CVN screenshot of plaintiff attorney Courtney Rowley delivering her closing argument
Seattle, WA - Attorneys for parents and students who allege they were sickened by toxic chemicals manufactured by agrochemical giant Monsanto in an aging school building asked a Washington state court jury this week to award them more than $4 billion in damages, and the full trial is being webcast and recorded gavel-to-gavel by Courtroom View Network.
15 plaintiffs claim they suffered a wide array of health problems resulting from exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls, known as PCBs, in old-fashioned fluorescent lights and building caulk at the Sky Valley Educational Center. PCBs are an extremely durable, long-lasting but toxic chemicals used for a wide range of industrial purposes before being banned in the United States in the 1970’s.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys asked the King County jury at the end of a two month trial to award both compensatory and punitive damages, accusing Monsanto of knowing about PCB-related health risks years before regulators banned the substance. However Monsanto urged jurors to reject an award amounting to “generational wealth” and argued any PCBs in the school occurred at levels too low to cause health problems, instead attributing them to mold and poor ventilation or pre-existing conditions.
The full trial, which began October 17, is being webcast and recorded gavel-to-gavel by CVN. The case marks the 10th consecutive trial in Seattle stemming from supposed PCB contamination at the Sky Valley facility, with prior verdicts totalling more than $1 billion, which Monsanto has appealed. Many of those trials were also recorded by CVN and are available as part of a subscription to CVN’s trial video library.
Arguing for compensatory awards of $30-$50 million each for the 15 plaintiffs, Colleen Durkin Peterson of Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala PLLC urged jurors to weigh the large monetary amount against potentially lifelong health issues such as cognitive and hormonal problems with effects that could span decades.
"I know it's a lot," Peterson told jurors. "But what they lost is a lot. What Monsanto did is a lot.”
Representing Monsanto, Kimberly Branscome of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP told jurors the plaintiffs' current lifestyles don’t match their supposed maladies. She described one plaintiff with alleged cognitive impairment who maintained a 3.9 GPA, another who claimed balance issues but still snowboards competitively, and another who goes on lengthy hikes despite digestive issues.
"The plaintiffs are asking for generational wealth," Branscome said. "The damages have to be fair and reasonable for what the plaintiffs have actually experienced.”
CVN screenshot of defense attorney Kimberly Branscome delivering her closing argument
Arguing for an award of punitive damages, plaintiff counsel Courtney Rowley of Trial Lawyers for Justice stressed that Monsanto supposedly had specific knowledge of the health risks from PCBs years before taking them off the market but failed to warn the public. At prior trials the company was even accused of hiding that information from government agencies.
She suggested even a large compensatory award would do little to impact the behavior of a huge company like Bayer-owned Monsanto.
"Compensatory damages are viewed by corporations as the cost of doing business. Punitive damages have to be enough to get Monsanto to wake up, to pay attention," Rowley said.
Co-counsel Nick Rowley, also of Trial Lawyers For Justice, rebutted Monsanto’s generational wealth argument by suggesting the plaintiffs suffered generational damage. He claimed the female plaintiffs could potentially give birth to children with altered DNA due to their exposure, drawing an objection from Monsanto that was sustained by the judge.
“Generational justice is appropriate for the generational harm and injury to these people's lives and their families,” Rowley said.
Branscome reminded jurors not to evaluate decisions made decades ago by contemporary standards. She argued Monsanto acted reasonably on the available scientific evidence at the time, and she noted the company voluntarily stopped selling PCBs two years before the government banned their use.
"The reality is this isn't consistent with the behavior you would see from a company that's going to sell this at all costs," she said.
Jurors return in January to begin deliberations.
The case is captioned Rose et al. v. Pharmacia LLC, case number 87281-8, in King County Superior Court.
E-mail David Siegel at dsiegel@cvn.com
