Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Johnson & Johnson Loses New Jersey Talc Cancer Case

posted by mrpg on Sunday April 08 2018, @04:28PM   Printer-friendly
from the H2Mg3(SiO3)4-or-Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 dept.

takyon writes:

Johnson & Johnson's baby powder has been linked to mesothelioma for the first time in court, with the plaintiffs being awarded at least $37 million (70% to be paid by J&J, and 30% by Imerys SA):

A New Jersey man who sued Johnson & Johnson and other companies after getting cancer he says was caused by asbestos in baby powder has been awarded $30 million by a jury.

A jury of seven women sitting in New Brunswick also decided Thursday that Kendra Lanzo, the wife of Stephen Lanzo III, must be paid an additional $7 million as a result of the mesothelioma contracted by her husband. The jury will decide next week whether to also award punitive damages to the Lanzos.

[...] Johnson & Johnson is responsible for 70 percent of the damages, while France-based Imerys SA must pick up the rest of the tab. Imerys supplied the talc used to manufacture the baby powder.

Also at CNN and USA Today.

Previously: The Baby Powder Trials: How Courts Deal with Inconclusive Science
Johnson & Johnson Ordered to Pay $417m in Latest Talc Cancer Case
$417 Million Talc Cancer Verdict Against Johnson & Johnson Tossed Out

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Johnson & Johnson Loses New Jersey Talc Cancer Case | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 28 comments | Search Discussion
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: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @07:17PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @07:17PM (#664034)

    Eh, I personally really like precedents set that force corporate responsibility. Too many businesses hide their bad practices then throw lots of money at lawyers to get rid of lawsuits.

    You more conservative types tend to be all about personal responsibility EXCEPT for any profit motivated business. Then it is just their obligation to the shareholders and morality goes poof in a cloud of guilt.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Touché=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   5  

  • (Score: 1, Redundant) by khallow on Monday April 09 2018, @03:20AM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 09 2018, @03:20AM (#664168) Journal

    Eh, I personally really like precedents set that force corporate responsibility. Too many businesses hide their bad practices then throw lots of money at lawyers to get rid of lawsuits.

    So what do these court cases have to do with that? There's no demonstration of harm from a corporate actor, which would be the key factor in corporate responsibility.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @03:48PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @03:48PM (#664502)

      Are you serious? You really must be pretty far on some spectrum disorder as you consistently show strange and deficient reading comprehension.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 09 2018, @04:10PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 09 2018, @04:10PM (#664519) Journal
        It's not reading comprehension that is the problem, it's the lack of evidence. Just because a story sounds cool, doesn't mean it is true, bro.