Case 2:22-cv-00124 Document 1-2 Filed on 06/06/22 in TXSD Page 1 of 51
`
`XHIBIT
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00124 Document 1-2 Filed on 06/06/22 in TXSD Page 2 of 51
`2021DCV-3783-F
`
`Filed
`9/28/2021 9:39 AM
`Anne Lorentzen
`District Clerk
`Nueces County, Texas
`
`
`
`
`
`JOHN LUBY, JR.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NAYLOR’S FARM & RANCH
`SUPPLY, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CAUSE NO. ____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
`
`NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS
`
`_____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION
`
`
`
`COMES NOW the Plaintiff, JOHN LUBY, JR., and brings this action against Defendant,
`
`
`
`Naylor’s Farm & Ranch Supply, Inc., as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff brings this cause of action against Defendant for injuries sustained as a result of
`
`using Monsanto Company’s unreasonably dangerous and defective product, Roundup®. More
`
`specifically, Plaintiff’s claims involve Defendant’s negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
`
`with the promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, and/or sale of Roundup® and/or other
`
`Monsanto Company glyphosate-containing products (“Roundup” or “Roundup®”). As a direct
`
`and proximate result of his exposure to Roundup® and its active ingredient, glyphosate, Plaintiff
`
`developed non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.
`
`
`
`
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff JOHN LUBY, JR. is a resident of Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas.
`
`Plaintiff John Luby, Jr. purchased Roundup® from Defendant Naylor’s Farm & Ranch Supply,
`
`Inc. and used Roundup® in Texas between approximately 1991 and 2018 for personal
`
`and/or work related purposes and subsequently was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.
`1
`
`
`
`Copy from re:SearchTX
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00124 Document 1-2 Filed on 06/06/22 in TXSD Page 3 of 51
`
`Plaintiff used Roundup® as directed at all relevant times.
`
`Defendant
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Naylor’s Farm & Ranch Supply, Inc. is a Texas corporation authorized
`
`to do business in the State of Texas with its headquarters and principal place of business in Nueces
`
`County, Texas. Defendant may be served with citation herein by serving its registered agent for
`
`service, Melvin Earl Kronk at 5805 Academy, Corpus Christi, TX 78407.
`
`3.
`
`At all times relevant to this Petition, Naylor’s Farm & Ranch Supply, Inc.
`
`distributed, sold, marketed, promoted and/or advertised Roundup®.
`
`DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
`
`4.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 190 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery for this cause
`
`is intended to be conducted under Level 2.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`5.
`
`In 1970, Monsanto Company discovered the herbicidal properties of glyphosate
`
`and in 1974 began marketing it in products under the brand name Roundup®. Roundup® is a non-
`
`selective herbicide used to kill weeds that commonly compete with the growing of crops. By 2001,
`
`glyphosate had become the most-used active ingredient in American agriculture with 85–90
`
`million pounds used annually. That number grew to 185 million pounds by 2007. As of 2013,
`
`glyphosate was the world’s most widely used herbicide.
`
`6.
`
`Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St.
`
`Louis, Missouri. It is the world’s leading producer of glyphosate.
`
`7.
`
`Monsanto’s glyphosate products are registered in 130 countries and approved for
`
`use on over 100 different crops. They are ubiquitous in the environment. Numerous studies
`
`confirm that glyphosate is found in rivers, streams, and groundwater in agricultural areas where
`
`
`
`2
`
`Copy from re:SearchTX
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00124 Document 1-2 Filed on 06/06/22 in TXSD Page 4 of 51
`
`Roundup® is used. It has been found in food, in the urine of agricultural workers, and even in the
`
`urine of urban dwellers who are not in direct contact with glyphosate.
`
`8.
`
`On March 20, 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (“IARC”),
`
`an agency of the World Health Organization (“WHO”), issued an evaluation of several herbicides,
`
`including glyphosate. That evaluation was based, in part, on studies of exposures to glyphosate in
`
`several countries around the world, and it traces the health implications from exposure to
`
`glyphosate since 2001.
`
`9.
`
`On July 29, 2015, IARC issued the formal monograph relating to glyphosate. In
`
`that monograph, the IARC Working Group provides a thorough review of the numerous studies
`
`and data relating to glyphosate exposure in humans.
`
`10.
