- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
New York State Judge Orders J&J to Pay $120 Million in Baby Powder Case
New York State Judge Orders J&J to Pay $120 Million in Baby Powder Case A New York State Judge has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $120 million in damages to a woman and her husband from Brooklyn after the woman alleged that she got cancer due to exposure to asbestos from using J&J baby powder. After a 14-week trial, the $325 million that a jury had awarded the woman Donna...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
New York State Judge Orders J&J to Pay $120 Million in Baby Powder Case
A New York State Judge has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $120 million in damages to a woman and her husband from Brooklyn after the woman alleged that she got cancer due to exposure to asbestos from using J&J baby powder.
After a 14-week trial, the $325 million that a jury had awarded the woman Donna Olson (67) and her husband Robert Olson (65) was reduced by Justice Gerald Lebovits of the state supreme court in Manhattan.
Justice Lebovits upheld the jury's finding but ruled on November 11 that the damages were too high and that the Olsons could either accept the reduced payout or have a new trial. The reduced payout includes $105 million of punitive damages and $15 million of compensatory damages, down from the original $300 million and $25 million, respectively.
While J&J did not respond immediately, the Olsons' lawyer said that they were satisfied with the verdict. He reportedly added that Donna Olson's mesothelioma was at an advanced stage and that they were hoping for the best. As per Donna Olson's testimony, she had been using Johnson's Baby Powder or Shower to Shower Daily for over 50 years.
According to Justice Lebovits, J&J had for years been knowingly deceitful about or wilfully blind to the potential health risks of its talc products in order to maintain market share and profit.
After a 2018 Reuters report stating J&J knew for years about the presence of asbestos in its talc products, the New Jersey-based pharma major has been facing intense scrutiny.