Latest J&J talc mesothelioma trial ends in mistrial

30 May 2018 by under Legal

talc justice 100x100 Latest J&J talc mesothelioma trial ends in mistrialA South Carolina jury deliberated for six hours, and sent numerous notes to the judge before returning without a verdict in the latest trial alleging Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder was contaminated with and caused a 30-year-old attorney’s fatal mesothelioma.

“Your honor, we have respectfully decided that we are going to all agree to disagree, that we can sit there and round robin a hundred times, we have all decided there is just no way we can come to a unanimous verdict,” the foreperson of the jury told the court. Darlington County Circuit Court Judge Jean Toal declared a mistrial.

The jury was considering the case of Antoine Bostic, whose deceased wife and law partner Bertila Boyd-Bostic died after being diagnosed with pericardial mesothelioma. is a type of cancer that affects the lining of the organs, such as the lungs, abdomen and heart. It is caused by asbestos exposure.

During closing arguments, attorneys for Bostic told the jury that the plaintiff’s expet witness testified that he had tested three different bottles of Johnson’s Baby Powder and found asbestos in each sample. The findings were consistent with tests conducted decades ago by a former Johnson & Johnson consultant.

Attorneys for Johnson & Johnson in their closing arguments told the jury that Boyd-Bostic had an extremely rare type of mesothelioma, called pericardial mesothelioma, which affects the lining of the heart, and that asbestos was typically associated with pleural mesothelioma, which affects the lining of the lungs.

The mistrial comes a day after a California state jury awarded $25.7 million in compensatory and punitive damages to a woman who claimed that regular use of Johnson’s Baby Powder caused her mesothelioma, and just more than a month after a New Jersey state jury awarded $117 million in damages to a man who made similar claims. Johnson & Johnson’s was named as a defendant in both cases.

Source: Law360

Comments are closed.