Harris Martin (subscription required) reports that a jury in St. Louis has awarded $550 million in compensatory damages and $4.14 billion in punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson in a multi-plaintiff trial.  The 22 plaintiffs claim they developed ovarian cancer as a result of using J&J’s Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower products.

A $62 million punitive damages award in a similar case was reversed by the Missouri Court of Appeals late last year on jurisdictional grounds.

The plaintiffs in this latest case are represented by Mark Lanier, who seems to be on something of a crusade against Johnson & Johnson.  He also represented the plaintiffs in the Texas hip-implant case against Johnson & Johnson that generated a $360 million punitive damages award, but was reversed by the Fifth Circuit due to Lanier’s misconduct at trial.

Harris Martin (subscription required) reports that a jury in St. Louis has awarded $550 million in compensatory damages and $4.14 billion in punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson in a multi-plaintiff trial.  The 22 plaintiffs claim they developed ovarian cancer as a result of using J&J’s Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower products.

Unlike this verdict we blogged about back in April, which involved claims of asbestos contamination, the theory in this case is that talc itself causes ovarian cancer.  A $62 million punitive damages award in a similar case was reversed by the Missouri Court of Appeals late last year on jurisdictional grounds.

The plaintiffs in this latest case are represented by Mark Lanier, who seems to be on something of a crusade against Johnson & Johnson.  He also represented the plaintiffs in the Texas hip-implant case against Johnson & Johnson that generated a $360 million punitive damages award, but was reversed by the Fifth Circuit due to Lanier’s misconduct at trial.

Mynewsla.com reports that an L.A. Superior Court jury awarded $28 million in punitive damages, on top of $3 million in compensatory damages, in an age discrimination lawsuit against Sybron Dental Specialities, Inc. and KaVo Kerr Group. 

A story yesterday reported that plaintiff’s counsel Carney Shegarian asked for an award of $73 million in punitive damages.  The jury may have thought they were compromising by awarding “only” $28 million.  As we have noted before, research has shown that the most significant predictor for a large punitive damages award is a large request.  (See Sunstein, Punitive Damages: How Juries Decide.)  That is part of the reason why some courts prohibit plaintiffs from “anchoring” a punitive damages award by requesting a specific number. Clearly the trial court in this case didn’t follow that approach.

The story quotes Mr. Shegarian as stating that the award in this case may be the largest of its kind in Los Angeles legal history.  The defendants may try to use those quotes against him if they challenge the award in posttrial motions or on appeal.

Mynewsla.com reports that an L.A. Superior Court jury awarded $28 million in punitive damages, on top of $3 million in compensatory damages, in an age discrimination lawsuit against Sybron Dental Specialities, Inc. and KaVo Kerr Group.

A story yesterday reported that plaintiff’s counsel Carney Shegarian asked for an award of $73 million in punitive damages.  The jury may have thought they were compromising by awarding “only” $28 million.  As we have noted before, research has shown that the most significant predictor for a large punitive damages award is a large request.  (See Sunstein, Punitive Damages: How Juries Decide.)  That is part of the reason why some courts prohibit plaintiffs from “anchoring” a punitive damages award by requesting a specific number. Clearly the trial court in this case didn’t follow that approach.

The story quotes Mr. Shegarian as stating that the award in this case may be the largest of its kind in Los Angeles legal history.  The defendants may try to use those quotes against him if they challenge the award in posttrial motions or on appeal.

Law 360 reports (subscription required) that U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California has ruled that a class of Uber drivers cannot seek punitive damages in their lawsuit over the company’s imposition of a $1 “safe rides fee.” Judge Rogers ruled that the plaintiffs, having insisted throughout the case that their claims arise from a contract with Uber, cannot pursue punitive damages because Civil Code section 3294 permits punitive damages only in an action “for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract.”

Law 360 reports (subscription required) that U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California has ruled that a class of Uber drivers cannot seek punitive damages in their lawsuit over the company’s imposition of a $1 “safe rides fee.” Judge Rogers ruled that the plaintiffs, having insisted throughout the case that their claims arise from a contract with Uber, cannot pursue punitive damages because Civil Code section 3294 permits punitive damages only in an action “for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract.”

Bloomberg reports that today a jury awarded $4 million in punitive damages, on top of $21.7 million in compensatory damages, to a 68-year-old woman who claims she developed mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos in Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder.

Last year, a similar California case ended in a defense verdict, but Johnson & Johnson was hit for $417 million in another case in which the plaintiff alleged that talc itself (not contaminated by asbestos) causes ovarian cancer.  The trial court vacated that award due to jury misconduct and other problems. 

The company says that its talc products do not contain asbestos or cause cancer, and it plans to appeal in this case (assuming that the trial court does not toss this award too).

Bloomberg reports that today a jury awarded $4 million in punitive damages, on top of $21.7 million in compensatory damages, to a 68-year-old woman who claims she developed mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos in Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder.

Last year, a similar California case ended in a defense verdict, but Johnson & Johnson was hit for $417 million in another case in which the plaintiff alleged that talc itself (not contaminated by asbestos) causes ovarian cancer.  The trial court vacated that award due to jury misconduct and other problems.

The company says that its talc products do not contain asbestos or cause cancer, and it plans to appeal in this case (assuming that the trial court does not toss this award too).

This unpublished opinion demonstrates that, under the right circumstances, California courts can find a punitive damages award excessive even when it is less than ten times the amount of compensatory damages.

A jury in this employment discrimination case awarded $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $7 million in punitive damages.  The trial court ordered a new trial conditioned on the plaintiff’s acceptance of a reduction in the punitive damages to $1 million.  The plaintiff accepted the remittitur and both sides appealed.

The Court of Appeal (Second District, Division Four) affirmed across the board.  First, it rejected the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff failed to prove malice on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent.  In the process, the court held that the defendant’s adoption of an anti-discrimination policy did not act as a shield against punitive damages, because although the company adopted the policy in good faith, it did not implement the policy in good faith.

Second, the Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred by ordering the remittitur from $7 million to $1 million.  The court noted that single-digit punitive-to-compensatory ratios are not presumptively valid, especially when the compensatory damages itself is substantial or contains a punitive element.  The court noted that the compensatory damages award here was 19 times more than the plaintiff’s annual salary, and included a large emotional distress component, which has both a punitive aspect and a deterrent effect.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court properly reduced the award to a 1-to-1 ratio.

This unpublished opinion demonstrates that, under the right circumstances, California courts can find a punitive damages award excessive even when it is less than ten times the amount of compensatory damages.

A jury in this employment discrimination case awarded $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $7 million in punitive damages.  The trial court ordered a new trial conditioned on the plaintiff’s acceptance of a reduction in the punitive damages to $1 million.  The plaintiff accepted the remittitur and both sides appealed.

The Court of Appeal (Second District, Division Four) affirmed across the board.  First, it rejected the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff failed to prove malice on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent.  In the process, the court held that the defendant’s adoption of an anti-discrimination policy did not act as a shield against punitive damages, because although the company adopted the policy in good faith, it did not implement the policy in good faith.

Second, the Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred by ordering the remittitur from $7 million to $1 million.  The court noted that single-digit punitive-to-compensatory ratios are not presumptively valid, especially when the compensatory damages itself is substantial or contains a punitive element.  The court noted that the compensatory damages award here was 19 times more than the plaintiff’s annual salary, and included a large emotional distress component, which has both a punitive aspect and a deterrent effect.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court properly reduced the award to a 1-to-1 ratio.