I went to look it up from cancer.org


Apparently, it's pretty safe unless you apply the talc directly to your cooch. I'm not sure how many women do that, though. Perhaps it's a response to that not so fresh feeling, but I think that was a different product.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

This past weekend, the ambulance chaser attorneys already had commercials on TV for people to claim their part.

J&J is too big though. The courts are going to give them a slap on this wrist where each person they gave cancer is going to get their $1.09 and be happy about it. I cant imagine the courts allowing 1000's of million dollar verdicts against them. Then again, I know next to nothing about these things, but I did stay in Holiday Inn last week!

Apparently, it's pretty safe

My response as well. Seems pretty odd to me that you would claim "Cover up" and award millions when the studies are far from conclusive.

I also read that there was a "PRe 70's" talc that had asbesto's in it that had been removed. Again, seems like an odd argument to say "Well we knew asbestos caused cancer so we took that out of the product...we also knew talc caused cancer but we decided to do nothing about it"

I also think the award amounts in this country are insane, but that's apparently just me.

~Matt

This feels a lot like silicone breast implant lawsuits. We'll have a bunch of jury verdicts, huge settlements, then, decide that it actually wasn't an issue at all.

Was J&J the only supplier of talc? Seems awfully difficult to pin the effects of such a generic product on a specific manufacturer unless they controlled an enormous percent of the market.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

<<I also think the award amounts in this country are insane, but that's apparently just me.>>

It's the punitive damages that pump up the awards in so many of these cases (like this one, she got $5M in compensatory damages and $50M in punitives). Definitely a strange (and sometimes troubling) result that plaintiffs get something of a windfall when courts/juries use punitive damages to try to modify corporate behavior.

Was J&J the only supplier of talc?

What do you mean "Was" :-) Talcum powder is still all over the place causing cancer as we speak.

And no, tons of companies produce and sell it in all sorts of different forms from makeup, foot powders etc etc.

This feels a lot like silicone breast implant lawsuits. We'll have a bunch of jury verdicts, huge settlements, then, decide that it actually wasn't an issue at all

^^^^This. You have "Some potential connections" that "Some studies" have shown and other studies have not. Yet somehow J & J was supposed to warn everyone of the potential cancer risks. Makes no sense...again.

~Matt

It's the punitive damages that pump up the awards in so many of these cases (like this one, she got $5M in compensatory damages and $50M in punitives).

Which I personally think is a rather ineffective way to go about it. If there is criminal activity the "Punitive" damages should be directly aimed at those that committed the crimes. IF there was no criminal activity then the company needs to simply rectify the problem. Make sure the company fixes the issue, don't take their money.

~Matt

Well, if you follow the Romney line of "corporations are people too" thinking (which courts do), then one could argue they are going after the entity committing the bad act (not necessarily a criminal act; this wasn't a criminal case, and punitive damages are usually a feature of civil disputes based on tort law).

If this isn't a crime, being prosecuted by the government on behalf of the people, how do you envision 'making sure the company fixes the issue'? Monetary pain seems to be one of the more effective ways to get corporation's attention.

My thoughts exactly. The silicone breast implant thing was bogus from start to finish, and yet drove a company completely out of business. I'm beginning to think that juries of laypeople should not be asked to decide verdicts like this.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

My MIL just passed away a year ago from ovarian cancer and was an avid talcum user.

---

_________________________________
I'll be what I am
A solitary man

My MIL just passed away a year ago from ovarian cancer and was an avid talcum user.

That's worth at least 150M. I've used Talc and my ovaries are completely gone. That should be enough for me to get a couple mil I would think.

~Matt

My sister in law wanted to go after J & J but my FIL wanted no part of re-living her untimely and pretty horrible death.

---

_________________________________
I'll be what I am
A solitary man

What about internet, computer, and software patents then? That's all the rage in law schools apparently, and everyone is stumbling over everyone else to incorporate a vague LLC, buy some patents, and sit on them until a big, but not too big!, company releases something similar, then sue them in Texas. How is that jury going to decide if a Java API in a Cisco router infringes on another API in an Oracle database? For example? Might as well throw a dart or flip a coin.

In about 2 decades, millenials will be suing cell phone companies over their brain cancer.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Close but no cigar. In 2 decades or less cell phone users will become the walking dead as their synapses collapse. My dream of a zombie apocalypse will be realized.

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

That's oh so Y2K! http://www.computerworld.com/...or--800-million.html

Juries of laypeople are the last and best protection we have in this society. Judges and lawyers are to blame for the excessive verdicts.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Disagree. I'm not even sure why cases like this go to trial when there is little to no proof that the product in question even caused the cancer. Again, case in point...the silicon breast implant debacle. Jury after jury found the defendant guilty, when all along it was completely bogus that the implants caused any harm at all.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

Explain this rationale for lawsuits. I understand it for criminal law somewhat (then we get into a debate of too many laws and too much complication of said laws), but not lawsuits. Lawyers want the least educated most malleable people on a jury that they can get.

It's rigged. I tell ya, the system is rigged.

I'd be all in favor of the current system of trial by peer and elections of judges. However, I'd change the idea that lawyers get to select juries. People are called for jury duty. They're put on a jury and hear the case. None of this selective breeding for favorable conditions. I think it's nonsense that they need a thousand people to only have 8 selected. Take what you get.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

No one holds their phone to their head any more, or for making calls at all. In 20 years we will all have thumb cancer.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

First, if judges decided civil cases, then there would be no check on corrupt judges. While a jury can't stop a corrupt judge, the presence of juries helps reduce the power of corrupt judges.

Second, back in my legal career, I found that juries generally did a good job in civil cases. If a jury gives a big verdict, then the jury likely correctly saw something wrong with the corporation's behavior. The jury sat there for 100s of hours and heard all the evidence -- they know better than someone who spend half an hour reading a summary written by someone who was trying to color the narrative.

Are there problems with the system? Yes. Two big ones:

Current legal system: punitive damages and class action lawsuits. These are relatively new (developed over the last 40 or so years). Reform the system.

Current lawyers: Lawyer regulation is a joke and the legal profession is no longer a profession. Pursuit of personal wealth is a goal. Here's a dirty secret lawyers don't talk about: the skill and professionalism of a majority of lawyers is terrible. This is also know by business people who have extensive legal dealings.

Example: Recent guardianship issue has frustrated someone I know. The lawyer is disorganized and late. The lawyer cannot file papers and get the names of the parties correct. The lawyer said they were an expert in this area, but now have said it is their first case and won't take another.

There is virtually no regulation of the professional abilities of lawyers.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev