SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
Previously: The Baby Powder Trials: How Courts Deal with Inconclusive Science
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Wednesday August 23 2017, @09:39PM
When I see things like this:
"Then we see the amount of the award: $400 million to a single person. There ought to be some objective basis for an award. Feeling sorry for a charismatic defendant is not justice."
I instantly know the speaker knows nothing of the court system, and only wants tort reform because their masters tell them to want it.
"Punitive Damages". This is the part that tort reform parrots do not grasp. The money was not awarded to the woman because the jury felt sorry for her, it was TAKEN FROM the defendant because they did evil shit to protect their profits. It is punishment, not reward. They give it to the plaintiff because the money needs to go somewhere, and as we have seen with property seizure if it is awarded to the State, then that promotes MORE punitive damages to get more money for the State with nothing to check the process.
Yes, everyone wants a big win like this one, but the state is there to check each one and ensure the frivolous shit does not propagate. And it does a damn good job of that. Every "frivolous" award you think was ridiculous will show it was very appropriate when you read the case info and findings.
The ones who want tort reform are the companies tired of being fined out the wazoo for doing evil shit. rather than stop being evil, they want to reduce or eliminate the fines.