Significant Jury Verdicts for Defective Product Lawsuits
There have been several notable jury verdicts in cases involving defective products. While the specific amounts awarded can vary depending on the circumstances and jurisdiction, here are a few examples of significant jury verdicts related to defective products:
- Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Case: In 2018, a jury in Missouri awarded $4.69 billion to 22 women who claimed that Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder products were responsible for their ovarian cancer. The jury found that the company failed to warn consumers about the potential health risks associated with the prolonged use of talcum powder.
- General Motors Ignition Switch Case: In 2016, General Motors (GM) reached a settlement of $595 million with the victims and their families affected by faulty ignition switches in certain GM vehicles. The defective switches were linked to accidents, injuries, and deaths. The settlement followed a series of jury verdicts in individual cases against GM.
- Ford Explorer Rollover Case: In 2004, a California jury awarded $369 million to the family of a woman who died in a rollover accident involving a Ford Explorer SUV. The jury found that a defective design in the vehicle, specifically the tires and suspension, contributed to the accident and resulting injuries.
- Toyota Sudden Acceleration Case: In 2013, a California jury ordered Toyota to pay $25.7 million in damages to a family involved in a fatal accident allegedly caused by unintended acceleration in a Toyota Camry. The jury concluded that a design defect in the vehicle’s electronic throttle control system contributed to the accident.
- Philip Morris Cigarette Case: In 2002, a California jury awarded $28 billion in punitive damages to a smoker who developed lung cancer. The jury found that Philip Morris, a major tobacco company, engaged in fraudulent conduct by intentionally concealing the health risks associated with smoking.
It’s important to note that jury verdicts can be subject to appeals, settlements, or reductions. Additionally, these examples represent specific cases and their outcomes and do not reflect the average verdict in product liability cases. The cases mentioned above were not tried by Lupetin & Unatin.
Jury verdicts in defective product cases can serve as a means of holding manufacturers accountable for the harm caused by their products. They can provide compensation for victims and their families and also serve as a deterrent for negligent or reckless behavior in the design, manufacturing, and marketing of products.