Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday August 23 2017, @03:27AM   Printer-friendly
from the chalk-up-another-win dept.

Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to pay $70 million in compensatory damages and $347 million in punitive damages to a woman who claimed to have developed ovarian cancer as a result of using J&J powder products. Baby/talcum powder contains talc, a clay mineral:

Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to pay $417m (£323.4m) to a woman who says she developed ovarian cancer after using products such as baby powder. The California jury's decision marks the largest award yet in a string of lawsuits that claim the firm did not adequately warn about cancer risks from talc-based products.

A spokeswoman for Johnson & Johnson defended the products' safety. The firm plans to appeal, as it has in previous cases. "We will appeal today's verdict because we are guided by the science," Carol Goodrich, spokesperson for Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc, said in a statement.

The evidence around any link between talc use and cancer is inconclusive. Johnson & Johnson, headquartered in New Jersey, faces thousands of claims from women who say they developed cancer due to using the firm's products to address concerns about vaginal odour and moisture. Johnson & Johnson has lost four of five previous cases tried before juries in Missouri, which have led to more than $300m in penalties.

Also at NYT and CNN.

Previously: The Baby Powder Trials: How Courts Deal with Inconclusive Science


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @01:06PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @01:06PM (#557965)

    >> This is where a legal system must be cold-blooded: what is a human life worth?
    > Nothing.

    Pray tell, what country (or region) do you live in where life is worthless? Somewhere in darkest Africa, or perhaps Mom's basement?

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bradley13 on Wednesday August 23 2017, @02:42PM

    by bradley13 (3053) on Wednesday August 23 2017, @02:42PM (#558019) Homepage Journal

    You mean, you find a $400 million award somehow reasonable? If so, we live on different planets and speak impossibly different languages.

    There is just no way that amount makes sense. Even the $70 million before punitive damages makes no sense. Awards like that are more like lottery winnings than any sort of sensible compensation.

    Government (here, the justice system) is responsible for an entire population. However much a single individual may be valued by their friends and family, the government must consider the big picture. As an example, consider single-payer health care systems like the UK: There are speculative treatments that can cost $millions. Those treatments are generally not on offer. If you want such a treatment, you have to come up with the money privately. What is it worth to extend an average person's life by X years? What does the treatment cost? That's a necessary calculation, because money doesn't grow on trees.

    It's no different in a case like this. If the verdict is correct, the court has awarded too much money to a single victim, when there are tens of thousands of other women in precisely the same situation (ovarian cancer is quite common, and so is talc use). If the verdict is wrong, then the court has awarded a windfall, effectively stealing the money from the shareholders. In either case, the award is disproportionate and unjust.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.