Re:California jury says Bayer must pay $2B to couple in Roun...
by Faark on Monday May 13, 2019 @06:51PM
(#19904823)
The only question in front of a court is whether they broke the law. If they did something unethical but we don't have a law against it... well, fight for a new law.
If you want justice based on your morals & feelings, then you can just drop the pretense of "rule of law" / a legal system and let the mob or powerful rule as they whish. But I doubt such a system will turn out in my favor.
Re:California jury says Bayer must pay $2B to couple in Roun...
by wtallis on Monday May 13, 2019 @07:30PM
(#19905139)
> "The jury found Roundup had been defectively designed, that the company failed to warn of the herbicide’s cancer risk and that the company acted negligently. "
There's certainly reason to question the jury's determination about defective design, since that's a relatively scientific question. But that wasn't the only question before the jury.
The issue of negligence with regards to the disclosing risks to the public seems to be reasonably relevant to Monsanto's misconduct; this certainly isn't a mob lynching a corporation without regard for rule of law, and on the surface it doesn't even appear to be a particularly ridiculous stretch of the law.
It seems like the question here should be whether this outcome provides justice, not whether it represents the best scientific conclusion available. Shouldn't Monsanto be punished in some fashion for unethically trying to suppress evidence and mislead the public, even if it eventually turns out that Roundup is not as dangerous as it was suspected/feared to be?
A jury verdict like this is certainly not the best imaginable way to discipline corporations for such wrongdoings, but if this is what's achievable with our current legal system, then it seems to be at least somewhat justified.