The sixth pelvic mesh product liability trial against Ethicon, Inc., a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, is underway in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff was injured by Ethicon’s TVT Secur pelvic mesh product, requiring her to undergo multiple corrective surgeries and removal of mesh fragments from her urethra. The plaintiff alleges that the defective pelvic mesh product has caused perforations to her urethra, incontinence, and pain. The complaint alleges design defect and a failure to warn.

Citing the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California (BMS), Ethicon, Inc. argued that the company’s lack of tangible links to Pennsylvania prevented the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas from hearing pelvic mesh cases. Ninety of the cases filed in the Philadelphia court that alleging injuries caused by defective pelvic mesh implants were filed by out-of-state residents.

Continue Reading Johnson & Johnson Argues that Pelvic Mesh Cases Belong in New Jersey

A jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $417 million to a woman who filed suit alleging that she developed ovarian cancer from using its baby powder on a regular basis for feminine hygiene.

The Talcum Powder Lawsuit

The lawsuit filed against Johnson & Johnson claimed that the company’s talcum powder causes ovarian cancer when applied regularly to the genital area. The plaintiff asserted that she used Johnson & Johnson baby powder on a daily basis from the 1950s until 2016. She was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2007.

The plaintiff alleged that her cancer was the “proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder.” She claimed that Johnson & Johnson failed to adequately warn consumers about the possible cancer risks of its talcum powder.

Continue Reading $417 Million Verdict in Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Lawsuit

The products we use in day-to-day life range from medications to bicycles to household cleaners to cell phones. When we use these items for their intended purpose, we don’t expect to be harmed by them. Yet design defects, manufacturing defects, and failure to warn claims all arise from that unexpected harm. Product liability law is now largely governed by statute. But the case law preceding the statutes illustrates the underlying rationale for the application of strict liability to product liability cases.

Continue Reading Product Liability Claims in New Jersey