Court: Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana
As previously reported HERE in the Asbestos Case Tracker, a Louisiana jury on May 7 returned a plaintiff’s verdict against talc manufacturer Johnson & Johnson and talc supplier Pecos River Talc LLC.
During trial, plaintiffs argued that J&J’s baby powder product contained talc supplied by Pecos River, that the talc was contaminated with asbestos, and that decedent Jeannie Henderson’s exposure to the product was a substantial factor in causing her mesothelioma.
Defendants raised several arguments in response, including, (1) a contest of causation as decedent worked 30 years in an office building purportedly plagued by asbestos (Johns Manville) and (2), that decedent also had exposure to other beauty products (including Avon). Thus, according to defendants, the jury could apportion fault to non-parties Johns Manville and Avon and, moreover, that whatever the baby powder exposure, it was not a substantial factor in causing decedent’s mesothelioma. Defendants further raised a “state of the art” defense, arguing that at the time its baby powder products left J&J, and in light of then-existing reasonably available scientific evidence, the company could not have known of any potential dangers associated with its product.
Ultimately, the jury returned a mixed verdict. The jury found that decedent had “sufficient exposure” to J&Js products, which was a substantial factor in causing her mesothelioma. The jury further found in favor of plaintiffs as to their negligence claim, strict liability claims, and failure to warn claim.
The jury rejected plaintiff’s defective design claim. It also unanimously agreed with J&J’s state-of-the-art defense, however, per the jury instructions, regardless of the finding, the jury would still reach damages if the plaintiffs prevailed on any of the considered charges.
As to comparative fault, the jury assessed 45-percent fault to J&J and 2-percent fault to Pecos River, and as to the non-parties, 45-percent fault to Johns Manville and 8-percent to Avon. As previously detailed, the combined total verdict ultimately amounted to $3,005,206.09.
To date, no final judgement has been entered as the parties are still negotiating the verdict.
Plaintiffs have suggested a verdict of $2,825,206 (the full sum of survival damages) assessed equally to J&J and Pecos River because, per plaintiffs, (1) Decedent’s exposure preceded Louisiana comparative fault law and (2) there was not a settlement against any of the other defendants.
Defendants, on the other hand, argue that Louisiana’s comparative fault law was enacted 40 years before plaintiffs filed suit and thus, applies. Defendants further argue that the verdict should be consistent with Louisiana’s comparative fault law principles and, therefore, should be assessed at $1,352,342 as to J&J and $60,104 as to Pecos River.
This issue is still pending with the court.
Goldberg’s Segalla’s Asbestos Case Tracker will continue to monitor this case for any updates as to final judgment, along with any potential appeals.
Read the full case decision here.
