Infant-formula damages verdict against Mead Johnson overturned

A US court has reversed a decision against infant-formula maker Mead Johnson awarding $60m in damages to a mother of a baby who died from NEC.

In 2024, the Illinois state court in St. Clair County made the award to Jasmine Watson, the parent of Chance Dean, who passed away after being fed the company’s brand of milk for premature babies, Enfamil Premature 24.

The court had ruled that US-based Mead Johnson, owned by UK-headquartered CPG group Reckitt Benckiser, was “negligent” because it failed to warn mothers of the risks from the life-threatening necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) disease as a result of consuming that type of formula.

Mead Johnson had appealed the decision, with a verdict given in the Appellate Court of Illinois Fifth District last week: “For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand for a new trial,” the court document detailing proceedings dating back to 2021 read.

No date was specified for the new trial.

While the damages had been awarded to Watson on the basis of Mead Johnson’s “strict liability for failure to warn and negligence”, the court last week ruled the demanded presentation of the company’s financial performance and executive compensation was unnecessary in the case.

Prior to the initial trial, Mead Johnson had asked for the financial information to be removed from the proceedings but the court denied the motion, “allowing such evidence for purposes Mother characterised as demonstrating motive, knowledge, and corporate priorities”, according to records detailed in the court document.

Mead Johnson appealed, arguing the “damages award was excessive and that the admission of extensive financial information deprived it of a fair trial”. That motion was also previously denied.

However, the Appellate Court of Illinois overturned that motion last week.

“Such evidence created a substantial risk that the jury would infer culpability from Mead Johnson’s wealth rather than from evidence related to defect, causation, or adequacy of warnings,” the court document read.

It continued: “As the jury was presented not only with extensive financial evidence but with commentary during Mother’s opening statement and closing argument that linked corporate wealth to culpability, the risk of undue influence was high.

“The cumulative impact of extensive references to Mead Johnson’s wealth could not be cured by limiting instructions and undermined confidence in the fairness of the verdict.”

Mead Johnson, via Reckitt, had not responded to Just Food’s request for comment on the latest judgement at the time of writing.

When the $60m was awarded in March 2024, Reckitt did file a comment.

“We stand by the safety of our products. We do not believe that any of our products cause NEC. While we continue to offer our deepest condolences to Ms. Watson, we strongly disagree with the jury’s decision to fault Mead Johnson and award damages,” the company said at the time.

“We continue to believe that the allegations from the plaintiff’s lawyers in this case were not supported by the science or experts in the medical community. This was underscored during the trial by a dozen neonatologists.”

Meanwhile, other cases against Mead Johnson surrounding its infant formula and NEC are pending in the US courts.

Analysts at US-based investment bank Jefferies suggested cases are due to be heard in August and November brought by the Inman and Collins families.

Mead Johnson had already been cleared by a court in Missouri in 2024 related to NEC, along with US-based infant-formula peer Abbott Laboratories and its Similac brand. That case had been lodged by the Whitfield family.

As a result of the ongoing litigation, the CEO of French dairy giant Danone explicitly ruled out any interest in buying the Mead Johnson business earlier in June.

Reckitt has described Mead Johnson as “non-core” within its predominately household focused portfolio.

“Infant-formula damages verdict against Mead Johnson overturned” was originally created and published by Just Food, a GlobalData owned brand.

The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.