Authored by: Zoe E. Burt
Abstract
In 1992, William Melissen began using Roundup, a weed killer, at work and at home. He continued to use theproduct for nearly thirty years until he developed a form of blood cancer. Melissen sued the corporation that invented Roundup, Monsanto, and its parent company, Bayer, for failing to warn him that their product could potentially cause cancer. During the trial, jurors were told by Melissen’s counsel that the company needed to be held accountable and the jurors could punish the corporation for its wrongdoing by awarding punitive damages in “Monsanto dollars.” Meanwhile, counsel for Monsanto tried to explain to the jury that this case was not about the history of the corporation, which has had many similar lawsuits over the years; rather, it was about whether or not in this particular instance, Monsanto’s product had caused Melissen’s cancer.
It is clear that the jury was quite motivated to punish the large corporation in this case and did not need much time to think about it. One Thursday afternoon in October of 2024, after less than three hours of deliberations, jurors returned a $78 million verdict for Melissen.
Punitive damages made up a whopping $75 million of that award. Obviously, there must be a number of reasons for the jury’s final verdict in this case. But is it possible their decision was impacted solely because the defendant was a huge corporation? This Article explores jury demographics, how jurors process information at trial, their general perceptions of corporations, and how corporate identity and other factors can influence jury decision making. Finally, it discusses why large corporations should care about the research on jury perceptions of corporate defendants, even though the chances of a corporate defendant ever facing a jury are slim.
American Journal of Trial Advocacy 