19 ms·

Can a legal mind please explain to us laypeople how $! billion (per plaintiff) in punitive damages doesn't belong on the other side of Alice's looking glass. Wh

by plink 7y ago

Can a legal mind please explain to us laypeople how $! billion (per plaintiff) in punitive damages doesn't belong on the other side of Alice's looking glass. Why not make it $1 Cajilion?

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
A jury is allowed to consider the size of the company when deciding on punitive damages. Note well: That doesn't make it sane; it just makes it somewhat within the bounds of the law. What's actually (probably) going to happen is that Bayer will appeal, and the damages will be massively reduced in the appeals court.
brianpgordon 7y ago
I'm not a legal mind, but these are punitive damages, not compensatory ones. The couple didn't endure $2 billion worth of suffering, but Monsanto did commit $2 billion worth of misconduct.
- mars4rp 7y ago
  so shouldn't it go to the government instead? if the couple didn't suffer for $2B, why should they get it? they should get enough for their suffering, and the rest should go to government for public health.
  - fucking_tragedy 7y ago
    This case will pave the way for future class action lawsuits, and perhaps criminal or regulatory cases. If someone is stuck on the fact that the jury awarded a couple of people punitive damages, they're missing the forest for the trees.
    - rootusrootus 7y ago
      Why would this make someone want to participate in a class action? Seems like it would do the opposite. Who doesn't want to be a billionaire?
      - fucking_tragedy 7y ago
        Courts are less likely to award further punitive damages. Those who doesn't have the resources to go against Monsanto's lawyers would have incentives to participate in a class action lawsuit.
  - ndiscussion 7y ago
    I dunno, that's just how it works here.
  - tomp 7y ago
    Probably a bad incentive. Government should remain impartial, easier if they don't receive the money involved.
  - petercooper 7y ago
    If the IRS didn't have a specific exemption for award settlements for personal injury cases, the government would be getting 30-40% of it, at least.
leereeves 7y ago
Not a lawyer, but I do know that judges often reduce the damages awarded by juries, and the final settlements are often reduced further when plaintiffs realize how long they'll have to wait for appeals.
FfejL 7y ago
It's a punishment. You can't send a corporation to jail, you can only fine them. The Jury found that Monsanto committed fraud, and acted with malice. $1B is enough to hurt the corporate finances, very much by design. What punishment do you think would be appropriate?
- ptah 7y ago
  i agree, the punitive damages should be equivalent to a few years jailtime at least. it should equal the company not doing any business for a decade or so
freeopinion 7y ago
Because Monsanto made much more than $2B producing this chemical. Monsanto made much more than $2B producing GMO seeds that depend on this chemical for their value. Monsanto made much more than $2B crushing farmers who didn't want to buy Monsanto product. Monsanto made billions and billions and billions. They destroyed hundreds of farmers. They lied and cheated and obstructed when challenged. Then they sold their company to cash in on even more money. You might say that Monsanto has existed in a world on the other side of Alice's looking glass. Bayer rewarded all of that with huge M&A money. This decision reaches into that world beyond the looking glass to bring the chickens home to roost.
- natechols 7y ago
  How did Monsanto "crush" or "destroy" farmers who didn't want to buy their product? I'm genuinely curious, this is not an accusation I've seen before.
  - larrywright 7y ago
    They’ve got a long history of doing this. I learned about it from the documentary Food, Inc. (which I’d highly recommend), but it’s also been widely covered in the media: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/agricultural-giant-battles-small-farmers/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/agricultural-giant-battles-smal...
  - jtaillon 7y ago
    I thought this was a pretty well known practice. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto... From my (admittedly limited) understanding, they would trespass on peoples farms and test their crops to see if they had any features similar to their GMO seed products (which could be present just due to the fact that your neighbors' farms use Monsanto seed, and pollen isn't exactly easy to control). According to the report cited in the article "Monsanto brought some 142 patent infringement suits against 410 farmers and 56 small businesses in more than 27 states." I'm sure some of that may be valid patent protection, but it's hard to defend yourself when a company as large as Monsanto decides it wants to challenge you in the legal system, and I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
bloak 7y ago
Don't try to understand the US legal system: you would risk damaging your brain. Almost no other country uses juries in civil cases. Almost no other country has "punitive damages".

by plink 7y ago

Can a legal mind please explain to us laypeople how $! billion (per plaintiff) in punitive damages doesn't belong on the other side of Alice's looking glass. Why not make it $1 Cajilion?

