Johnson & Johnson to pay $4.69 billion b/c talcum causes cancer

[tynopik]

https://www.sfgate.com/technology/b...-is-sliding-after-a-jury-awarded-13072449.php

Johnson & Johnson is sliding after a jury awarded $4.69 billion to 22 women who said its talcum baby powder gave them cancer

Shares of Johnson & Johnson were sliding Friday morning, down 2.68%, the day after a St. Louis jury awarded $4.69 billion to the 22 women who said its talcum baby powder gave them ovarian cancer.

The jury's award was the [bsixth-largest product-defect award in US history[/b], consisting of $550 million in compensatory damages and $4.14 billion in punitive damages.

Johnson & Johnson plans to appeal the decision.

A Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman, Carol Goodrich, told Bloomberg the verdict was "the product of a fundamentally unfair process that allowed plaintiffs to present a group of 22 women, most of whom had no connection to Missouri, in a single case all alleging that they developed ovarian cancer."

sound bizarre, but

Johnson & Johnson must pay $4.14 billion in punitive damages to women who claimed asbestos in the company’s talc products caused them to develop ovarian cancer

 

[tynopik]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jury-s...b-in-talcum-powder-suit-asbestos-baby-powder/

"Johnson & Johnson remains confident that its products do not contain asbestos and do not cause ovarian cancer and intends to pursue all available appellate remedies," spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said.

Mark Lanier, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said in a statement that Johnson & Johnson had covered up evidence of asbestos in their products for more than 40 years.

. . .

Medical experts testified during the trial that asbestos, a known carcinogen, is intermingled with mineral talc, which is the primary ingredient in Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products. The plaintiffs' lawyers said asbestos fibers and talc particles were found in the ovarian tissues of many of the women.

 

[SKORPI0]

So 189 million to each of the 22 women. How did they prove that the talc caused this?

 

[shortylickens]

So 189 million to each of the 22 women. How did they prove that the talc caused this?

Its California. You dont need much proof to stick a corporation for 4.69 billion dollars.

 

[tynopik]

Its California

Missouri actually

 

[shortylickens]

Well then in that case it makes no god damn sense.

 

[Jon-T]

What makes less sense is that they claim it was the asbestos.

Asbestos is a mineral, it's a rock. If small particles get into the lung it can cause cancer. They are claiming that it causes cancer in the ovaries.

How.

A sad looking sick plaintiff sitting on the stand. A mother of 3. Let's see her kids cry! This beats scientific research any day of the week.

 

[Sonikku]

I'm going to sue the world's trees because of air. Breathing air is correlated with developing cancer.

Proof: Everyone in history who ever developed cancer breathed air.

 

[Scarpozzi]

I'm glad you all seem to have sense. When I saw this in the news, I instantly thought the judge was an idiot.

What they said was that J&J is ready for the appeals process. The issue here is that the asbestos claims are unfounded without samples of the product. It's been stated that pre 1970's talc may have had asbestos in it....but it was cleaned up after that. That means, the chances of exposure in the past 35 years is almost impossible. You could make the argument that the cancer would be just as likely to have been mutated from hpv or another transmitted disease that's known to spread. (I'm not in any way trying to attack the victims here, just stating that dusting your hoohaa with powder doesn't necessarily give your C the C)

 

[shortylickens]

What makes less sense is that they claim it was the asbestos.

Asbestos is a mineral, it's a rock. If small particles get into the lung it can cause cancer. They are claiming that it causes cancer in the ovaries.

How.

A sad looking sick plaintiff sitting on the stand. A mother of 3. Let's see her kids cry! This beats scientific research any day of the week.

Where do you think a lady might put talcum powder..........

 

[Rifter]

I'm going to sue the world's trees because of air. Breathing air is correlated with developing cancer.

Proof: Everyone in history who ever developed cancer breathed air.

Yeah thats about what it seems like eh

 

[Darwin333]

So 189 million to each of the 22 women. How did they prove that the talc caused this?

Not sure how you did your math but it will be more like 110ish million to each woman after the lawyers take their half, assuming they win their appeals.

 

[darkswordsman17]

The reason why they are willing to slap on punitive stuff is that often times these companies know it causes such harm but will try and cover it up. If I'm not mistaken, scientists at the company told management about this back in the 70s I think? And Johnson and Johnson then started actively trying to muddle the science (and started lobbying against regulations and oversight of carcinogens). If I remember right, they had evidence of actual conversations between execs at the company discussing it and how to cover it up. I think the asbestos aspect might also come into play, because some of the women are old enough that they might have been using it back when it still contained asbestos. The science is pretty muddy though (I took issue when people on Ars acted like the science was ironclad claiming it doesn't cause cancer when the science all around was pretty lacking; that's not to say it might not end up ironclad showing it doesn't cause cancer, just that the people acting like this is some huge affront to science don't actually seem to know where the science is).

The thing is, this is the only way you can send companies a message. Well unless you're actually willing to put them in jail, but America sure as shit can't do that for whatever fucked up bullshit reason. So they ratchet the hell out of damages (which often end up getting massively reduced if not outright thrown out).

I wonder how long before we see similar cases over testicular cancer, but then, maybe its because they don't have the balls?

 

[KeithP]

Other cases have been overturned, I bet this one will be overturned as well.

-KeithP