LA civil jury awards $4.8M verdict in talc case

A Vietnam war veteran was awarded $4.8 million against a talc supplier in the first civil jury trial to go forward in Los Angeles County Superior Court in more than a year.

Willie McNeal Jr., 78, was a preference plaintiff whose trial against talc supplier Whittaker Clark & Daniels Inc. was scheduled to begin in April 2020.

McNeal, diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in December 2017, filed his product liability lawsuit three years ago. McNeal v. Whittaker Clark & Daniels Inc., BC698965 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed March 20, 2018)

The jury on Thursday concluded that Whittaker Clark & Daniels was aware of asbestos contamination in its talc supply, and decided it was linked to McNeal's regular use of Old Spice talcum powder for 22 years. Whittaker Clark & Daniels denied its talc caused McNeal's terminal cancer.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Stephen Moloney presided over the case.

McNeal was awarded his compensatory damages, worth $1 million, on Thursday. Punitive damages were awarded Friday. The jury awarded McNeal a total of $1,067,719 for economic damages, $750,000 for total noneconomic damages, and $3 million in punitive damages.

Jury selection began March 23. Opening arguments began March 30 and closing statements were delivered on April 12.

Robert Berkes, partner at Berkes Crane Robinson & Seal LLP represented Whittaker Clark & Daniels. He declined to comment on the verdict or any potential post-judgment plans, but he said the trial went well despite pandemic-related protocols. He praised the work of the court staff, saying their efforts made him feel safe to handle more jury trials in Los Angeles County.

"Judge Moloney did a wonderful job orchestrating what was a very difficult, logistical challenge in terms of assuring that social distancing was respected, that mask wearing was universal, and glove wearing had to be implemented for exhibits," Berkes said.

The jury was spread throughout the courtroom, and parties used wireless mics to ensure everyone could hear clearly, Berkes said. Jurors heard testimony each day from 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. with two breaks that lasted between 35 and 40 minutes, but no 90-minute lunch break was provided.

"Everyone was very compliant. Although I will say, trying a case with everyone wearing a mask is obviously quite a different experience, because you can't gauge facial expressions," Berkes said.

Berkes was joined by Robert Baum of McGivney Kluger Clark & Intoccia PC of New Jersey in his representation of Whittaker Clark & Daniels.

McNeal was represented by Stuart Purdy and Tyson Gamble of Simon Greenstone Panatier PC. Purdy said "conceptually, it was exactly like a normal trial," except everyone wore masks and remained distanced at all times. He too lauded Moloney for his patience and efficiency.

"He ran a very tight courtroom, but not an overbearing courtroom," Purdy said. "He was strict on protocols like masks, social distancing, getting instructions to the jury, all of that, but not so much that anyone felt uncomfortable, as far as we could tell."

Purdy echoed the sentiments of it being tough to gauge jurors' facial expressions during voir dire, especially during peremptory challenges, but said he felt satisfied with the process.

The court summoned 100 jurors and 60 showed up. Panels of 18 jurors were summoned at a time. Jurors waiting to be called were placed in a separate room. Intensive pre-trial planning was probably what helped the parties get through the proceedings efficiently, Purdy said. All but two witnesses appeared in person to testify. The Zoom testimony "went flawlessly," Purdy added.

The parties did not lose any jurors due to COVID-related reasons, Purdy said.

"From my point of view, it really operated as normal as can be under the conditions," Purdy said. "I'm very confident in the system. There were lots of unknowns to see if we'd ever get a trial, or jurors, let alone a favorable result. I'm almost as proud of finishing the trial as getting the result for my client. We can't be more thankful for a jury showing up and answering to a call of duty to see it through."