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

A jury is allowed to consider the size of the company when deciding on punitive damages. Note well: That doesn't make it sane; it just makes it somewhat within the bounds of the law. What's actually (probably) going to happen is that Bayer will appeal, and the damages will be massively reduced in the appeals court.

brianpgordon 7y ago

I'm not a legal mind, but these are punitive damages, not compensatory ones. The couple didn't endure $2 billion worth of suffering, but Monsanto did commit $2 billion worth of misconduct.

mars4rp 7y ago
so shouldn't it go to the government instead? if the couple didn't suffer for $2B, why should they get it? they should get enough for their suffering, and the rest should go to government for public health.
- fucking_tragedy 7y ago
  This case will pave the way for future class action lawsuits, and perhaps criminal or regulatory cases. If someone is stuck on the fact that the jury awarded a couple of people punitive damages, they're missing the forest for the trees.
  - rootusrootus 7y ago
    Why would this make someone want to participate in a class action? Seems like it would do the opposite. Who doesn't want to be a billionaire?
    - fucking_tragedy 7y ago
      Courts are less likely to award further punitive damages. Those who doesn't have the resources to go against Monsanto's lawyers would have incentives to participate in a class action lawsuit.
- ndiscussion 7y ago
  I dunno, that's just how it works here.
- tomp 7y ago
  Probably a bad incentive. Government should remain impartial, easier if they don't receive the money involved.
- petercooper 7y ago
  If the IRS didn't have a specific exemption for award settlements for personal injury cases, the government would be getting 30-40% of it, at least.

leereeves 7y ago

Not a lawyer, but I do know that judges often reduce the damages awarded by juries, and the final settlements are often reduced further when plaintiffs realize how long they'll have to wait for appeals.

FfejL 7y ago

It's a punishment. You can't send a corporation to jail, you can only fine them. The Jury found that Monsanto committed fraud, and acted with malice. $1B is enough to hurt the corporate finances, very much by design. What punishment do you think would be appropriate?

ptah 7y ago
i agree, the punitive damages should be equivalent to a few years jailtime at least. it should equal the company not doing any business for a decade or so

freeopinion 7y ago

Because Monsanto made much more than $2B producing this chemical. Monsanto made much more than $2B producing GMO seeds that depend on this chemical for their value. Monsanto made much more than $2B crushing farmers who didn't want to buy Monsanto product. Monsanto made billions and billions and billions. They destroyed hundreds of farmers. They lied and cheated and obstructed when challenged. Then they sold their company to cash in on even more money. You might say that Monsanto has existed in a world on the other side of Alice's looking glass. Bayer rewarded all of that with huge M&A money. This decision reaches into that world beyond the looking glass to bring the chickens home to roost.

natechols 7y ago
How did Monsanto "crush" or "destroy" farmers who didn't want to buy their product? I'm genuinely curious, this is not an accusation I've seen before.
- larrywright 7y ago
  They’ve got a long history of doing this. I learned about it from the documentary Food, Inc. (which I’d highly recommend), but it’s also been widely covered in the media: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/agricultural-giant-battles-small-farmers/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/agricultural-giant-battles-smal...
- jtaillon 7y ago
  I thought this was a pretty well known practice. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto... From my (admittedly limited) understanding, they would trespass on peoples farms and test their crops to see if they had any features similar to their GMO seed products (which could be present just due to the fact that your neighbors' farms use Monsanto seed, and pollen isn't exactly easy to control). According to the report cited in the article "Monsanto brought some 142 patent infringement suits against 410 farmers and 56 small businesses in more than 27 states." I'm sure some of that may be valid patent protection, but it's hard to defend yourself when a company as large as Monsanto decides it wants to challenge you in the legal system, and I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

bloak 7y ago

Don't try to understand the US legal system: you would risk damaging your brain. Almost no other country uses juries in civil cases. Almost no other country has "punitive damages".