`
`The IARC Working Group classified glyphosate as a Group 2A herbicide, which
`
`means that it is probably carcinogenic to humans. The IARC Working Group concluded that the
`
`cancers most associated with glyphosate exposure are non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other
`
`hematopoietic cancers, including lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia, B-cell
`
`lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. The IARC evaluation is significant as it confirms that
`
`glyphosate is toxic to humans.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`11.
`
`All at relevant hereto, Naylor’s Farm & Ranch Supply, Inc engaged in the business
`
`of distributing, selling, promoting and/or advertising Roundup® products in the State of Texas and
`
`the County of Nueces.
`
`12.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper in this Court because (1) Plaintiff does not allege any violation
`
`of federal law; (2) the parties are not completely diverse in citizenship; and (3) Defendant did and
`
`is doing business within the State of Texas and committed a tort in whole or in part in this state
`
`
`
`3
`
`Copy from re:SearchTX
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00124 Document 1-2 Filed on 06/06/22 in TXSD Page 5 of 51
`
`against the Plaintiff, as more fully set forth herein. The damages suffered and sought to be
`
`recovered herein exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court.
`
`13.
`
`Venue is proper in Nueces County, Texas pursuant to Texas Civil Practice &
`
`Remedies Code, Chapter 15, §15.002(a)(1) and (a)(3), and §15.005 in that the Defendant, Naylor’s
`
`Farm & Ranch Supply, Inc., is a resident of and/or has its principal place of business in Nueces
`
`County, Texas.
`
`FACTS
`
`14.
`
`Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum, non-selective herbicide used in a wide variety of
`
`herbicidal products around the world.
`
`15.
`
`Plants treated with glyphosate translocate the systemic herbicide to their roots,
`
`shoot regions and fruit, where it interferes with the plant’s ability to form aromatic amino acids
`
`necessary for protein synthesis. Treated plants generally die within two to three days. Because
`
`plants absorb glyphosate, it cannot be completely removed by washing or peeling produce or by
`
`milling, baking, or brewing grains.
`
`16.
`
`For nearly 40 years, farms across the world have used Roundup® without knowing
`
`of the dangers its use poses. According to the WHO, the main chemical ingredient of
`
`Roundup®—glyphosate—is a probable cause of cancer. Those most at risk are farm workers and
`
`other individuals with workplace exposure to Roundup®, such as workers in garden
`
`centers,nurseries, and landscapers. The first glyphosate-based herbicide was introduced to the
`
`market in the mid- 1970s under the brand name Roundup®.
`
`17.
`
`The manufacture, formulation and distribution of herbicides, such as Roundup®,
`
`are regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA” or “Act”),
`
`7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq. FIFRA requires that all pesticides be registered with the Environmental
`
`
`
`4
`
`Copy from re:SearchTX
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00124 Document 1-2 Filed on 06/06/22 in TXSD Page 6 of 51
`
`Protection Agency (“EPA” or “Agency”) prior to their distribution, sale, or use, except as
`
`described by the Act. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(a).
`
`18.
`
`Because pesticides are toxic to plants, animals, and humans, at least to some degree,
`
`the EPA requires as part of the registration process, among other things, a variety of tests to
`
`evaluate the potential for exposure to pesticides, toxicity to people and other potential non-target
`
`organisms, and other adverse effects on the environment. Registration by the EPA, however, is not
`
`an assurance or finding of safety. The determination the Agency must make in registering or re-
`
`registering a product is not that the product is “safe,” but rather that use of the product in
`
`accordance with its label directions “will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the
`
`environment.” 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(D).
`
`19.
`
`FIFRA defines “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” to mean “any
`
`unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and
`
`environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.” 7 U.S.C. § 136(bb). FIFRA thus
`
`requires EPA to make a risk/benefit analysis in determining whether a registration should be
`
`granted or allowed to continue to be sold in commerce.
`
`20.
`
`FIFRA generally requires that the registrant, Monsanto in the case of Roundup®,
`
`conducts the health and safety testing of pesticide products. The EPA has protocols governing the
`
`conduct of tests required for registration and the laboratory practices that must be followed in
`
`conducting these tests. The data produced by the registrant must be submitted to the EPA for
`
`review and evaluation. The government is not required, nor is it able, to perform the product tests
`
`that are required of the manufacturer.
`
`21.
