An Insider’s View of the $47.5M Verdict Against Merck

A blog was put up by the son-in-law of the plaintiff, Frederick “Mike” Humeston, reflecting on the two Vioxx trials that they went through in Atlantic City against Merck. The first trial was won by Merck, but the verdict was tossed out by the judge. The second has now resulted in a whopper of a loss for Merck of $20M in compensatory damages and $27.5M in punitive damages.

The writer discusses the lawyers, the jurors and the judge. The jury comments, as always, are the most interesting.

About the first jury, he writes:

My wife went to Atlantic City that first time and told me that the jury seemed completely uninterested in the proceedings….After that first trial, my father-in-law told me he realized his case was in trouble when one of the questions the Jury asked was whether they (the Court) served any drinks in the “side bar.” The Judge had allowed the Jury to ask written questions of the witnesses and apparently were bored with the many “side bars” the lawyers and the Judge had undertaken to clarify points of law.

About the second jury, he writes:

Visiting, I could see the jury was involved, taking notes, asking intelligent questions. They were definitely engaged.

(link via Evan Schaeffer’s Legal Underground)

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. Court Tosses Philip Morris Verdict, And Further Confuses Punitive Damages Issue
  2. Trial Blog, Part 7 (Summation and Verdict)
  3. NY Court Of Appeals Tosses Out Verdict Due To Failure to Poll Jury
  4. Target Lawsuit Over Counterfeiting Claim Settles After $3.1M Verdict
  5. Will DaimlerChrysler $50M Punitive Damage Verdict Withstand Review?

Tags:

March 13, 2007 · No Comments ·

No Responses Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.