Carson v. Monsanto

4:17-cv-00237-RSB-CLR // 21- 10994
December 5, 2017
Provisional judgment
United States, Savannah Division

Individuals
John D. Carson
Monsanto
Ashleigh R. Madison

Civil court
Herbicide, Glyphosate, Roundup
Acknowledgement of Monsanto's responsibility for the plaintiff's MFH; damages to be determined by a fair and impartial jury.
District court for the Southern district of Georgia of Savannah Division, United States
Court

December 21, 2020
Partially Positive
The district court judge found in favor of Monsanto, agreeing the Carson claim was preempted and the company had no duty to warn of a cancer risk. The judge ruled in favor of Carson on claims that Monsanto was negligent and the design of Roundup products was defective.
National law
No description

John Carson filed a lawsuit against Monsanto in 2017 after he contacted malignant fibrous histiocytoma (MFH) due to his 30-years exposure to Roundup. His case was treated outside of the other Roundup cases because there is less scientific data regarding the link between Roundup and MFH than there is between Roundup and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. On December 21, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia ruled in favor of Monsanto, finding that Carson's complaint was preempted because EPA had approved the product's label and therefore the company had no duty to warn of a cancer risk. Carson appeals. On March 26, 2021 Carson’s counsel writes the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to inform it that the appeal of Carson v. Monsanto is being litigated in bad faith and warrants immediate dismissal as it appears that Monsanto is paying Carson to appeal a decision Monsanto won at the District Court, because it wants to create appellate precedent.