`
`The evaluation of each pesticide product distributed, sold, or manufactured is
`
`completed at the time the product is initially registered. The data necessary for registration of a
`
`
`
`5
`
`Copy from re:SearchTX
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00124 Document 1-2 Filed on 06/06/22 in TXSD Page 7 of 51
`
`pesticide has changed over time. The EPA is now in the process of re-evaluating all pesticide
`
`products through a Congressionally-mandated process called “re-registration.” 7 U.S.C. § 136a-1.
`
`In order to reevaluate these pesticides, the EPA is demanding the completion of additional tests
`
`and the submission of data for the EPA’s review and evaluation.
`
`22.
`
`In the case of glyphosate, and therefore Roundup®, the EPA had planned on
`
`releasing its preliminary risk assessment —in relation to the re-registration process—no later than
`
`July 2015. The EPA completed its review of glyphosate in early 2015, but it delayed releasing the
`
`risk assessment pending further review in light of the WHO’s health-related findings.
`
`23.
`
`Based on early studies that glyphosate could cause cancer in laboratory animals,
`
`the EPA originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group C) in 1985.
`
`After pressure from Monsanto, including contrary studies it provided to the EPA, the EPA changed
`
`its classification to evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans (Group E) in 1991. In so classifying
`
`glyphosate, however, the EPA made clear that the designation did not mean the chemical does not
`
`cause cancer: “It should be emphasized, however, that designation of an agent in Group E is based
`
`on the available evidence at the time of evaluation and should not be interpreted as a definitive
`
`conclusion that the agent will not be a carcinogen under any circumstances.”
`
`24.
`
`On two occasions, the EPA found that the laboratories hired by Monsanto to test
`
`the toxicity of its Roundup® products for registration purposes committed fraud.
`
`25.
`
`In the first instance, Monsanto, in seeking initial registration of Roundup® by EPA,
`
`hired Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories (“IBT”) to perform and evaluate pesticide toxicology
`
`studies relating to Roundup®. IBT performed about 30 tests on glyphosate and glyphosate-
`
`containing products, including nine of the 15 residue studies needed to register Roundup®.
`
`26.
`
`In 1976, the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) performed an
`
`
`
`6
`
`Copy from re:SearchTX
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00124 Document 1-2 Filed on 06/06/22 in TXSD Page 8 of 51
`
`inspection of Industrial Bio-Test Industries (“IBT”) that revealed discrepancies between the raw
`
`data and the final report relating to the toxicological impacts of glyphosate. The EPA subsequently
`
`audited IBT; it too found the toxicology studies conducted for the Roundup® herbicide to be
`
`invalid. An EPA reviewer stated, after finding “routine falsification of data” at IBT, that it was
`
`“hard to believe the scientific integrity of the studies when they said they took specimens of the
`
`uterus from male rabbits.”
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`Three top executives of IBT were convicted of fraud in 1983.
`
`In the second incident of data falsification, Monsanto hired Craven Laboratories in
`
`1991 to perform pesticide and herbicide studies, including for Roundup®. In that same year, the
`
`owner of Craven Laboratories and three of its employees were indicted, and later convicted, of
`
`fraudulent laboratory practices in the testing of pesticides and herbicides.
`
`29.
`
`Despite the falsity of the tests that underlie its registration, within a few years of its
`
`launch, Monsanto was marketing Roundup® in 115 countries.
`
`30.
`
`The IARC process for the classification of glyphosate followed the stringent
`
`procedures for the evaluation of a chemical agent. Over time, the IARC Monograph program has
`
`reviewed 980 agents. Of those reviewed, it has determined 116 agents to be Group 1 (Known
`
`Human Carcinogens); 73 agents to be Group 2A (Probable Human Carcinogens); 287 agents to be
`
`Group 2B (Possible Human Carcinogens); 503 agents to be Group 3 (Not Classified); and one
`
`agent to be Probably Not Carcinogenic.
`
`31.
`
`The evaluations are performed by panels of international experts, selected on the
`
`basis of their expertise and the absence of actual or apparent conflicts of interest.
`
`32.
