Caranci v. Monsanto, 2025 Pa. LEXIS 205 (Pa. Super. Ct., May 8, 2025) (Dubow, J.)
OPINION BY DUBOW, J.:
Appellant, Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”), appeals from the $177,285,102.74 judgment entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on March 11, 2024, following a jury verdict in favor of Appellees, Ernest Caranci (“Mr. Caranci”) and Carmela Caranci (collectively, “Appellees”), in this products liability action. Monsanto challenges the trial court’s denial of its motions for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on Monsanto’s allegations of improper communications between court staff and jurors, erroneous evidentiary rulings, and federal preemption, and claims that the jury’s damages award was excessive. After careful review, we affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. In June 2021, Appellees sued Monsanto alleging that Mr. Caranci’s years’-long use of Monsanto’s product Roundup and its ingredient glyphosate caused him to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (“NHL”). Appellees’ complaint alleged claims of, inter alia, Negligence, Strict Liability Defective Design and Strict Liability Failure to Warn.
The parties filed certain pre-trial motions and made certain objections at trial which dispositions are germane to this appeal, including the trial court’s rejection of Monsanto’s assertion that Appellees’ Failure to Warn claim was preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7 U.S.C. § 136, et seq, and denial of Monsanto’s request to exclude evidence and argument relating to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 38 F.4th 34 (9th Cir. 2022) (“NRDC”).
The parties proceeded to a jury trial after which, on October 27, 2023, the jury found in Appellees’ favor on their negligence claim. With respect to Appellees’ Failure to Warn claim, the jury found that Roundup was defective because it lacked proper warnings and instructions for safe use.1 The jury awarded Appellees $25 million in compensatory damages and $150 million in punitive damages after finding that Monsanto’s conduct was malicious, wanton, willful, or oppressive, or showed reckless indifference to others.
The jury found in Monsanto’s favor on the “consumer expectations” aspect of liability.
