|
 The $417 million award by California jury to a California resident
suggested so-called forum-shopping, in which parties seek to file
cases in whichever jurisdictions seem most favorable, may not be the
main problem facing J&J as it wrestles with some 4,800 outstanding
talc lawsuits.
J&J, which denies any link between talc and cancer, said in a
statement it would appeal Monday's verdict but declined further
comment.
That verdict was more than the sum of all the previous talc awards,
which totaled $307 million and were meted out by juries in the same
state court in St. Louis, Missouri, in cases filed by out-of-state
residents. A fourth of talc lawsuits nationally were brought in St.
Louis after the first large verdicts there.
J&J has cast the St. Louis court as overly plaintiff-friendly and
has focused on getting the cases brought by out-of-state plaintiffs
dismissed.
"This has very much been about forum shopping," Howard Erichson, a
professor at Fordham School of Law, said about the talc trials. "The
fact that there has been a big verdict in California is definitely
interesting."
Monday's verdict in Los Angeles Superior Court came in a case
involving a 63-year-old woman who claimed she developed ovarian
cancer from using Johnson's Baby Powder for feminine hygiene since
childhood.
Corporations have long fought against plaintiffs filing lawsuits in
courts favorable to them, and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June
delivered them a big victory, holding that state courts cannot hear
claims against companies not based in the state when the alleged
injury did not occur there.
J&J appeared to be an immediate beneficiary of that ruling, which a
St. Louis judge cited in declaring a mistrial in a talc case
involving two out-of-state women.
The company also said it believed the Supreme Court decision
required the reversal of the four St. Louis verdicts.
But legal experts said the verdict in the California case, in which
venue was not an issue, could shift the focus back to the evidence.
J&J shares did not react to the verdict. The company has so far not
announced a litigation reserve for talc cases and analysts have said
they would not be concerned until that happened.
[to top of second column] |
The first talc award against J&J was handed down in St. Louis state
court in February 2016, with the jury ordering J&J to pay $72
million.
The company prevailed in only one of the four talc trials that
followed in the same court, with the other verdicts ranging from $55
million to $110 million.
The company has decried the St. Louis court for allowing plaintiffs
to present expert testimony linking talc products with cancer that
the company contends is speculative and scientifically unsound. It
has appeals pending on those grounds.
J&J has contrasted the Missouri court's stance to a New Jersey state
court ruling in September 2016 that disqualified plaintiffs'
experts, leading to the dismissal of two talc cases. The plaintiffs'
appeal of that ruling is pending.
The Los Angeles judge allowed the testimony of some of the same
plaintiffs' experts as in St. Louis.
The California jury seemed to react similarly to the evidence, said
Diane Lifton, a defense lawyer not involved in the talc case.
"Something clearly inflamed the jury again," she said.
Nathan Schachtman, a product liability defense lawyer, said the
California verdict showed that, venue issues aside, the evidence
against J&J was compelling.
"I think it's a tough case for the defense," he said.
(Reporting by Tina Bellon; Editing by Anthony Lin and Meredith
Mazzilli)
[© 2017 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2017 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
