Question

1) Read the Johnson & Johnson article and answer the following:

a) was the outcome of this case fair?

b) The Jury awarded a significant amount of punitive damages in this case. Should tort reform laws apply here? If so, why? If not, why?

Johnson & Johnson was ordered Thursday to pay $4.69 billion to 22 women and their families who had claimed that asbestos in the company’s talcum powder products caused them to develop ovarian cancer. A jury in a Missouri circuit court awarded $4.14 billion in punitive damages and $550 million in compensatory damages to the women, who had accused the company of failing to warn them about cancer risks associated with its baby and body powders. Johnson & Johnson, the maker of Johnson’s Baby Powder, said it was “deeply disappointed” in the verdict and planned to appeal. The company is facing more than 9,000 plaintiffs in cases involving body powders with talc, according to a regulatory document filed this spring. After a six‑week trial, the jury in St. Louis deliberated over the compensatory damages for eight hours but decided on the punitive damages in roughly 45 minutes, said Mark Lanier, a lawyer for the women. Six of the women have died; almost all of the rest, along with friends and relatives, were in the courtroom on Thursday. One of the plaintiffs is undergoing chemotherapy and was too ill to attend, Mr. Lanier said. “There were people crying, people hugging,” he added. “It’s been quite an emotional scene.” Mr. Lanier said Johnson & Johnson had spent 40 years covering up evidence of asbestos in some of its talcum‑based products and should mark those products with warning labels or focus on powders made with cornstarch. Subscribe to The Times You have 4 free articles remaining. The punitive damages are among the largest ever awarded in a product liability case, he said. Shares of Johnson & Johnson fell 1.4 percent in early trading Friday. 8/10/2018 Johnson & Johnson Told to Pay $4.7 Billion in Baby Powder Lawsuit

Johnson & Johnson called the verdict “the product of a fundamentally unfair process” that combined 22 women with few connections to Missouri into a single group of plaintiffs in St. Louis. The company “remains confident that its products do not contain asbestos and do not cause ovarian cancer and intends to pursue all available appellate remedies,” it said in a statement. The company has said concerns about talc’s being linked to cancer are based on inconclusive research. Asbestos is a carcinogen that sometimes appears in natural talc but was stripped from commercial talc products in the 1970s, according to the American Cancer Society. And according to the National Cancer Institute, claims that talc used for feminine hygiene purposes can be absorbed by the reproductive system and cause inflammation in the ovaries are not supported by “the weight of evidence.” Plaintiffs in talc cases have approached litigation in smaller groups instead of suing Johnson & Johnson en masse. The risky strategy allows earlier plaintiffs to send signals about legal tactics and their award amounts to women who bring cases later. Suing in clusters also maximizes the emotional effect of the women’s stories on juries, Mr. Lanier said. “It’s easier to get justice in small groups,” he said. “In small groups, people have names, but in large groups, they’re numbers.” The first talc trial was in 2013 in Federal District Court in South Dakota. A jury found Johnson & Johnson negligent but did not award damages to the plaintiff. Several other cases have involved sizable damages, including a $417 million verdict reached by jurors in Los Angeles County Superior Court last year. The plaintiff in the Los Angeles case has since died, and the verdict was overturned and a new trial granted. Johnson & Johnson, which has successfully appealed a number of talc cases, said in its statement on Thursday that “the multiple errors present in this trial were worse than those in the prior trials which have been reversed.”

Answer 1

****Please please please LIKE THIS ANSWER, so that I can get a small benefit, Please****

a) was the outcome of this case fair?

I do not believe this is a realistic scenario. I know six people have died and they claimed that asbestos in the company's talcum powder products has caused ovarian cancer to develop. But there is no proof to show that the products of Johnson and Johnson contain asbestos that can cause ovarian cancer and must seek all possible options for appeals. "The arguments, according to the National Cancer Institute, that talc used for feminine hygiene purposes can be ingested by the reproductive system and induce inflammation in the ovaries are not backed by" the weight of evidence.

b) The Jury awarded a significant amount of punitive damages in this case. Should tort reform laws apply here? If so, why? If not, why?

Tort reform applies to legislation enacted on a state-by-state basis that impose limitations or caps on the type or volume of damages that can be paid in cases involving personal injury. In this case the punitive penalties are applicable under tort reform legislation. Yet there's no hard evidence to support the argument. The Johnson and Johnson are continuing their attempts to disprove a causal association between ongoing consumption of talc drug and ovarian cancer. Johnson & Johnson's $4.7 billion case got the sixth most costly verdict on drug flaws in U.S. history. I assume this decision is taken by the jurors based on the emotional feeling that six people have died. But the hard proof isn't adequate.

****Please please please LIKE THIS ANSWER, so that I can get a small benefit, Please****