Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherBrowse by ChannelAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAbout UsContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

St. Louis Jury Returns Another Jaw-Dropping Verdict Against Johnson & Johnson

By Evan M. Tager & Miriam R. Nemetz on November 3, 2016
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Hot, burning tunnel & light. Way to another worldIn recent years, St. Louis has done much to earn a place on the American Tort Reform Association’s list of judicial hell holes.  Not content to rest on its laurels, the St. Louis circuit court grabbed the headlines again last week with a draw-dropping $70 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson ($67.25 million, including $65 million in punitive damages) and Imerys Talc America ($2.75 million, including $2.5 million in punitive damages) in a case alleging that J&J talcum powder caused the plaintiff’s ovarian cancer.

This is the third massive punitive exaction imposed against J&J by a St. Louis jury in the on-going talcum powder litigation—even while courts in New Jersey have thrown out similar cases on the ground that the science does not support them.

We explained in a prior post why the first two punitive awards are unconstitutionally excessive.  What we said in that post applies to the most recent verdict as well.

The nearly 29:1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages is unconstitutional on its face under State Farm.  Indeed, in the 13-plus years since State Farm was decided, there are no cases outside the terrorism context upholding ratios of this magnitude when the compensatory damages are over $1 million.

More importantly, the fact that there are more than 1,000 other plaintiffs raising the same claims means that even a 1:1 ratio would be unconstitutionally excessive, because if each of those plaintiffs were to receive an identical amount of punitive damages—$2.25 million—no one could credibly deny that the aggregate punishment—over $2.25 billion—would be excessive.

That is more—not less—true because J&J may wind up being exonerated in many cases.  Allowing a plaintiff to collect punitive damages in excess of what would be permissible if every other plaintiff were to receive the same amount would deprive the defendant of the benefit of its exonerations in violation of the Due Process Clause.

Being included on ATRA’s hell hole list had the salutary effect of causing courts and/or legislatures in West Virginia, Mississippi, and elsewhere to begin to rein in the abuses that were occurring in the trial courts of those states.  Hopefully, the same will be true of Missouri, and the appellate courts of that state will bring the punitive awards against J&J in the talcum powder litigation back within constitutional bounds—if not throw them out entirely.

Photo of Evan M. Tager Evan M. Tager

Evan Tager is a member of the Supreme Court & Appellate practice in Mayer Brown’s Washington, DC office. Identified by Chambers USA as one of America’s leading appellate lawyers for the past eight years, and profiled by Legal Times as a leading appellate…

Evan Tager is a member of the Supreme Court & Appellate practice in Mayer Brown’s Washington, DC office. Identified by Chambers USA as one of America’s leading appellate lawyers for the past eight years, and profiled by Legal Times as a leading appellate lawyer, Evan has been integrally involved in a range of issues of paramount importance to the business community, including punitive damages, class certification standards, admissibility of expert testimony, and enforceability of arbitration agreements.
Read Evan’s full bio.

Read more about Evan M. TagerEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Miriam R. Nemetz Miriam R. Nemetz

Miriam Nemetz is a member of the Supreme Court and Appellate Practice in Mayer Brown’s Washington, D. C. office. Miriam has briefed dozens of cases in state and federal appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, and has argued before the US Courts…

Miriam Nemetz is a member of the Supreme Court and Appellate Practice in Mayer Brown’s Washington, D. C. office. Miriam has briefed dozens of cases in state and federal appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, and has argued before the US Courts of Appeals for the D.C., Second, Sixth and Seventh Circuits. Miriam handles a wide variety of appeals but has developed specialized expertise in cases involving punitive damages and employment-related claims. Since 2009, Miriam has been selected by her peers every year for inclusion in The Best Lawyers In America in the specialty of Appellate Law. She is a co-author of Mayer Brown’s Federal Appellate Practice treatise, published by BNA Books in December 2008.

Read Miriam’s full bio.

Read more about Miriam R. NemetzEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Class Action & Mass Torts
  • Blog:
    Guideposts
  • Organization:
    Mayer Brown

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • Resource Center
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center
  • Blogging 101

New to the Network

  • Tennessee Insurance Litigation Blog
  • Claims & Sustains
  • New Jersey Restraining Order Lawyers
  • New Jersey Gun Lawyers
  • Blog of Reason
Copyright © 2025, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo