A California judge has thrown out a $417 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson. The plaintiff claimed that she developed ovarian cancer after using J&J's talc-based products:
The ruling by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maren Nelson marked the latest setback facing women and family members who accuse J&J of not adequately warning consumers about the cancer risks of its talc-based products. The decision followed a jury's decision in August to hit J&J with the largest verdict to date in the litigation, awarding California resident Eva Echeverria $70 million in compensatory damages and $347 million in punitive damages.
Nelson on Friday reversed the jury verdict and granted J&J's request for a new trial. Nelson said the August trial was underpinned by errors and insufficient evidence on both sides, culminating in excessive damages.
Mark Robinson, who represented the woman in her lawsuit, in a statement said he would file an appeal immediately. "We will continue to fight on behalf of all women who have been impacted by this dangerous product," he said.
Previously: The Baby Powder Trials: How Courts Deal with Inconclusive Science
Johnson & Johnson Ordered to Pay $417m in Latest Talc Cancer Case
(Score: 5, Insightful) by theluggage on Sunday October 22 2017, @06:25PM
However, the idea of paying a single victim enough money to build an entire hospital or two*, based on such weak evidence, suggests that someone involved needs to have their head examined and that any semblance of justice has long since left the building.
Its one thing compensating victims for their realistic losses, but handing out hundreds of millions just creates an incentive for (a) industry cover-ups (b) opportunistic lawsuits and (c) appeals that drag on until both victim and hypothetical villains are long gone.
(* OK, dramatic license - cost of hospitals may vary and I'm sure that figure will look a lot smaller once the lawyers have been paid for 10 years of appeals)