Tobacco Documents Online

82405602 ,

INDEX TO AFFIDAVITS CITED IN CERTAIN DEFENDAIVTS' RESPONSE TO PI.AINTIFF'$ MEMORANDUM OF LtIW ON ATTOItNEY-fFLfEW PRIVILECE AND WORK PRODUCT PRDTE{ State of Missouri, eg rel. v. American Tobacco Comvan, ,1= Case No. 972-01465 Division 5 11 of III Tab 1 .........................................................fifFidavit of James W, Tab 2 ......................................... ................. ffidavit 9f Denisr.P. Keane, 6f2flI96 Tab 3 .........................................................Affidavit.4€ Rp"d F. Bianchi, 4/7/97 Tab 4 ......................................................... AffidaYit;4R ~ Rnald F. Bianchi, 6119f96 Tab 5 ...... .............. ............................. ......... ffidavit of Arthur J. Stevens, 4/7/97' Tab 6.......................................................... ffidavif of Lawrence E. Savell, 6f2f1l96 Tab 7 ......................................................».Affidavit of Susan B. Saunders, 6/19196 - Tab 8 ........ ................................................. Affidavit of William Adams, 5f22197 Tab 9 .....................:...................................Affidavit of William Adams, 6/19196 Tab It# .......................... ............................. rlffidavit of James A. Goold, 10/23/97 Tab 11 .......................................................Declaration of Phil Cohe 995766

requirsng employees to s:ga ccn_identiality agreeateaza: ca3.ntasning tight secur:ty at SitiIs :acilit_os througtt, among other ttings, the use cf electronically-coded _dentification badgesr and strictly :i.mating access to documents to those gersons rnco need such access to perfvrm tae=r duties. f 6. I liar with the preparation of the 3lcssazy of Nas.es and Alfil:ations which describes the affi.iations of persons s+ho authored or received the privileged com¢nunications submitted by american for In camera raview. 7. 'She Glossary of Names and Affiliat_ona represents a rea_or.ahle, good faith effort :a ident;ty these individuals, and as such, .hC information =isted tYierei.n is accurate to the best of my tnoxledge. Lit'_aation Aa;t nsgt Ameriaan 8. The first ssakiag and hea2.h actioa filed against aaatrican seelcing to recover Eor personal injuries al-eged2y caused by smoking was Lewe v. 2..'. Revnalds T.7bacco ^o- et a1 , 3Fo. 9673 {E.D. Mc.) 3"LLffiE"). L4YIl was _:ied cn N`arch 2C, 1954. '7Y.e plainta'f named as de#endants

_nco,.cratsd, and R.3- Reyncids Tocacco Corporation were named as co-defendants with :: and CTR. Since 1964, -2 and CTit have been named as defendants id r=erous other smoking and healtn product 2iabi:ity act_ons ia which ATerican andJcr other cigarette zw.nuf;cturers also were defendants. At all times since at least May 15, 1964, tmerican anticipated chat it might be a cc-defendant witn TI and tZ'R in sach litigation. Join_-7efenee BfEares 14. Zn genera:, Amerscan and other c_garette manu.acturers have participated in a joint deSense eflort to defend pendin_c aad antiespated smakir.g and health itigation since at least 1954. This ;o:at defense ef.•ort has :nc"ded. acrang other things, meeting with in-house and outside counsel representin3 Americar_ and other cigarette manufacturers, ex^:ana_ing materials prepared in the defense of =itiaatian or in anticipa=ion of the defense of -itigatlon, aae idents:ytng and preparing potenCial expert witnesses. This joint defense effort has included ^Z and CTR sinae at least 1964. 1S. Americah, and other cicarette 'eanIIZacturers. -F and C:2 share and have long shared cca¢non :ega-*

each Qanufacturer ot cigarettes a_legedly staoVed by decadent which, ia addition co P.r.terican, included Bsit, LCrilia2Yl Tobacco Comgany, and R.J. Revno2ds Tobacco Cosapany. "s. 1:merican has, from March 10, 1954 until the present, continuously hee- a defendant in smoking and health products liability actions (°smoking and health 2itigation^), except for nine days.2 A:ist of smoking and health actions Eiled against American prior to January 1, 1996, inciuding the date of fili..q, :he state in which the case was =iled, and the data of final disposition tit anyl, is attached hereto as axhibit A. At all times since at least March 10. 1954, au:erica=. anticipated that additional sttsoking and health produc: 1ia6i_i_y actioas might be fi<ed against it. 10_ Currently, more than 115 Smoking and health product liahil=ty actions t'_ncluding I actions that were filed as putacive class actionai and at least 9 actions filed by state 3ttorneys general are pending against American. Fi. In connection with its de:ense of pending and anticipated emoking and health product liability actions. American :ras not a defendant in smoking and health .:tiaaaon frcm Ju^e 16, '_9:4 through J,:na 25. 1954.