`
`One year before the Monograph meeting, the meeting is announced and there is a
`
`call both for data and for experts. Eight months before the Monograph meeting, the Working Group
`
`
`
`7
`
`Copy from re:SearchTX
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00124 Document 1-2 Filed on 06/06/22 in TXSD Page 9 of 51
`
`membership is selected and the sections of the Monograph are developed by the Working Group
`
`members. One month prior to the Monograph meeting, the call for data is closed and the various
`
`draft sections are distributed among Working Group members for review and comment. Finally,
`
`at the Monograph meeting, the Working Group finalizes review of all literature, evaluates the
`
`evidence in each category, and completes the overall evaluation. Within two weeks after the
`
`Monograph meeting, the summary of the Working Group findings is published in Lancet
`
`Oncology, and within a year after the meeting, the final Monograph is finalized and published.
`
`33.
`
`In assessing an agent, the IARC Working Group reviews the following information:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`human, experimental, and mechanistic data;
`
`all pertinent epidemiological studies and cancer
`
`bioassays; and
`
`c)
`
`representative mechanistic data. The studies must be
`
`publicly available and have sufficient detail for
`
`meaningful review, and reviewers cannot be
`
`associated with the underlying study.
`
`34.
`
`In March 2015, IARC reassessed glyphosate. The summary published in The
`
`Lancet Oncology reported that glyphosate is a Group 2A agent and probably carcinogenic in
`
`humans.
`
`35.
`
`On July 29, 2015, IARC issued its Monograph for glyphosate, Monograph 112. For
`
`Volume 112, the volume that assessed glyphosate, a Working Group of 17 experts from 11
`
`countries met at IARC from March 3–10, 2015, to assess the carcinogenicity of certain herbicides,
`
`including glyphosate. The March meeting culminated nearly a one-year review and preparation by
`
`the IARC Secretariat and the Working Group, including a comprehensive review of the latest
`
`
`
`8
`
`Copy from re:SearchTX
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00124 Document 1-2 Filed on 06/06/22 in TXSD Page 10 of 51
`
`available scientific evidence. According to published procedures, the Working Group considered
`
`“reports that have been published or accepted for publication in the openly available scientific
`
`literature” as well as “data from governmental reports that are publicly available.”
`
`36.
`
`The studies considered the following exposure groups: occupational exposure of
`
`farmers and tree nursery workers in the United States, forestry workers in Canada and Finland,
`
`municipal weed-control workers in the United Kingdom; and, para-occupational exposure in
`
`farming families.
`
`37.
`
`Glyphosate was identified as the second-most used household herbicide in the
`
`United States for weed control between 2001 and 2007 and the most heavily used herbicide in the
`
`world in 2012.
`
`38.
`
`Exposure pathways are identified as air (especially during spraying), water, and
`
`food. Community exposure to glyphosate is widespread and found in soil, air, surface water, and
`
`groundwater, as well as in food.
`
`39.
`
`The assessment of the IARC Working Group identified several case control studies
`
`of occupational exposure in the United States, Canada, and Sweden. These studies show a human
`
`health concern from agricultural and other work-related exposure to glyphosate.
`
`40.
`
`The IARC Working Group found an increased risk between exposure to glyphosate
`
`and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (“NHL”) and several subtypes of NHL. The increased risk
`
`persisted after adjustment for other pesticides.
`
`41.
`
`The IARC Working Group also found that glyphosate caused DNA and
`
`chromosomal damage in human cells. One study in community residents reported increases in
`
`blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) after glyphosate formulations were sprayed.
`
`42.
`
`The IARC Working Group also noted that glyphosate has been detected in the urine
`9
`
`
`
`Copy from re:SearchTX
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00124 Document 1-2 Filed on 06/06/22 in TXSD Page 11 of 51
`
`of agricultural workers,
`
`indicating absorption. Soil microbes degrade glyphosate
`
`to
`
`aminomethylphosphoric acid (AMPA). Blood AMPA detection after exposure suggests intestinal
`
`microbial metabolism in humans.
`
`43.
`
`The IARC Working Group further found that glyphosate and glyphosate
`
`formulations induced DNA and chromosomal damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells
`
`in utero.
`
`44.
`
`The IARC Working Group noted genotoxic, hormonal, and enzymatic effects in
`
`mammals exposed to glyphosate. Essentially, glyphosate inhibits the biosynthesis of aromatic
`
`amino acids, which leads to several metabolic disturbances, including the inhibition of protein and
`
`secondary product biosynthesis and general metabolic disruption.
`
`45.
