For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as E.P. or Mr. P.

In a recent ruling, a Connecticut judge denied Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) plea for a new trial in the case of E.P., a mesothelioma victim. This ruling came shortly after the same judge awarded the victim an additional $10 million in punitive damages, bringing the total judgment to $25 million. J&J had requested the court to throw out the jury’s verdict, arguing that the plaintiff’s expert witnesses should not have been allowed to testify. However, the judge disagreed, stating that the testimony was appropriately admitted and that the jury’s findings were well-supported by evidence.

This case was heard in October 2024 before a Connecticut Superior Court Judge. Jury members listened to days of testimony from several scientific experts, including a pathologist, pulmonologist, electron microscopist, geologist, and statistician. The experts collectively established that the talc containing asbestos in Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder was responsible for Mr. P’s peritoneal mesothelioma. Evidence showed that he had been using the product from the 1950s until the early 2000s. The jury ultimately found that J&J failed to warn consumers about potential asbestos contamination and that this failure directly led to E.P.’s illness. The jury awarded E.P. $15 million in compensatory damages, leaving the punitive damages amount for the judge to decide.

Following the verdict, the giant pharmaceutical company’s legal team submitted multiple motions asking the court to overturn the jury’s decision, lower the damages, or order a completely new trial. The company argued that one of the expert witnesses ‘ testimonies should have been excluded since it partially relied on data and conclusions from other experts. Johnson & Johnson also challenged Mr. P’s lawyer’s request for $30 million in punitive damages, arguing that they were not appropriate.

Mr. P’s attorneys argued that J&J had known about the risks of asbestos in its talc product for a long time but still marketed its baby powder as safe. Evidence presented during the trial indicated that J&J employed testing methods that were less effective at detecting asbestos and interpreted the results in a manner that downplayed findings that were not in their favor.

The judge firmly denied the company’s motions, stating that the experts were properly qualified to use and interpret data from other professionals based on their training and experience. He determined that the jury’s verdict was not “manifestly unjust” and stressed that a jury’s conclusions should remain unchanged except in extreme circumstances. The judge also imposed $10 million in punitive damages, explaining that Johnson & Johnson’s actions demonstrated a blatant disregard for consumer safety.

The judge’s ruling stated that the punitive damages award was appropriate and aligned with due process. He explained how J&J prioritized marketing over causation. Instead of warning consumers about possible asbestos risks, the company sought to create an image of purity and used emotional advertising targeted at mothers to maintain trust in its flagship product. From the 1960s to the 2000s, internal documents showed that the company viewed its baby powder as a “cornerstone” of its brand identity.

Nationwide Mesothelioma Lawyers                                                           

If you or a loved one were diagnosed with mesothelioma, contact our office to speak to one of our experienced nationwide mesothelioma attorneys about your situation. Our office can help investigate your case and determine if compensation can be sought from negligent parties to help pay for your medical treatment.