrophic outcomes. Pesticides are a massive threat to public health and leave millions of Americans sick from daily chemical exposure. Many within the United States are exposed at low doses, but some encounter them at high, lethal doses. Dewayne Lee Johnson serves as one example. The San Francisco native and father worked as a groundskeeper for the Benicia Unified School District of San Francisco County and used the product Roundup, a popular pesticide made by the company Monsanto, for his pest management job. Johnson was constantly exposed to high levels of this pesticide daily and remained unaware of the health risks it posed. After a tragic accident with Roundup, Johnson investigated the truth behind this pesticide. Shortly after being drenched in the product due an applicator mishap, Johnson developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a form of cancer [5]. Due to such a sudden onset of this chronic illness, he considered that the recent chemical spill had something to do with his diagnosis. He filed a lawsuit against Monsanto for product liability and was the first successful individual to win a case against any pesticide company.
This article will examine the landmark case of Johnson v. Monsanto through the lens of Restatement of Torts Section 402A, and shall analyze how the plaintiffs successfully established product liability by demonstrating the inherent defectiveness of Roundup and its causal connection to Dewayne Johnson’s injuries. Furthermore, this article explores the pivotal role of Monsanto’s fraudulent testing practices in setting a significant precedent for future product liability litigation and corporate accountability in the pesticide industry.
Dewayne Lee Johnson filed a civil complaint in 2016 to the Superior Court of California for damages and demand for a jury trial against Monsanto [8]. Plaintiffs claimed that defendants should be held liable under Restatement of Torts Section 402A, a strict product liability doctrine [6]. To fulfill a product liability tort claim, plaintiffs “must prove that the product was inherently defective and that the defect in the product caused the injury or damage” [6]. Under the first prong of Section 402A, an inherently defective product is one in which “an inherent defect existed…at the same time the product left the custody and control of the manufacturer/supplier/retailer” [6]. To meet their burden of proof, plaintiffs claimed that defendants knowingly sold Roundup regardless of its defective chemical properties and failed to ensure proper safety testing for their defective product. The chemical properties of Roundup include glyphosate, a chemical that was classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015 as toxic and possibly carcinogenic to humans [8]. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma was also identified as a cancer most associated with glyphosate exposure [8]. Plaintiffs alleged that Monsanto disregarded the highly credible information that the IARC released and continued to market their product despite knowledge of its defects. After learning that glyphosate was toxic and possibly carcinogenic, plaintiffs claimed that Monsanto conducted flawed testing to ensure that their product was still considered safe to use. Plaintiffs further backed their claims by describing how both the EPA and FDA found Monsanto on two separate occasions participating in fraudulent testing when it came to the toxicity of the product [8].
The plaintiffs finding of Monsanto’s fraudulent testing was a major stronghold in their case theory against the defendants. They uncovered the deeply deceptive techniques that the company incorporated, which pushed their initial civil complaint forward to court. Monsanto’s method of alternative testing involved tactic, expertise, and deceptiveness. They employed the strategy of “merchandizing doubt” to influence Roundup’s credibility. “Merchandizing doubt” was coined by Harvard historian Naomi Oreskes and describes a deliberate strategy of creating and promoting uncertainty about established scientific findings, often for political or financial gain by undermining scientific consensus [1]. This scheme is quite common. For example, within the tobacco industry, various scientists were hired to create doubt about concrete scientific findings while using scientific credentials to lend themselves public credibility [1]. This ultimately led to confusion and misjudgment regarding the truth about the link between cancer and cigarettes. Similarly, Monsanto deliberately worked to create doubt regarding previous scientific claims about glyphosate to protect their product. Despite the IARC, FDA, and EPA finding proof of the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, Monsanto “assured the public that Roundup was harmless” and described it as “safer than table salt” [8]. They successfully downplayed the risks to the public and claimed that other scientific findings showing toxicity were invalid. This resulted in continued sales of the product amongst consumers who learned this information. Monsanto also falsified data and attacked legitimate studies that revealed glyphosate’s carcinogenicity [8]. This led to accusations by the EPA and FDA of routine falsification of data in their privately hired toxicologist’s testing along with fraudulent lab practices. These accusations came far too late, however, since the public already believed that any accusation against the product was invalid due to Monsanto’s previous deception. The situation demonstrates how casting initial doubt into scientific consensus can lead to confusion regarding the validity of scientific findings. The plaintiff’s ability to show evidence of Monsanto’s wrongdoings solidified the truth and helped sway the jury.
