For purposes of this article, the claimants in this case will be referred to as S.S and B.S.
In a recent court decision, a Rhode Island judge ruled in favor of two plaintiffs, S.S. and B.S., a couple pursuing justice against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) in a mesothelioma lawsuit. S.S., a mesothelioma patient, and B.S., her husband, filed the lawsuit against more than 40 defendants, including two subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson, who they blame for negligently exposing her to asbestos through their talc products. J&J and the two subsidiaries petitioned the court to substitute two other subsidiaries, but the judge presiding over the case denied the request.
S.S. and B.S. filed a lawsuit in March this year, citing exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc products as the cause of S’s mesothelioma. Among the many defendants, the two named in their lawsuit were LLT and Old Holdco, two J&J subsidiaries. Johnson & Johnson is facing many asbestos-related lawsuits, so to shift its legal focus, the giant pharmaceutical company tried to substitute two other subsidiaries. J&J asked the court to assign its liabilities to Pecos River Talc LLC and Johnson and Johnson Holdco Inc. J&J’s request was rooted in a corporate restructuring process the company claimed shifted its talc-related liabilities. In other words, according to Johnson & Johnson, Pecos and Johnson and Johnson Holdco are the defendants that should have been named in the lawsuit.
S.S. and her husband argued that LLT and Old Holdco should be held liable. According to the two, Johnson & Johnson’s restructuring was a deliberate strategy to hinder accountability. The claimants argued that the giant pharmaceutical company aimed to protect the initially named subsidiaries from liability instead of facilitating a fair resolution. S.S. and B.S. asserted that claimants have the right to decide which entities to hold accountable.
After reviewing the case, a judge of the Superior Court of Rhode Island, Judge P.J. Gibney, sided with S.S. and B.S. The judge agreed that claimants have the right to direct their lawsuits against the entities they deem responsible. Judge Gibney noted that S.S. and B.S. are the masters of their complaint and thus can decide the defendants in their case.
Additionally, the judge found that Johnson & Johnson’s motion had failed to cite a specific rule from the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure that justified their request. Judge Gibney pointed to Rule 25(c), which is designed to ensure that litigation and potential judgments are not affected by transfers of responsibility among companies. This rule is not meant to allow a defendant to escape liability by claiming that another entity should be sued instead. The judge pointed out that this point had been emphasized in a previous court decision. The judge’s decision allowed S.S. and B.S. to proceed with their case against the original J&J subsidiaries they named.
This decision sends a strong message to companies facing allegations of asbestos exposure and emphasizes that claimants have the right to file lawsuits against the companies they believe are responsible for their exposure.
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 you and your family to live a more comfortable life.
