Johnson and Johnson hit with $55M damages in talc cancer case

Re:Johnson and Johnson hit with $55M damages in talc cancer ... by rdtsc on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @11:08PM (#11625871)

> such high punitive damages

J&J's annual revenue is $70B so $55M is what, 0.07% or something like that? They probably spend more on refilling their vending machines.

Or let's put it another way. Say you are making $100K, it would be like paying one $70 fine for giving someone cancer. A speeding violation will be more than that in most states.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Johnson and Johnson hit with $55M damages in talc cancer ... by refurb on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @11:30PM (#11625977)

Revenue is not profit.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Johnson and Johnson hit with $55M damages in talc cancer ... by beemoe on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @12:35AM (#11626218)

Neither is base salary.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Johnson and Johnson hit with $55M damages in talc cancer ... by rdtsc on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @09:45PM (#11633383)

As a sibling post mentioned already, your base salary is not pure profit either. Most goes to mortage payments, car payments, taxes etc. It is still a worthwhile comparison I think.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Johnson and Johnson hit with $55M damages in talc cancer ... by saiya-jin on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @06:14AM (#11627325)

compared to what financial institutions are fined, sans killing anybody, this is nothing.

[ Parent | on HN ]