CVN screenshot of plaintiff attorney Ben Adams delivering his closing statement
Columbia, SC - A South Carolina state court jury delivered a $63.4 million verdict on Thursday in the most recent trial over claims asbestos in Johnson & Johnson’s talc powder caused a man’s cancer, and the full trial was recorded and webcast gavel-to-gavel by Courtroom View Network.
The Richland County jury awarded $32.6 million in compensatory damages to plaintiff Michael Perry, who alleges he developed mesothelioma at the age of 53 after a lifetime of using Johnson’s Baby Powder. Jurors then awarded an additional $30 million in punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson and $760,000 against co-defendant American Industrial Industries.
Perry’s attorneys argued J&J knew for years that their talc products contained asbestos but withheld that knowledge from consumers. J&J vigorously denied their talc products contained asbestos and suggested Perry’s years of working with asbestos-containing brake pads in his father’s garage was a more likely cause of his exposure.
The full trial is available for unlimited on-demand viewing as part of a subscription to CVN’s online trial video library. CVN’s video library contains hundreds of civil trials featuring many of the top plaintiff and defense attorneys from throughout the country and also includes multiple cosmetic talc and asbestos cases in numerous jurisdictions.
After the plaintiffs concluded their case-in-chief J&J declined to present a defense, and the trial proceeded directly to closing arguments. The company promised an immediate appeal in a statement issued after the verdict.
“The Court made a series of erroneous rulings before and during the trial that prevented Johnson & Johnson— and the other manufacturer defendant — from presenting its defense and forced the Company to move for a mistrial on multiple grounds,” stated J&J Worldwide Vice President of Litigation Erik Haas. “We will immediately appeal and are confident that the verdict will be reversed, like the majority of aberrant adverse verdicts that have no basis in the law or science.”
“The verdict is irreconcilable with the decades of independent scientific evaluations confirming talc is safe, does not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer,” Haas continued. “For that reason, the vast majority of juries have rejected the false narratives regarding talc advanced by plaintiff law firms.”
Perry was represented by Texas-based law firm Dean Omar Branham Shirley, which has racked up a string of recent trial victories in talc cases, including a recent $260 million verdict in Oregon in a trial also covered by CVN and a $45 million verdict in Illinois. He was also represented locally by the South Carolina firm Kassel McVey.
Attorney Trey Branham of Dean Omar told CVN after the trial that his team appreciates the jury’s work.
“We are incredibly grateful that this jury heard the evidence and understood that JNJ’s actions are unacceptable and sent that message to them,” he said.
Branham noted that J&J “never made a meaningful settlement offer” and clarified that this verdict in a talc mesothelioma case would likely not impact the recently announced $6.5 billion settlement of J&J talc suits, which only related to cases involving ovarian cancer.
“JNJ has stated that they intend to continue litigating mesothelioma cases and will carve them out of any resolution/bankruptcy with the ovarian cancer claims,” he said.
Branham also suggested the pending appeal from J&J would contradict the message they tried to send jurors during the trial.
“During the punitive phase, JNJ’s lawyers stated that ‘JNJ heard’ the jury.’ While we have serious doubt about that we hope that that is true rather than lip service in an attempt to keep the punitive damage award down,” he said. “We will see if JNJ appeals or if it really “heard” the jury like they said they did.”
Branham emphasized his firm planned to plow ahead with taking J&J talc cases to trial, citing upcoming trials in California, Connecticut and Pennsylvania.
“Our firm was built to, and has consistently, taken on the largest of corporate bad actors,” he said. “While we are always open to discussing reasonable resolution for our clients, we are committed to holding JNJ accountable if they choose not to engage with our clients.”
The case is captioned Michael Perry v. American International Industries, et al., case number 2023-CP-40-04072 in South Carolina’s 5th Judicial Circuit Court.
E-mail David Siegel at dsiegel@cvn.com
