Talc Company to Pay $29 Million to 35-Year-Old Mesothelioma Victim

It took a South Carolina jury just four hours to agree that talc supplier Whittaker Clark & Daniels should pay a 35-year-old mesothelioma victim and her husband $29 million in damages. After four weeks of evidence of the company supplying asbestos-contaminated talc to Mary Kay cosmetics, the group was convinced of the company’s negligence, and awarded the victim $4.1 million in past and future medical expenses and $20 million in past and future noneconomic damages. They also awarded $5 million for loss of consortium to her husband.

Jury Hears Weeks of Testimony Regarding Woman’s Mesothelioma

The case was held in South Carolina, where a jury heard 35-year-old Sarah Plant speak to her confusion after being diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. The rare and fatal form of cancer is caused by exposure to asbestos, and the young woman struggled to identify a time when she had been near the mineral. It was only after hearing news reports of others sickened by asbestos-contaminated talc that she connected her illness to her lifelong use of cosmetic talc products.

Her original mesothelioma lawsuit named several defendants, but by the trial’s end makeup pigment company Color Techniques and Mary Kay Cosmetics had both settled out of court and the jury found talc manufacturer IMI Fabi innocent of the charges. That left only Whittaker Clark and Daniels. The jury determined that they were strictly liable and that they had breached an implied warranty in selling their products.

Talc Supplier Faces Multiple Mesothelioma Claims

This case is far from the first or last mesothelioma claim that Whittaker Clark and Daniels will face. The company has repeatedly been accused of knowing that its talc was contaminated with asbestos. Though its representatives have denied the existence of the carcinogenic material in its talc, and in this case argued that there was no proof that it was they were the sold supplier of talc in the products to which Mrs. Plant was exposed, they have frequently failed to convince juries at trial.