NEW JERSEY VIOXX VERDICT: MERCK FAILED TO WARN . . . In the verdict in a two-plaintiff trial that the press is calling a "split decision," the jury found in both cases that Merck improperly failed to warn about risks. Here is how the Associated Press summed up the verdict:
A jury found Merck & Co. liable on Wednesday for one of two former Vioxx users' heart attacks in a split verdict that awarded $4.5 million in damages to one of the plaintiffs.
The state jury found the company failed to adequately warn both men about the risk factors linking the now-withdrawn painkiller to heart attacks and strokes, but said the drug was only a factor in one of the men's illnesses.
The jury's work still isn't done: it will return today to consider punitive damages.
You can find other comments about the trial at Day on Torts, Point of Law, A Georgia Lawyer, and The Settlement Channel. I often wonder why the Vioxx litigation is being followed so much more closely than other mass torts, including the diet-drug litigation, which began in 1997 and is still continuing. Is it because so many people took Vioxx? Is it because so many people own Merck stock?
My collected Vioxx posts are here.