Courts should run on facts, not emotion: Varney

Here's how the plaintiff’s bar, the lawyers, screw up the justice system.

First, bring your case to a sympathetic jury. Then put a plaintiff on the stand who will get a lot of sympathy. Make sure you have an unpopular villain to go after. And don't forget to use emotion, not fact, to win the case.

So it was that a judge in San Francisco ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million because they hadn’t given sufficient warning of the supposed dangers of the weed killer, Roundup. The plaintiff, Dewayne “Lee” Johnson testified that he suffered excruciating pain from lesions on his body, after using Roundup as a school groundskeeper. As The Wall Street Journal puts it: “such emotional testimony would elicit sympathy in any jury of human beings.” So true. His testimony convinced the jury that Monsanto should be ruined.

The problem is, there is no scientific evidence that Roundup, and its active ingredient glyphosate, causes cancer. A study of 45,000 pesticide applicators, people who use the stuff regularly, found no connection. The study was published and approved by The Journal of the National Cancer Institute! The Environmental Protection Agency says glyphosate is safe.

But scientific facts don't matter. They don’t count. In a San Francisco courtroom, it’s emotion that counts.

So here we go again. Monsanto faces 5,000 similar suits. Class-action anyone?

The judge in the case, Suzanne Ramos Bolanos, could vacate the jury’s decision, or call a new trial. I hope she does, because our courts should run on facts, not emotion.

One last point: We can all understand Mr. Johnson’s despair and pain. He is the plaintiff and he has suffered mightily. But our sympathy for him should not be used as an excuse for lawyers trying hard to pervert our legal system.