Monsanto’s deliberate efforts to merchandize doubt not only misled the public but also created an environment where consumers, including Dewayne Lee Johnson, were unable to make informed decisions about the safety of Roundup. This deception directly contributed to the harm experienced by Johnson and others who trusted the product’s safety claims. By establishing that Monsanto’s actions concealed the inherent dangers of Roundup, the plaintiffs laid the groundwork to fulfill the second prong of Section 402A. The second prong of Section 402A states “that defect in the product caused the injury or damage” [6]. Plaintiffs demonstrated that the defective nature of Roundup directly caused Johnson’s non-Hodgkin lymphoma by using this prong. They claimed that Monsanto failed to warn about the product’s defect leading to Johnson’s diagnosis and that Johnson suffered injuries and pain because of the defect [8]. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that Monsanto “disseminated information that was inaccurate, false, and misleading” and failed to adequately communicate the severity and risk of injury from using Roundup [8]. A warning label was never placed on a Roundup product, denying consumers, including the plaintiff, a way to know the associated health risks. Dewayne Lee Johnson used the product without fear because of a lack of knowledge, all while being harmed by the pesticide. As a result of Roundup exposure, Johnson suffered from non-Hodgkin lymphoma which manifested in painful skin lesions, lack of mobility, high medical expenses, and economic loss from inability to work [8]. This irreparable damage has left him with a chronic illness with little chance of recovery. This has not only impacted his personal well-being but his family as well, since he was the household’s main source of income. The irreversible consequences caused by Monsanto’s negligence satisfied the causation requirement under Section 402A, which underscores the company’s responsibility for the devastating outcomes of their actions.
Thus, the initial civil complaint that Dewayne Lee Johnson filed through the Superior Court of California was successfully able to meet its requirements under Restatement of Torts Section 402A and was granted an expedited trial under California law because he was a dying plaintiff [8]. Upon completion of the first trial in August 2018, the jury found defendants guilty on all claims alleged by the plaintiffs under Section 402A. The defendants were ordered to pay $290 million in damages including $250 million in punitive damages [3]. Monsanto responded in September 2018 by requesting a new trial; the company claimed that there was a lack of evidence and “flagrant misconduct before the jury” [3]. The judge denied Monsanto’s requests, but the number of punitive damages was drastically reduced from $250 million to only $39 million, which was accepted by the plaintiff [3]. But the legal battle proceeded as both sides continued to appeal, with the final number of punitive damages being reduced to $20.5 million [3]. This case has set major positive and negative precedents for the rule of law. On the positive side, it opened the door to future litigation against the pesticide industry with Edwin Hardeman v. Monsanto and Pilliod v. Monsanto, which were just two of the thousand consecutive cases to prevail [7]. Additionally, Johnson reinforced the importance of holding corporations– no matter how large– accountable for their actions when they mislead the public or fail to warn consumers about product dangers. The application of Restatement of Torts Section 402A broadened the interpretation of “failure to warn” to include active misinformation and concealment of risks, which strengthened consumer protection standards. Furthermore, with the use of independent scientific evidence, including the IARC’s findings, plaintiffs combatted the scientific uncertainties cast by Monsanto with the truth; this highlights the significant problem of merchandizing doubt. At the same time, however, the case also revealed some systemic challenges within the United States government like the limitations of regulatory agencies like the EPA and FDA in preventing corporate misconduct. Their original trust in Monsanto’s product testing put Americans’ health in jeopardy with improper science as a reference. Additionally, plaintiffs were able to win their case due to Monsanto’s extensive documentation that revealed its deceptive practices. This case may have the unintended result of prompting companies to become more protective of their information and find ways to hide their product information, making the pursuit of future litigation more difficult.
Johnson v. Monsanto has ultimately left a profound mark on product liability law, public health litigation, and corporate ethics. While it set critical standards for transparency and accountability, it also exposed the need for stronger regulatory oversight and more corporate monitoring. This case serves as both a victory and cautionary tale and reminds us of the ongoing struggle to balance corporate interests with the protection of public health and safety.
Sources:
[1] Conway, Erik M., and Naomi Oreskes. Merchants of Doubt. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014.
[2] “DDT Regulatory History: A Brief Survey (to 1975).” EPA, September 14, 2016. https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/aboutepa/ddt-regulatory-history-brief-survey-1975.html#:~:text=Background,was%20only%20discovered%20in%201939.
[3] “Dewayne Johnson v. Monsanto (Bayer).” Justice Pesticides. Accessed January 27, 2025. https://justicepesticides.org/en/juridic_case/dewayne-johnson-v-monsanto/.
[4] “Dewayne Johnson vs Monsanto: Recent Roundup Verdict.” AutoAccident, December 10, 2024. https://autoaccident.com/dewayne-johnson-vs-monsanto-recent-roundup-verdict/.
[5] “He Was Drenched in a Weed-Killer Made by Monsanto in a Workplace Accident. Then He Was Diagnosed with Cancer | CBC Documentaries.” CBCnews, September 15, 2022. https://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/the-passionate-eye/he-was-drenched-in-a-weed-killer-made-by-monsanto-in-a-workplace-accident-then-he-was-diagnosed-with-cancer-1.6581275#:~:text=Before%20Johnson%20was%20hired%20as,when%20I%20could%2C%20you%20know.
[6] Product Liability Torts. Accessed January 27, 2025. https://www.cozen.com/admin/files/publications/kiernan1954533.pdf?embed=1.
[7] “Review of Litigation against Monsanto Regarding the Safety of Glyphosate.” Center for Agricultural and Shale Law. Accessed January 27, 2025. https://aglaw.psu.edu/ag-law-in-the-spotlight/review-of-litigation-against-monsanto-regarding-the-safety-of-glyphosate/.
[8] Document Scanning Lead Sheet. Accessed January 27, 2025. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Dewayne-Johnson-lawsuit.pdf.
JHULR 
Leave a comment