`
`The IARC Working Group also reviewed an Agricultural Health Study, consisting
`
`of a prospective cohort of 57,311 licensed pesticide applicators in Iowa and North Carolina. While
`
`this study differed from others in that it was based on a self-administered questionnaire, the results
`
`support an association between glyphosate exposure and Multiple Myeloma, Hairy Cell Leukemia
`
`(HCL), and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL), in addition to several other cancers.
`
`46.
`
`The EPA has a technical fact sheet, as part of its Drinking Water and Health,
`
`National Primary Drinking Water Regulations publication, relating to glyphosate. This technical
`
`fact sheet predates the IARC March 20, 2015, evaluation. The fact sheet describes the release
`
`patterns for glyphosate as follows:
`
`
`* Glyphosate is released to the environment in its use as an herbicide for controlling woody
`
`and herbaceous weeds on forestry, right-of-way, cropped and non-cropped sites. These
`
`sites may be around water and in wetlands.
`
`* It may also be released to the environment during its manufacture, formulation, transport,
`
`
`
`10
`
`Copy from re:SearchTX
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00124 Document 1-2 Filed on 06/06/22 in TXSD Page 12 of 51
`
`storage, disposal, and cleanup, and from spills. Since glyphosate is not a listed chemical in
`
`the Toxics Release Inventory, data on releases during its manufacture and handling are not
`
`available.
`
`* Occupational workers and home gardeners may be exposed to glyphosate by inhalation
`
`and dermal contact during spraying, mixing, and cleanup. They may also be exposed by
`
`touching soil and plants to which glyphosate was applied.
`
`* Occupational exposure may also occur during glyphosate's manufacture, transport
`
`storage, and disposal.
`
`47.
`
`In 1995, the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides reported that in
`
`California, the state with the most comprehensive program for reporting of pesticide-caused
`
`illness, glyphosate was the third most commonly-reported cause of pesticide illness among
`
`agricultural workers.
`
`48.
`
`Several countries around the world have instituted bans on the sale of Roundup®
`
`and other glyphosate-containing herbicides, both before and since IARC first announced its
`
`assessment for glyphosate in March 2015, and more countries undoubtedly will follow suit as the
`
`dangers of the use of Roundup® are more widely known. The Netherlands issued a ban on all
`
`glyphosate-based herbicides in April 2014, including Roundup®, which took effect by the end of
`
`2015. In issuing the ban, the Dutch Parliament member who introduced the successful legislation
`
`stated: “Agricultural pesticides in user-friendly packaging are sold in abundance to private persons.
`
`In garden centers, Roundup® is promoted as harmless, but unsuspecting customers have no idea
`
`what the risks of this product are. Especially children are sensitive to toxic substances and should
`
`therefore not be exposed to it.”
`
`49.
`
`The Brazilian Public Prosecutor in the Federal District requested that the Brazilian
`
`
`
`11
`
`Copy from re:SearchTX
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00124 Document 1-2 Filed on 06/06/22 in TXSD Page 13 of 51
`
`Justice Department suspend the use of glyphosate.
`
`50.
`
`France banned the private sale of Roundup® and glyphosate following the IARC
`
`assessment for Glyphosate.
`
`51.
`
`Bermuda banned both the private and commercial sale of glyphosates, including
`
`Roundup®. The Bermuda government explained its ban as follows: “Following a recent scientific
`
`study carried out by a leading cancer agency, the importation of weed spray ‘Roundup’ has been
`
`suspended.”
`
`52.
`
`The Sri Lankan government banned the private and commercial use of glyphosates,
`
`particularly out of concern that glyphosate has been linked to fatal kidney disease in agricultural
`
`workers.
`
`53.
`
`The government of Colombia announced its ban on using Roundup® and
`
`glyphosate to destroy illegal plantations of coca, the raw ingredient for cocaine, because of the
`
`WHO’s finding that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic.
`
`
`
`54.
`
`DISCOVERY RULE
`
`Plaintiff hereby pleads and invokes the “discovery rule” if necessary. Plaintiff will
`
`show that after reasonably exercising due diligence, he did not learn the nature of the cause of his
`
`cancer or that such cancer was chemically-related until less than the time periods provided by the
`
`relevant statutes of limitations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Copy from re:SearchTX
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00124 Document 1-2 Filed on 06/06/22 in TXSD Page 14 of 51
`
`CLAIMS
`
`COUNT I
`STRICT LIABILITY
`(FAILURE TO WARN)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in the
`
`55.
