Groundskeeper Accepts Reduced $78M Monsanto Verdict In Hopes of Resolving Matter While Still Alive

Roundup Weedkiller Cancer

FILE – In this Aug. 10, 2018 file photo, Dewayne Johnson reacts after hearing the verdict in his case against Monsanto at the Superior Court of California in San Francisco. (Josh Edelson/Pool Photo via AP, File)

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A Northern California groundskeeper said Wednesday that he will accept a judge’s reduced verdict of $78 million against Monsanto after a jury found the company’s weed killer caused his cancer.

DeWayne Johnson’s attorney formally informed the San Francisco Superior Court that he would not contest the judge’s decision to reduce a jury’s original $289 million award.

Johnson could have demanded a new trial.

A jury unanimously decided in August that Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer caused Johnson’s cancer. His doctor testified that the 46-year-old has less than three years to live.

Johnson’s spokeswoman Robin McCall says his attorney disagrees with the judge’s settlement reduction, but will accept the lower amount in hopes of achieving “a final resolution within his lifetime.”

Monsanto spokesman Daniel Childs did not immediately return a phone call. He previously said the company planned to appeal every adverse verdict. The company is facing 8,000 similar lawsuits across the country.

The jury awarded $250 million in punitive damages to Johnson after it found that the St. Louis-based agribusiness had purposely ignored warnings and evidence that its popular Roundup product causes cancer, including Johnson’s lymphoma. But Judge Suzanna Bolanos ruled earlier this month that was too high and reduced the punitive damage to $39 million to match the other damages the jury awarded Johnson.

Punitive damages are designed to punish companies that juries determine have purposely misbehaved and to deter others from operating similarly.

Independent journalism still matters.

We hope this story was worth your time. For over 14 years, Atlanta Black Star has stayed Black-owned and independently run. We didn't get here by waiting on ad budgets that were never built to prioritize us. Our readers did that.

Corporate support for Black media has always been thin. Outlets like ours get roughly 1% of the $170 billion spent on U.S. advertising each year, and that margin is shrinking further as advertisers walk back the DEI-linked commitments they made in 2020. That's the backdrop. It's not why we're asking.

The wider picture isn't any steadier. Newspaper ad revenue has fallen more than 80% since 2005, and local newsrooms are closing at a rate of roughly two a week nationwide. When outlets go under, it's rarely the ones built to center a Black perspective from the ground up that get to stick around.

We know a request for support isn't why you came here. But without readers choosing to fund this work directly, the depth of reporting we can do at home and abroad shrinks along with everyone else's. If you're not in a position to give, that doesn't change how much we value you as a reader.

If you are able to, a recurring contribution does more for us than a single one-time gift, because it lets us plan the next investigation instead of just the next invoice. It takes about 30 seconds, no long form, no account. Thank you for continuing to support independent journalism and freedom of the press.

Back to top