First GM rice-related case — farmers awarded
Dec 16, 2009 10:03 AM, By David Bennett, Farm Press Editorial Staff
In early December, a St. Louis jury found for two Missouri rice farmers against Bayer CropScience. The farmers — part of multi-district litigation stemming from losses associated with GM traits being found in rice varieties in 2006 — were awarded over $2 million in the case heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
(For more see Arkansas plans to purge rice supply and seed of GM trait.)
Judge Catherine Perry presided over the trial, the first of potentially many. Nearly 6,000 producers Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas await their day in court.
Shortly after the verdict, Delta Farm Press spoke with attorney Don Downing, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney (see Bayer responds to Missouri GM rice verdict for a statement from Bayer CropScience). Downing of the firm Gray, Ritter & Graham had the following comments:
Please bring us up to speed on the Missouri cases.
“Kenneth Bell and Johnny Hunter are Missouri rice farmers. They both won at trial. We were in court for about four weeks.
“The jury awarded Bell $1.95 million, roughly. Hunter was awarded around $53,000. So, it was a bit over $2 million for both.
“Bell farms a lot more acres than Hunter and also planted the two varieties that were found to be contaminated (with a GM trait), Cheniere and CL131. He planted those on a lot of acres and, therefore, couldn’t plant rice (the next season) in 2007. He had to plant soybeans (on the acreage that was in rice the previous year) and lost a lot of money in addition to the rice price decline.
Did the length of the trial catch you off-guard?
“We knew it would be lengthy because both sides had several expert witnesses. There were a lot of depositions of Bayer witnesses we had taken during the discovery phase. We didn’t have the power to compel them to appear live, so we used their video depositions.
“Before the trial we told the judge it would likely take three to four weeks. And that’s basically what it took.”
They weren’t compelled because (Bayer) is a German company?
“Yes. Some entities of the defendant’s were based in Germany. Others are based in the United States.”
The awards were compensatory. What else were you looking for?
“The amount they lost is called ‘compensatory.’ In certain cases you can also seek punitive damages. We asked for those, but the jury didn’t award them.
“We thought (punitive damages) were appropriate or we wouldn’t have asked for them. But the jury disagreed.
“We intend to ask for punitive damages in the next case and the next and the case after that. We believe the conduct by Bayer was certainly sufficient to justify punitive damages.”
Why did Bell and Hunter go to trial together instead of separately?
“It’s the way the judge has set up this multi-district litigation. There are about 6,000 rice producers who have filed claims. There are also 25 to 40 businesses that have sued Bayer over this. Those include Riceland, Producers Rice Mill, Riviana — most of the big players in the rice industry, including European importers and exporters to the United States.
