Bergeson v. Monsanto Company

On June 08,  2022, Carl Bergeson (“Plaintiff”), represented by Charles H. Johnson of Law Offices of Charles Johnson, PA, filed a personal injury lawsuit against Monsanto Company (“Monsanto” or “Defendant”), seeking compensatory damages, statutory damages, disgorgement and restitution for alleged negligent and wrongful conduct of Defendants. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota with Judges Eric C. Tostrud and Becky R. Thorson presiding. 

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that “this is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate.”

Plaintiff stated that “Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup. Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide used to kill weeds and grasses known to compete with commercial crops grown around the globe. Glyphosate is a “non-selective” herbicide, meaning it kills indiscriminately based only on whether a given organism produces a specific enzyme, 5-enolpyruvylshikimic acid- 3-phosphate synthase, known as EPSP synthase.”

Plaintiff claimed that “Defendant is intimately involved in the development, design, manufacture, marketing, sale, and/or distribution of genetically modified (‘GMO’) crops, many of which are marketed as being resistant to Roundup i.e., ‘Roundup Ready®.’ As of 2009, Defendant was the world’s leading producer of seeds designed to be Roundup Ready®. In 2010, an estimated 70% of corn and cotton, and 90% of soybean fields in the United States contained Roundup Ready® seeds.”

Plaintiff alleged that “Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use.”

Plaintiff then alleged that “in the case of glyphosate and Roundup, the EPA had planned on releasing its preliminary risk assessment – in relation to the registration process – no later than July 2015. The EPA completed its review of glyphosate in early 2015, but delayed releasing the assessment pending further review in light of the World Health Organization’s findings.”

Plaintiff further alleged that “Plaintiff used Roundup in recreational gardening and lawncare for a significant portion of plaintiff’s life. Plaintiff followed all safety and precautionary warnings during the course of use. As a result of exposure to Roundup, Plaintiff developed lymphoma. Plaintiff was diagnosed with Lymphoma in May of 2019.”

Plaintiff presented four claims of relief alleging negligence, strict liability, failure to warn defective design and manufacture, and breach of implied warranties. 

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff requested equitable relief in disgorgement and restitution of remedy Defendant’s unjust enrichment. Plaintiff also requested compensatory damages, statutory damages and relief, and reasonable attorney fees, 

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.