In August 2016, plaintiff Joanne Anderson, 66, a part-time interior designer, was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma, a cancer in the lining of the lungs usually caused by asbestos exposure. Anderson claimed she used Johnson’s Baby Powder on her first child from 1972 to 1974 and on her second child from 1976 to 1978. She also claimed that she was also an avid bowler and regularly used the product on her hands and shoes from 1971 until 1995. In addition, from 2008 until her diagnosis, Anderson used the product in her rubber boots when she went fishing. Thus, she claimed the baby powder caused her mesothelioma. Anderson sued the companies that designed and manufactured the baby powder, Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. She also sued the company that manufactured the clutches her husband used while performing automotive work, Borg-Warner Corp.; the company that manufactured the brakes that her husband used while performing automotive work, Honeywell International Inc.; a trust set up in regard to any alleged asbestos exposure from Fel-Pro manufactured the gaskets, Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust; and the company where her husband bought parts for the automotive work, Manny Moe & Jack of the PEP Boys. In addition, Anderson sued various other companies that were believed to have manufactured, distributed and/or worked with asbestos-containing products to which Anderson was allegedly exposed. Anderson’s complaint was coordinated with hundreds of other cases that were pending in different counties that shared common questions of fact or law regarding direct and indirect exposure, and involved many of the same defendants. The cases were joined in one court, the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Many of those cases were put on hold while awaiting a decision regarding an appellate case involving indirect exposure. Borg-Warner, Honeywell International, Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, Manny Moe & Jack of the PEP Boys, and several other defendants were dismissed from, or settled out of, Anderson’s action. Thus, Anderson’s complaint ultimately only proceeded to trial against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that asbestos and talc, which are closely linked minerals, are combined in the mining process, making it impossible to remove carcinogenic asbestos from the talc. Counsel also contended that in 1969, a company doctor informed Johnson & Johnson that if it did not control the mineral contaminants in their baby powder, the company would end up in litigation years later. However, counsel argued that instead of removing the powder from the consumer market or using a safer alternative to talc, such as corn starch, the Johnson & Johnson defendants allegedly engaged in a multi-decade campaign wherein they hid testing data from the Food and Drug Administration, altered reports to make them more favorable and lied to consumers by never providing them with the knowledge that the defendants learned about their product. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. were negligent for failing to warn consumers that their baby powder contained manufacturing and design defects because of the presence of asbestos. One of the plaintiff’s materials science experts, Dr. Steven Compton, tested the source talc (Johnson & Johnson’s product) and the plaintiff’s other materials science expert, Dr. William Longo, tested recent samples of the product that Anderson alleged used. Both experts testified about the historic samples of asbestos, and Longo testified that he found asbestos in the recent samples provided by Anderson. The plaintiff’s cell biology expert testified about how asbestos causes disease and opined that if asbestos is found in talc, then it will cause mesothelioma. In addition, the plaintiff’s experts estimated that Anderson had used the Johnson & Johnson product more than 10,000 times. Thus, the plaintiff’s pathology and occupational medicine experts opined that exposure from the Johnson & Johnson product substantially contributed to Anderson’s mesothelioma. Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. denied that their talc products, including their baby powder, ever contained asbestos or caused cancer, citing decades of testing by independent laboratories and scientists. The defense’s asbestos expert tested Johnson & Johnson products and concluded that there was no asbestos in the defendants’ baby powder. In addition, defense counsel argued that Anderson’s mesothelioma was from other exposures, including her exposure, as a bystander, to her husband’s “shade tree” automotive work that he did as a hobby. In response, plaintiff’s counsel contended that Johnson & Johnson had previously done testing and found asbestos in its baby powder, but that the defendants allegedly claimed that they only found fibers that meet the Occupational Safety and Health Administration definition of asbestos. However, the defendants allegedly define the fibers as something else, such as “non-asbestos cleavage fragments,” which is a result of when rock is extracted from quarries and is ground up to produce aggregate, causing the release particles of different lengths that have the same morphology as asbestos. In regard to any other alleged exposure to asbestos, Anderson claimed that she was only present near her husband when he did occasional automotive work less than 40 times throughout her life and that, specifically, she was only present for around 17 or 18 brake jobs that he performed. The plaintiffs’ experts acknowledged that Anderson’s other exposures would have participated in Anderson’s asbestos exposure, but they opined that those exposures would have been a smaller contribution., Anderson was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma in August 2016. She subsequently underwent thoracentesis and chemotherapy. In late 2016, a decortication — a medical procedure involving the surgical removal of the surface layer, membrane, or fibrous cover of an organ — was attempted, but the surgery had to be stopped, as it was realized that Anderson’s tumor spread to the diaphragm and peritoneum. Anderson, who was 68 at the time of trial, claimed that her family was active and enjoyed hiking, fishing and camping. However, since her diagnosis, she has retired and she has not been able to participate in her previous activities due to shortness of breath. She alleged that the other activities that she enjoyed, but can no longer do, included gardening, traveling with her family, and seeing her grandchildren. Anderson sought recovery of past and future medical costs, loss of household services and social security, and damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Her husband, Gary Anderson, a 75-year-old retired aerospace worker, sought recovery for his loss of consortium. The Andersons also sought recovery of punitive damages as a result of Johnson & Johnson’s conduct in leaving the product on the market despite allegedly knowing its dangers.