Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held products liability and other claims arising out of the alleged use of benzene-tainted sunscreen were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Dory Brendan Hux’s son allegedly used Johnson & Johnson and Neutrogena Corp. sunscreen products from 2009 to 2021. He allegedly was exposed to dangerous levels of benzene from his use of the products, resulting in acute myeloid leukemia that led to his death. Brendan Hux, individually and as a surviving parent, sued Johnson & Johnson, Neutrogena Corp., and Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., alleging claims for design defect, negligence and negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation, violation of North Carolina consumer protection laws, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and wrongful death. The defendants moved to dismiss.

Denying the motion, the district court found that to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Courts must take all factual allegations as true, the court said, adding that a claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Citing case law, the court also noted that a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even where it strikes a savvy judge that the actual proof of those facts is improbable and that recovery is remote and unlikely.

Applying these principles, the court determined that the plaintiffs’ amended complaint contained sufficiently detailed allegations which, when taken as true, set forth plausible claims for relief arising out of the defendants’ alleged misconduct. The court found that the plaintiffs’ son used the defendants’ specific products exclusively for an extended time period and that the complaint alleged the products were contaminated and led to the son’s leukemia and death. Whether admissible evidence supported these allegations is not an inquiry for a motion to dismiss, the court found, concluding that the allegations constituted a right to relief above the speculative level.

Citation: Hux v. Johnson & Johnson, 2024 WL 189438 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 17, 2024).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ member Mark E. Chavez, Houston; and Brett E. Dressler, Charlotte, N.C.