In June 2025, a Suffolk County, Massachusetts jury delivered an $8 million verdict in Janice Paluzzi v. Johnson & Johnson (21-2109). The jury allocated $5 million for past pain and suffering and $3 million for future pain and suffering.
The Plaintiff, an 84-year-old lifelong resident of Massachusetts, was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma in July 2021. She attributed her condition to over 70 years of daily use of the Defendant’s talc-based products, which she applied to herself and her seven children starting in the 1950s. Due to her medical condition, she was unable to be present in the courtroom during the trial.
The case centered on allegations that the Defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability due to design defect, manufacturing defect, and inadequate warnings for their Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products. The jury found that the design defect was a substantial contributing factor in causing the Plaintiff’s mesothelioma, a type of cancer linked to asbestos exposure. However, the jury did not find that the Defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability by failing to provide adequate warnings for their products. The jury answered affirmatively two preliminary questions: 1) whether the Plaintiff proved that the Defendant’s products contained asbestos; and 2) whether the Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos through use of these products.
The Plaintiff’s counsel argued that her frequent and prolonged exposure to the allegedly asbestos-contaminated products was the cause of her illness. Throughout their presentation, they highlighted the Defendant’s inadequate testing methods and their failure to warn the public despite being aware of potential contamination risks.
The defense contended that the source of the Plaintiff’s mesothelioma was likely from laundering asbestos-contaminated clothing of her husband and sons, who believed they were exposed to asbestos through their work at facility in Boston. The defense emphasized that the Defendant consistently tested their talc products, adhered to industry standards, and received certifications from suppliers confirming that the talc used in their products was asbestos-free. They stressed that there was no trace of asbestos in their products and, thus, no breach of warranty.
This case highlights the ongoing legal challenges faced by defendants involved in the manufacture and/or supply of talc-based products.