There is a great deal of reaction to the VIOXX verdict here, here and here.
I’ve been involved in a lively discussion at Asymmetrical Information. Someone named “Dan” apparently disagrees with me. Here is his latest:
Jane Woodsworth,
If you devoted a thousand lifetimes to working for the betterment of humanity, you still wouldn’t be remotely close to matching Merck’s achivements in that area.
So you hate them because they have the nerve to make money while dramatically improving our lives. Whatever. The fact remains that if it the major pharmaceutical companies didn’t exit we would all lead shorter, more miserable lives. Whereas if you didn’t exist, who would care?
All that because I suggested that tort reform is less than palatable when the tortfeasor has an advertising budget for a prescription drug in the hundreds of millions of dollars. To add insult to injury he spelled my name wrong.
As I said previously, I am not sure how I feel about tort reform. Back in the ’80′s we had a lot of sizable verdicts in Massachusetts. Insurers countered with a marketing blitz which told consumers that every dollar paid in damages came out of their own pocket. The campaign was very successful and verdicts came way down. I’m a fan of market based solutions rather than government imposed solutions, so I’m not ready to jump on the tort reform bandwagon just yet.
It’s worth considering that juries award big money when one side angers them. I suspect that is what happened in the Merck case, and that is something the lawyers should contemplate going forward.
At any rate, the verdict will be reduced at judgment, due to the Texas law capping damages, and the trials will go forward. I believe the next case is in NJ – the home of Merck, which may put an entirely different emphasis on the issue.