Johnson & Johnson Hit With $37.3M Talc Verdict in New Jersey
The verdict, in a trial of four people alleging Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products caused mesothelioma, comes after the judge struck the defense's entire closing argument.
September 11, 2019 at 01:30 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New Jersey Law Journal
A New Jersey jury awarded a $37.3 million verdict in a high-stakes talcum powder trial in which a judge struck the entire closing argument of Johnson & Johnson's lawyer.
In a rare consolidated trial, four people alleged that Johnson & Johnson's baby powder, which contained asbestos, caused them to get mesothelioma. The jury's award is all compensatory damages, with a punitive damages phase to follow.
"This jury clearly thoughtfully considered the evidence as evidenced by their allocations of damages based on the differing situations for each plaintiff, and they clearly had no trouble seeing the truth by the end: that there was and is asbestos in Johnson's talc powder products," said the plaintiffs' attorney, Chris Panatier of Dallas-based Simon Greenstone Panatier.
Johnson & Johnson filed a motion for mistrial Monday based on Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Ana Viscomi's decision to strike the entire closing argument of its lawyer, Diane Sullivan of Weil, Gotshal & Manges. Johnson & Johnson's motion also said the plaintiffs' closing argument prejudiced the jury, because it was "soaked with venom," such as calling its executives and Sullivan "liars, predators, manipulators, poisoners, ludicrous, baby-killers, and much, much more."
In a statement Wednesday, Johnson & Johnson said it would "be looking at our appellate options as it relates to the next phase of the trial."
"This trial suffered egregious legal and evidentiary errors, including the inability to present key information to the jury and the striking of our entire closing argument, that required us to move for mistrial on nearly a dozen separate occasions," the company said in a statement. "Johnson's baby powder does not contain asbestos nor does it cause cancer, as multiple juries have found in recent months, and as confirmed by more than 40 years of independent scientific evaluations. Importantly, all of the verdicts against Johnson & Johnson that have been through the appeals process have been overturned."
Six jurors, who began deliberations Sept. 6, awarded $7.25 million to Douglas Barden and his wife, Roslyn Barden; $9.45 million to David Etheridge and his wife, Darlene Etheridge; $14.7 million to D'Angella McNeill; and $5.9 million to William Ronning and his wife, Elizabeth Ronning.
The jury voted unanimously that Johnson & Johnson exposed each plaintiff to asbestos and failed to warn about the dangers of its talcum powder products, which it defectively designed and manufactured. The jurors voted 5-1 on whether those actions caused the individual plaintiffs to get mesothelioma.
Sullivan has represented Johnson & Johnson before, winning a defense verdict last year in a similar trial in the same New Jersey court.
Panatier tried the case alongside Moshe Maimon of Levy Konigsberg in New York, and Chris Placitella of Cohen Placitella & Roth in Red Bank, New Jersey.
Last year, Panatier won a $25.75 million mesothelioma verdict against Johnson & Johnson in Los Angeles Superior Court.
In Middlesex County Superior Court, Maimon won a $117 million verdict, which included $80 million in punitive damages, in a mesothelioma trial last year involving a single plaintiff against Johnson & Johnson and talc supplier Imerys Talc America Inc., which has since filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. He also was on the team that won a $29 million compensatory verdict in a mesothelioma trial in Alameda County Superior Court earlier this year, as well as a $12 million verdict in the same California courtroom three months ago against Johnson & Johnson and Colgate-Palmolive.
Placitella is liaison counsel for the plaintiffs in multidistrict litigation in New Jersey's federal court alleging Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products caused thousands of women to get ovarian cancer.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'We're Back': Fourth Circuit Considers Certification of Marriott Data Breach Class ... Again
5 minute readSettlement With Kleinbard in Diversity Contracting Tiff Allows Pa. Lawyer to Avoid Sanctions
3 minute readState Appellate Court Orders New Trial After Judge Denies Rescheduling, Despite Counsel's Health Emergency
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250