`
`preceding paragraphs as if fully stated herein.
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiff brings this strict liability claim against Defendant for failure to warn.
`
`At all times relevant to this litigation, Defendant engaged in the business of selling,
`
`distributing, and/or promoting Roundup® products, which are defective and unreasonably
`
`dangerous to consumers, including Plaintiff, because they do not contain adequate warnings or
`
`instructions concerning the dangerous characteristics of Roundup® and, specifically, the active
`
`ingredient glyphosate. These actions were under the ultimate control and supervision of Defendant.
`
`58.
`
`Defendant distributed, marketed, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the
`
`stream of commerce Roundup® products, and in the course of same, directly advertised or
`
`marketed the products to consumers and end users, including Plaintiff, and therefore had a duty to
`
`warn of the risks associated with the use of Roundup® and glyphosate-containing products.
`
`59.
`
`At all times relevant to this litigation, Defendant had a duty to properly market,
`
`promote, sell, distribute, maintain supply, provide proper warnings and/or and take such steps as
`
`necessary to ensure that Roundup® products did not cause users and consumers to suffer from
`
`unreasonable and dangerous risks. Defendant had a continuing duty to warn Plaintiff of the dangers
`
`associated with Roundup® use and exposure. Defendant, as seller, promoter, marketer and/or
`
`distributor of chemical herbicides is held to the knowledge of an expert in the field.
`
`60.
`
`At all times relevant to this litigation, Defendant could have provided the warnings
`
`or instructions regarding the full and complete risks of Roundup® and glyphosate-containing
`
`
`
`13
`
`Copy from re:SearchTX
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00124 Document 1-2 Filed on 06/06/22 in TXSD Page 15 of 51
`
`products because it knew or should have known of the unreasonable risks of harm associated with
`
`the use of and/or exposure to such products.
`
`61.
`
`At all times relevant to this litigation, Defendant failed to investigate, study, test, or
`
`promote the safety or to minimize the dangers to users and consumers of its product and to those
`
`who would foreseeably use or be harmed by these herbicides, including Plaintiff.
`
`62.
`
`Despite the fact that Defendant knew or should have known that Roundup® posed
`
`a grave risk of harm, it failed to exercise reasonable care to warn of the dangerous risks associated
`
`with use and exposure. The dangerous propensities of these products and the carcinogenic
`
`characteristics of glyphosate, as described above, were known to Defendant, or scientifically
`
`knowable to Defendant through appropriate research and testing by known methods, at the time it
`
`distributed, marketed, promoted, supplied and/or sold the product, and not known to end users and
`
`consumers, such as Plaintiff.
`
`63.
`
`These products created significant risks of serious bodily harm to consumers, as
`
`alleged herein, and Defendant failed to adequately warn consumers and reasonably foreseeable
`
`users of the risks of exposure to its products. Defendant has wrongfully concealed information
`
`concerning the dangerous nature of Roundup® and its active ingredient glyphosate, and further
`
`made false and/or misleading statements concerning the safety of Roundup® and glyphosate.
`
`64.
`
`At all times relevant to this litigation, Roundup® products reached the intended
`
`consumers, handlers, and users or other persons coming into contact with these products in Texas
`
`and throughout the United States, including Plaintiff, without substantial change in their condition
`
`as sold, distributed, promoted, and marketed by Defendant.
`
`65.
`
`Plaintiff was exposed to Roundup® products in the course of his personal and/or
`
`work-related use of Roundup®, without knowledge of its dangerous characteristics.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Copy from re:SearchTX
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00124 Document 1-2 Filed on 06/06/22 in TXSD Page 16 of 51
`
`66.
`
`At all times relevant to this litigation, Plaintiff used and/or was exposed to the use
`
`of Roundup® products in his intended or reasonably foreseeable manner without knowledge of
`
`their dangerous characteristics.
`
`67.
`
`Plaintiff could not have reasonably discovered the defects and risks associated with
`
`Roundup® or glyphosate-containing products prior to or at the time of Plaintiff’s exposure.
`
`Plaintiff relied upon the skill, superior knowledge, and judgment of Defendant.
`
`68.
`
`These products were defective because the minimal warnings disseminated with
`
`Roundup® products were inadequate, and they failed to communicate adequate information on the
`
`dangers and safe use/exposure and failed to communicate warnings and instructions that were
`
`appropriate and adequate to render the products safe for their ordinary, intended, and reasonably
`
`foreseeable uses, including agricultural and landscaping applications.
`
`69.
`
`The information that Defendant did provide or communicate failed to contain
`
`relevant warnings, hazards, and precautions that would have enabled consumers such as Plaintiff
`
`to utilize the products safely and with adequate protection. Instead, Defendant disseminated
`
`information that was inaccurate, false, and misleading and which failed to communicate accurately
`
`or adequately the comparative severity, duration, and extent of the risk of injuries and/or death
`
`with use of and/or exposure to Roundup® and glyphosate; continued to aggressively promote the
`
`efficacy of the products, even after it knew or should have known of the unreasonable risks from
`
`use or exposure; and concealed, downplayed, or otherwise suppressed, through aggressive
`
`marketing and promotion, any information or research about the risks and dangers of exposure to
`
`Roundup® and glyphosate.
`
`70.
`
`As a result of their inadequate warnings, Roundup® products were defective and
`
`unreasonably dangerous when they were distributed, marketed, and promoted by Defendant, and
`
`
`
`15
`
`Copy from re:SearchTX
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00124 Document 1-2 Filed on 06/06/22 in TXSD Page 17 of 51
`
`used by Plaintiff in his personal and/or work-related use.
`
`71.
`
`Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for injuries caused by its negligent or willful failure,
`
`as described above, to provide adequate warnings or other clinically relevant information and data
`
`regarding the appropriate use of these products and the risks associated with the use of or exposure
`
`to Roundup® and glyphosate.
`
`72.
`
`The defects in Roundup® products caused or contributed to cause Plaintiff’s
`
`injuries, and, but for this misconduct and omissions, Plaintiff would not have sustained his injuries.
`
`73.
`
`Had Defendant provided adequate warnings and instructions and properly disclosed
`
`and disseminated the risks associated with Roundup® products, Plaintiff could have avoided the
`
`risk of developing injuries as alleged herein.
`
`74.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant placing defective Roundup®
`
`products into the stream of commerce, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer severe injuries
`
`and/or died and have endured physical pain and discomfort, as well as economic hardship,
`
`including considerable financial expenses for medical care and treatment.
`
`COUNT III
`NEGLIGENCE
`
`Defendant, directly or indirectly, caused Roundup® products to be sold to,
`
`75.
`
`distributed to, promoted, and/or used by Plaintiff.
`
`76.
`
`At all times relevant to this litigation, Defendant had a duty to exercise reasonable
`
`care in the advertisement, supply, promotion, sale, and distribution of Roundup® products,
`
`including the duty to take all reasonable steps necessary to promote, and/or sell a product that was
`
`not unreasonably dangerous to consumers and users of the product.
`
`77.
`
`Defendant’s duty of care owed to consumers and the general public included
`
`providing accurate, true, and correct information concerning the risks of using Roundup® and
`
`
`
`16
`
`Copy from re:SearchTX
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00124 Document 1-2 Filed on 06/06/22 in TXSD Page 18 of 51
`
`appropriate, complete, and accurate warnings concerning the potential adverse effects of exposure
`
`to Roundup®, and, in particular, its active ingredient glyphosate.
`
`78.
`
`At all times relevant to this litigation, Defendant knew or, in the exercise of
`
`reasonable care, should have known of the hazards and dangers of Roundup® and specifically, the
`
`carcinogenic properties of the chemical glyphosate.
`
`79.
`
`Accordingly, at all times relevant to this litigation, Defendant knew or, in the
`
`exercise of reasonable care, should have known that use of or exposure to Roundup® products
`
`could cause or be associated with Plaintiff’s injuries and thus created a dangerous and
`
`unreasonable risk of injury and/or death to the users of these products, including Plaintiff.
`
`80.
`
`Further, Defendant knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known
`
`that users and consumers of Roundup® were unaware of the risks and the magnitude of the risks
`
`associated with use of and/or exposure to Roundup® and glyphosate-containing products.
`
`81.
`
`As such, Defendant breached the duty of reasonable care and failed to exercise
`
`ordinary care in the supply, promotion, advertisement, sale, and distribution of Roundup®
`
`products, in that Defendant promoted, and/or sold defective herbicides containing the chemical
`
`glyphosate, knew or had reason to know of the defects inherent in these products, knew or had
`
`reaso