Products Liability Law Reporter

Elementary school teacher Christina Prudencio used Johnson’s Baby Powder from birth until she was 16. After that, she continued to be exposed to the powder through her family’s use of the product on her younger siblings. In 2020, she was diagnosed with mesothelioma, which has resulted in physical pain and mental suffering.

Although she has undergone chemotherapy and surgery, her condition is terminal.

Prudencio sued Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., alleging strict liability design defect and failure to warn. The plaintiff alleged her use of talc powder exposed her to asbestos and asbestiform fibers and that the defendants falsely claimed that its products were safe and pure.

The jury awarded approximately $26.2 million, including $800,000 for medical expenses, over $4 million for lost income, and $100,000 in punitive damages. The jury apportioned liability at 85% to Johnson & Johnson and 15% to Johnson & Johnson Consumer.

Citation: Prudencio v. Johnson & Johnson, No. RG20061303 (Cal. Super. Ct. Alameda Cty. Aug. 26, 2021).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ members Joseph D. Satterley, Denyse Clancy, and Ian Rivamonte, all of Oakland, Calif.

Comment: In Strobel v. Johnson & Johnson, 2021 WL 4272711 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2021), Douglas Strobel used Johnson’s Baby Powder for approximately 60 years. After he was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, from which he later died, suit against Johnson & Johnson alleged claims for products liability, negligence, and fraud. The plaintiff asserted that Strobel’s continuous exposure to asbestos in the baby powder was a substantial contributing cause of his disease. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defense, holding that the plaintiff had failed to present evidence creating a triable issue of fact on causation. The court cited the declaration of the defendant’s expert, Matthew Sanchez, who swore that Johnson’s Baby Powder was free of asbestos, and found that the plaintiff’s experts confirmed only that asbestos was present in the talcum ore Johnson & Johnson had used to manufacture the powder, not in the finished product. Reversing, the appellate court held that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence on causation. The court found that although the plaintiff’s experts attested that Johnson & Johnson had obtained talc ore from sources contaminated with asbestos during Strobel’s exposure period, defense expert Sanchez averred that Johnson & Johnson had screened its ore to ensure only the most pristine talc was used for cosmetic purposes and subjected its suppliers to strict testing to ensure that ore used to make Johnson’s Baby Powder was asbestos free. The merits of these competing views should be decided at trial, the court concluded. AAJ member Gilbert Purcell, Richard Grant, Christine Renken, and AAJ member Steven Patti, all of Novato, Calif., represented the plaintiff.