Johnson & Johnson faces punitive damages trial

A week after being ordered to pay $12 million in compensatory damages to a retired schoolteacher who says talc caused her cancer, Johnson & Johnson will face trial again as to their malice and liability for punitive damages.

Alameda Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch on Tuesday granted plaintiff Patricia Schmitz's request for a partial retrial as to both issues over the objections of Johnson & Johnson (J&J) defendants, who sought an entirely new trial.

Jury selection is scheduled to begin Thursday with opening statements likely to commence July 8.

Schmitz, 61, alleged J&J's talc products had asbestos and was a substantial factor in causing her cancer. Schmitz v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., RG18923615 (Alameda County Super. Ct., filed Oct. 5, 2018)

The jury last week hung on awarding punitive damages as to J&J, and also were deadlocked on whether there was malice, oppression or fraud.

J&J's lawyers from King & Spalding LLP argued for a complete retrial on all issues claiming a second trial on punitive damages heard by a jury that didn't sit in on the first trial violates the company's due process rights.

The problem with a retrial limited to punitive damages is that a second jury would be invited to speculate on J&J's conduct, King & Spalding partner Paul R. Johnson told the court.

Plaintiffs' counsel Denyse F. Clancy of Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood APLC said those claims were severable from the jury's liability findings on other causes of action including negligence and strict liability.

Roesch agreed, noting i was difficult to not grant a new trial on punitive damages.

-- Gina Kim