This was our lowest level of state court. I don't think it even counts as precedent in other courts in Oklahoma, though it can probably be viewed as persuasive. This ruling has no bearing in other states.

It does give a good roadmap for how to sue and win against J&J though.

EDIT: There might be a way to use this case as a basis for collateral estoppel, meaning that J&J would have a harder time disputing the liability (since they were decided to be liable in this case) but I'm not sure if that applies across state lines.

> There might be a way to use this case as a basis for collateral estoppel, meaning that J&J would have a harder time disputing the liability (since they were decided to be liable in this case) but I'm not sure if that applies across state lines.

I've never heard of someone making this argument successfully.

The "precedent" at issue is not about the ruling as a matter of common law but as an indicator of verdicts to come.

"precedent" is a term of art in law. It strictly means another court HAS to make the same ruling given the same/similar facts.

This particular case has not set such a precedent.

> I'm not an American, and not a lawyer, but doesn't the ruling in this case count as precedent that will allow others states to pursue lawsuits against them?

No, because:

(1) trial (as opposed to appellate) court rulings have almost no weight as precedent, and

(2) state court rulings on state law issues have almost no weight as precedent for courts in other states applying different state laws, and

(3) precedent doesn't allow or bar states or other litigants from pursuing cases, it just impacts the expected results.