Thursday, November 03, 2005
Merck was found not liable in the second Vioxx trial... not because I think they did anything wrong, but because I thought there was no way that a New Jersey jury would be able to resist the temptation to put some money in the plaintiff's pocket.
C'mon, the poor guy suffered a heart attack... Merck's a big, unfeeling, RICH company... they've already been hit with damages for pretty much the same claim in their first trial.... lots and lots of pressure on the jury to give the guy something. After all, he did have a heart attack. It's not like people who don't take Vioxx ever get heart attacks, do they? It's not as if any other risk factors could ever explain why people who took Vioxx got a heart attack, is there? It's not as if jurys have never awarded damages based on junk science, has there? It's not as if there's never been a plaintiff who's betting on a jury awarding millions out of sympathy, has there?
Or... maybe this decision makes a whole lot of sense. But I'm still surprised.