Is it really the pill´s maufacturer´s fault that a person has a weird reaction to it? Did they have prior notice kids might be at risk for such a reaction?

Agree No. 1, it used to be that companies had to be negligent to incur damages. This was a totally bizarre, unique reaction to a drug that millions have taken with no ill effects. It´s horrible, but does the company deserve to be punished?

Posters #1 and #2... agree completely. J&J didn´t set out to cause this reaction in this one 8-year-old. Who ever heard of this anyway!?

I feel bad for the girl (imagine losing your skin!!) and her parents who were helpless watching their precious child suffer like this..... but it was genetics, not Johnson & Johnson, that set this in motion.

im confused on this one...J&J did not willfully manufacture the product to do this...but,were they aware this could happen and didnt say anything?..i guess i reserve judgement on this...i cannot imagine watching this happen to anyone,let alone my children...

My heart breaks for the girl but everyone is aware of risks with any medication. Should Motrin pay her for her reaction - maybe a little to ease her life a bit but $109 million is over the top.

the link doesn´t work for me.....
Ramona (the Pest)

Playing devil´s advocate here.... Should Skippy and Jiffy peanut butter be held liable because someone died as a result of an allergic reaction? After all,Skippy and Jiffy were well aware that someone could die eating their products.

For every food product, clothing fiber or chemical out there, there is someone,somewhere who will die or have an otherwise adverse reaction to it. I. penicillin...... I personally have a very bad reaction to sodium pentathol. Any surgery that I have,could be my last. And I dont blame the drug manufacturers,I blame faulty genes.

When you question the decision of the jury, you are leaving out the deciding factor. It was a massachusetts jury. Don´t ask for sanity in that state.

Sorry, about the lack of link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278431/Samantha-Reckis-Teenager-wins-109MILLION-lawsuit-severe-allergic-reaction-Childrens-Motrin.html

One observation of reality that struck me is that businesses don´t pay taxes; they collect them.

I submit that they don´t really pay lawsuit damages... we all will.

Usually adult males have to take Viagra to get this kind of reaction!

Here´s the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278431/Samantha-Reckis-Teenager-wins-109MILLION-lawsuit-severe-allergic-reaction-Childrens-Motrin.html

According to the article the parents are divorced and have each been awarded $6.5 million, while the girl herself was awarded $50 million. It´s early and I can´t figure out how that adds up to $109 million.

Also, the mother says "‘I’m not so sure that Richard is going to allocate his portion of the funds for her’ - sounds like this poor child has had her share of emotional assault along with this horrific drug reaction.

There is another link at the end of this article to a more informative piece at the Boston Globe.
RtP

Probably should have been settled out of court 6 years ago.

I feel sorry for the young lady, but I just don´t see where Johnson & Johnson is at fault.

pardon second post..damn good point #10..

The jury was obviously sending a message with the $109,000,000 judgement. The verdict will be appealed and most likely settled out of court for a much smaller amount.

# 12 - The Attorney--bet that is what adds to the final 109 figure. The ´edwards´ ambulance chaser.

Even if they knew it, does that mean Motrin has to come off the market? If so, probably everything has to come off the market. If not, the award should be reasonable compensation for actual monetary losses and costs, not punitive damages.

Didn´t the FDA approve this drug?

Shouldn´t they be responsible?

#12 - I suspect the rest of that $109 million went to the attorneys. Go figure.

I met a teenage girl once who had this exact reaction to Alive. She spent months in a burn unit until her skin grew back. Tragic and painful.

It´s a real time-consuming mess when a link is incorrect. Please, please proof read before submitting a post.

That ridiculously high award is just going to drive up the price of my health care. And worse yet it may end up banning the ibuprofen I just took for my headache that this article gave me. What will be left for me to take. Acetaminophen? Liver damage. Asprin? Don´t even get me started of the dangers of that one.

I feel real sorry for this kid, but this is not the fault of J&J. Of the millions and millions of people who take Motrin, one has a severe reaction and its the company´s fault? My daughter is allergic to shell fish. Who do I sue about that?

Fascinated with how people can read article and comment when there is no link.

There is no medication on earth to which some person will have an allergic reaction. None. That doesn´t mean that a medicine is bad. It is just bad for that (rare) person.

The $109 million figure is the base awards plus interest.

The whole thing is yet to be approved by a judge.

With the internet and search engines, there is no reason for someone to see something like Stevens-Johnson and not go and find out what it is and who might be at risk.

Here´s Stevens-Johnson:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001854/

From The Boston Globe article:

If upheld by the trial judge the total verdict against Johnson & Johnson, McNeil Consumer & Speciality Pharmaceuticals, with interest could ultimately be worth $109 million.

Drug manufacturers know well that there is strict liability--no showing of negligence necessary. These cases are only about causation and damages.