Posted on 08/23/2017 4:51:00 AM PDT by simpson96
A Los Angeles jury awarded a woman a $417 million verdict yesterday. The jury found that Johnson & Johnson failed to adequately warn users of the cancer risks of the talc in its baby powder.
The jury's 9-3 vote to hold J&J liable for not warning Eva Echeverria about cancer risks is a huge blow to the company, which is facing thousands of such claims across the country. The verdict consists of $70 million in compensatory damages and $347 million in punitive damages, according to Reuters.
No clear link connects talcum powder to ovarian cancer. Some case-control studies, based on asking women who have ovarian cancer about their history, have found a slightly increased risk. But as the American Cancer Society notes, those kinds of studies can be biased because they rely on a person's memory of talc use years after the fact.
Two prospective cohort studies, which don't suffer from that type of hindsight bias, found no increased risk.(snip)
The Echeverria case was the first California talc case to go to trial, and the jury's massive figure will set a new standard for the many talc cases to come. Hundreds more are in earlier stages of litigation in California alone.
(Excerpt) Read more at arstechnica.com ...
I’m always surprised people use talcum powder on their babies... why take the risk?
It’s an old rumor... who knows?
That is the end for J&J.
Ridiculous verdict. It’ll probably be tossed.
J&J will of course appeal, and in a couple of years we’ll know how it really turned out...
And meanwhile, the costs for everyday products will rise, basically to line lawyers’ pockets.
They might as well have a direct spigot to the consumers’ wallets.
It will be at least 5 years before there is a final ruling, and this case will be tossed out on appeal.
I was advised to use corn starch, asked that worked fine.
No clear link connects talcum powder to ovarian cancer. Some case-control studies, based on asking women who have ovarian cancer about their history, have found a slightly increased risk. But as the American Cancer Society notes, those kinds of studies can be biased because they rely on a person’s memory of talc use years after the fact.
Two prospective cohort studies, which don’t suffer from that type of hindsight bias, found no increased risk.(snip)
OK how in the hell can they rule it gave her cancer IF the above is correct???
More likely that some other variable correlates both with use of talcum powder and the development of ovarian cancer. But scary that the lawyers convinced 9 jurors that talcum powder was directly responsible.
Go ahead and flame me for this - nobody is worth $417M. Ya, ya, ya - life is precious and priceless. Bull crap. A person is worth what effort they put forth into society. If you’re a slug that CHOSE to not get an education or a trade, sitting around complaining how society owes you a life, no they don’t. Just because your heart is pumping and you’re breathing does not mean you have value. Potential value, yes. If you get off your butt and become worthy. /soapbox
La La land.
The $347 mil was for punitive damages. To send a message. It wasn’t a reflection of value, per se.
This is nuts.
I read somewhere that The United States has over half of the worlds lawyers.
The verdict from a “Common Core” jury?!?
Tort reform would help.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.