Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday October 22 2017, @02:21PM   Printer-friendly
from the totally-unexpected dept.

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


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This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Informative) by requerdanos on Sunday October 22 2017, @10:33PM

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 22 2017, @10:33PM (#586079) Journal

    Finally, an unequivocal conclusion from a study in 1954 that smoking leads to increased risk of lung cancer.

    May I point out that Johnson's brand baby powder was brought to market in the 1890's[1], and the use of talcum as a powder dates further back[2], into pre-history.

    All the lawsuits around talcum powder--filed not against prehistoric mother nature, but against a particularly large supplier--seem to come after the year two thousand and something[3].

    Setting tobacco on fire and sucking on it turned out to cause cancer, which heavily suppressed science nonetheless discovered, and demonstrated conclusively, six decades ago.

    Talcum powder, arguably in use for at least as long or longer, has no such history; not a peep about it until 20 years ago, and then, only as a plot device to sue someone...

    [1][2][3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc [wikipedia.org]

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4