In the past few years, there has been a surge of lawsuits filed against Johnson & Johnson, a well-known and respected brand, for asbestos exposure and related cancers. Plaintiffs claim that due to contaminated baby powder products, they were at heightened risk of contracting deadly cancers.
The recent makeup recalls by several tween retailers has sparked concern over children's safety. A U.S. Representative recently introduced a bill that aims to protect children from asbestos-containing products. The bill is called, "Children's Product Warning Label Act of 2018". It would require manufacturers who market cosmetics to children to either put a warning label on their products or prove that their products do not contain asbestos ingredients. The representative stated that children should not be exposed to asbestos when using everyday products such as makeup and that parents should feel confident that the cosmetics they purchase for their children are safe.
Several previous North Carolina blog posts reported on allegations regarding makeup products from tween retailers, Claire's and Justice. Both companies pulled their alleged asbestos-containing products from the shelves to ensure the safety of customers. According to Justice, initial tests showed no evidence of asbestos, however secondary testing revealed that small amounts of the deadly mineral were present.
A previous blog post discussed a recent case involving Claire's, a nationwide chain of stores whose target market is girls aged three to 18. An investigation revealed the presence of asbestos in 17 of its makeup products, however the company disputed the findings. The North Carolina Scientific Analytical Institute (NCSAI) Director of Research and Legal Services stands behind the lab's initial finding that Claire's sold asbestos-containing products.
The news broke last month that at least one national retailer - whose targeted demographic group is adolescent girls and young women - was found to be selling potentially cancer-causing makeup. This revelation came in the midst of the holiday sales crush, when consumers were flocking to malls and stores for last-minute gifts for friends and loved ones.
Our North Carolina readers likely want to know that recently, several companies have been exposed for selling asbestos-containing products. This is not only dangerous for consumers, but also opens these companies up to potential product liability lawsuits.
Our previous North Carolina blog posts have reported on the product liability lawsuits facing companies, like Johnson & Johnson (J&J), Whittaker, Colgate-Palmolive, Clark & Daniels and Justice for their talcum powder products. J&J has consistently maintained its innocence, denying that its products contain asbestos and claiming that its talcum powder is safe.
Many North Carolinians, like people all over the world, use talcum powder as part of their daily hygiene routine. Recently, there has been an influx of product liability cases due to talcum powder's cancer-causing ingredients. Companies such as Johnson & Johnson, Colgate-Palmolive, Whittaker, Clark & Daniels and Justice have all faced many lawsuits by victims alleging exposure to their asbestos-containing products. These companies often deny the dangerousness of their products; however, many people bringing products liability lawsuits have been able to recover compensation for their illnesses.
North Carolinians may be interested to know that an appeals court recently allowed a 70-year-old woman to move forward with her product liability lawsuit against Colgate-Palmolive, the manufacturers of Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder. She alleges that the company's asbestos-containing products led to her development of mesothelioma after more than 20 years of daily use. According to the woman, her mother powdered her as a child after every bath, and she continued to regularly use the product.
When North Carolinians develop a disease, such as mesothelioma from asbestos exposure, they may bring a product liability case. Product liability cases may be based on strict liability, negligence or breach of warranty. Strict liability requires the claimant to show that the product had an unreasonably dangerous defect in its design or manufacturing process that the claimant used the product in the way it was intended to be used, and no changes were made to the product from its original state when sold.