Split jury illustrates the challenge of weighing causation against failure to warn.
A California judge declared a mistrial on September 24 when a jury deadlocked in a Johnson & Johnson talc-cancer case. The jury split eight to four in favor of plaintiff Carolyn Weirick who claimed asbestos contaminated talcum powder caused her to develop mesothelioma, a lung-disease closely associated with inhaling asbestos fibers. Nine votes were needed to reach a verdict.
Johnson & Johnson claims that “decades of independent, scientific testing” confirm their products such as Baby Powder and Shower to Shower do not contain asbestos. Lawyers for plaintiffs point to two internal J&J memos from 1974 that acknowledge asbestos contamination and identify the need to develop new methods purge talc of stray asbestos.
According to Fairwarning.org, a juror who voted for the plaintiff, told reporters that he felt J&J should have provided warnings because “people have a right to know.” A juror who sided with the defense said she wasn’t convinced that Weirick’s cancer was linked the use of contaminated powder.
So far, Johnson & Johnson has lost more talc-cancer cases than it has won, and when juries side with plaintiffs, they have tended to give large awards. A St. Louis jury awarded $4.69 billion to 22 women and their families, in July of 2018. George Washington law professor John Banzhaf III told Clear View Post that while technical scientific and statistical evidence about cancer might be hard to understand, jurors are conversant with themes of corporate cover-ups and deceitfulness.
Read “Mistrial Declared in High-Stakes Johnson & Johnson Talc-Cancer Case” at FairWarning.org.
Read “‘Failure to Warn’ Leads to Big Verdicts Despite Inconclusive Science” at ClearViewPost.com.