Skip to content

News & Knowledge

Pittsburgh Jury’s Attempt to Award $22 Million in Johnson & Johnson Talc Case Highlights Trial Complexities

Knowledge

Pittsburgh Jury’s Attempt to Award $22 Million in Johnson & Johnson Talc Case Highlights Trial Complexities

Key Takeaways

  • The jury found Johnson & Johnson negligent in misrepresenting the safety of its products but determined these actions did not cause plaintiff’s mesothelioma. Despite this finding, the jury proceeded to award punitive damages, contrary to the verdict sheet’s instructions.

  • The jury’s actions provide implications to corporate defendants, illustrating the heightened challenges defendants may face in mass tort trials, particularly the possible emotional response of jurors when negligence is established while causation is disputed.

  • The jury’s actions demonstrate skepticism of corporations by feeling a need to punish Johnson & Johnson despite finding no specific liability in the company’s actions related specifically to the plaintiff.

On Jan. 6, a Pittsburgh jury concluded a month-and-a-half long trial involving a suit asserting that decedent Michaeleen Lee developed mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos-containing talcum powder products made by Johnson & Johnson. The jury found that Johnson & Johnson was negligent in misrepresenting the safety of its talcum powder products. However, the jury went on to find that Lee’s reliance on Johnson & Johnson’s negligent misrepresentation of the safety of talc products was not a factual cause of her cancer. The jury seemingly understood the consequences of its determination because it did not assign a percentage of fault against Johnson & Johnson or award any compensatory damages to the plaintiffs. Nevertheless, the jury continued to mistakenly attempt to award $22 million in punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson. This anomaly underscores key issues for defendants in managing the complexities of mass tort litigation and the difficulties juries may face in understanding those complexities and following verdict instructions.

SKEPTICISM OF CORPORATIONS

This case, Felton v. Johnson & Johnson, highlights the intricacies of mass tort litigation.  Despite a favorable outcome for Johnson & Johnson on causation, the jury’s decision to attempt punitive damages suggests a lingering skepticism regarding corporate conduct overall. It emphasizes the importance of clear jury instructions and diligent trial management to avoid inconsistent or contradictory verdict outcomes.

For businesses, the case illustrates the reputational risks and financial stakes of mass tort claims, even in defense victories. It also serves as a reminder to ensure powerful trial strategies, including expert testimony preparation and anticipatory planning for post-trial challenges.

TRIAL STRATEGIES

Clients should be careful to anticipate unusual jury dynamics due to confusion or misunderstandings of jury instructions. Even when liability is contested successfully, negative findings on negligence or misrepresentation can sway jury perceptions and lead to procedural issues that affect the efficiency of the court findings. It is also helpful to evaluate risk management protocols – ongoing litigation trends in mass tort cases demand proactive measures to address potential liabilities and safeguard corporate reputation. Lastly, it is important to have a post-trial strategy in place. Defendants should be ready to address unexpected developments, such as jury missteps, through appeals or motions for clarification.

If you have questions about how this impacts your business, please contact: