Product Liability & Mass Torts Digest

On October 3, 2023, a three-judge panel from the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division reversed a jury verdict against Johnson & Johnson over accusations its asbestos-tainted talcum powder caused consumers to develop cancer. The crux of the decision: improper admission of unreliable expert opinions.

In a recent decision, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the summary judgment victory of Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc. in a failure-to-warn and design defect lawsuit regarding its CoolSculpting medical device and found that a health care provider’s misunderstanding of an adverse effect did not bear on the adequacy of the product’s warning.

A recent ruling by the District of Maryland in Garcia v. Sherril, Inc. demonstrates the ongoing struggle by courts to distinguish between when plaintiffs must produce expert testimony in product liability cases and the danger that courts may permit jurors to comment beyond their shoes in cases involving technical subject matter.

As part of our continuing commentary on the Zantac decision, this review examines the court’s rationale for doing so and highlights potential avenues for Daubert challenges to experts conducting Bradford Hill analyses.

The Zantac MDL Court recently reinforced the important role of general acceptance of an expert’s conclusions to a court’s Rule 702 admissibility analysis.

Winston & Strawn LLP held its second-annual Product & Mass Torts Summit on June 7, 2022. The Summit harnessed the collective experience of Winston’s Product Liability & Mass Torts group as well as of esteemed in-house counsel guest speakers to explore effective strategies to capitalize on the changing legal landscape and combat common plaintiff tactics.

Even water can be toxic if consumed in sufficient quantities.