Sect'.rity Meastlre8 Regarding privilegesf and Confidential DOCPSttR_tH 3. As an attorney for American, I became familiar with American's practices and policies vith respect to the generation, auintenance, storage, and retention of privileged and coa.ti.dential documents that were generated or received by amera.can. <. Before i_ was merged into aa>t, American took nua+arous precautions to protec^ =ts privileged, proprietary and confidentia2 documents and inforau=ion against public disclosure. 2'r.ose precautions included, but Were not limited to, inforsting employees of the confidential nature of aaxr:can•s business; maintaining tight security at American's faciiit_es through, among other things, security guards and electrical security systems; and str ctZy limiting access to documents to those persons who needed access =o perForm their dut?as. 3. Following Amezlean's purchase by, and merger into 84it, BiSt has continued to utaintain Anterican' s privi.'_eged._proprietary aad confideatial docuste-uts and infoS773tiOn against pxsblic disclosure. The precautions taken by S4Ft include, but are not limited to, informing employees about _he con_i3ential -a_ure of S&WI s bus%.ess;

in_erests. dnterscan aa3 c_her :igarecce trtaauLaccurers, TI and tzst share a co:maon :egal interest in defending against pending and anticipated snoking and heaich litigation. in additioa, rlmerican and other cigarette ma.aufacturers. Tr and C':'~ share and have long shared caaanan legaZ interests re2acing cc legislative and regulatarf matters that affect chee: as massbers of the tobacco industry andjar as cigarette manufacSurers. LaLrer.ce El avail Swozt and su.bscribed to in stry presence an this Zto" day 4f .iune. 1996. 3 U,TY•tl X tU/ No a PuL1ic fAARYANN R. OMGDNt31S NOTAiCI~~ TC3R'K ~O~N FX~ a t!~-3t~""~~

ZDT Z7£E CIRCUIT COURT FOR ME SECOND JLlDI{IAL DISIRICi' OF .7aN8S COtfit'.'Y, ASISSZSSIPPI ESTATE OFSSTRi. BUTLER, by and through AVA Dp,Ai( BUTL$R, Executrix of the astate of BURL SLfTL,Et, and on behalf of all wrongful c'eath beneficiaries of BURL BUTLER, Y$. PHILIP MOBStIS INCORPCsRATED, sT AL. YORR STATE t7P VSW YORf: PLAINTIFF C:vIL ACTIQN NO. 94-5-53 DSPENIDAi3Ts :,AwRFttCE 3. SAYS:aiR, being duly svorn, deposes azid states as follows: 2. : am counsel at the iavr firm of Chadboc:rne & Parke L:.? ±"Chadbourne": where I have been emp.oyed since :982. Chadbaurns has ianc represented defendant The nner:can Tobacca Cemgany.= 2. 1 make t!:is affidavit based npon personal knowSedge and upon infosma:ion grovidad to me by others employed or engaged by American or B&W. The nmericau Tobacco Company v2u ch is referreG to herein as •Amerscar." un:ess otherwise specified, was named as a defendant in this cass and was subsaquant2y merged into Brown & W`_laaasan Tabaccc Ca-poracion t"3&W'i, effeccive Fr.aruarr 22, 1995.

Smokiaq and Healtfr Cars; Fjw i8atast Ameriraa Zobaceo 5eacs Dats F"ilsd IItta 23lsmhsed 1. Lowe MO 031l0154 06116/54 2. Desuth CA 06'26154 07120155 H.c. WA 121I5154 02111,'S7 4. WaWcy N1' 02f18'S6 01J5II 5. G:nm E. - L'L 12I2O'57 0?134f10 6. 8hsp LA 03128158 06/21166 7. Kella CA 1i2106t58 03/03/69 8. lohnsoa. N. LA 01112159 03/59 9. M'tWJrA G. PA 02l20t59 11J26163 10. $raIIa IL 0V25159 03120t50 11. Sicieids OK 11/1769 04f2+tt61 12- 1«iarln.ve CA 12116159 03105l65 13. JaEmsns, E biS 06t18160 01.r01164 14. t.a8r5fe CA 1212616t 08i05164 t5. S'iSieMs OK 04t24162 12113163 16. kLoaey CA 04/05163 01f24172 17. Bosma MS' 05107/63 09/03/70 I8. SacLsam CA 07119163 06/19/69 19. Z.Eacski C? 08113/63 06/15/67 20. Luetaw FL 09111163 02/23/65 21. Foiber, A. V1I 01111164 06f29/65 22. i3iaed iv2 01/11164 06129165 23. DeLoach OK 02108164 08O173 24. Lagp NJ 05101164 02/10/66 25. Wiftaia 1rt2 05111164 01119110 26. Fiat NY 05115164 05101167 27. MafioR OR 06138!fr1 10117165 28. faadis CA 074844 041Q8169 29. Gibbs CA 08105164 09115171 30. Dowell CA 0A128164 05117167 31, Ymato PA L".'13/65 01r2B168 32. li'uiIVan AL 03f29165 07122168 33. Weavec ' M{} 05108165 0itfJ3ff0 34. Fiasoa NY 09127165 45Jl24168 33. MaoII NY v9l27165 0S10S165 36. Gsla NY 02110166 0611616b 37. Gtnfsa I2V 03110/66 03113/72 38, Cvnvy CA 0i/18166 08/02t67 39 Noble OK 05J27t66 04130170 40, Sellalayec ua 08126166 12129167 41 Wrdeeses.cz NJ 10125;66 08129169 42. Ksaft NY 11f22t66 05117/74 "Ra : KH os . fG+ttKa

Amnrican has engaged ouaide counse_. Genera_ly, Fin,er.can has engaged both national coordinating couasel and counsel in the jurindictions in vhich actions against _t are pending. Chadbourne _s American's :a_:onal coordinating counsel. 12. Plaintiffs in smoking and health product liabil_cy actions have generally named as defendants all manufacturers ol cigarettes allegedly smoked by the persons whom plaintiffs claim have been injured. Apart [rom 1.merican, the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers were and are HcW. i.icgett & Myers, Inc. (and its grede successors), Lorillard Tobacco Company, Philip lfo,-ris Incozporatea, and 1.5. Reynolds Tobac_o Corporation. in addition, The Tobacco Znstitste, Inc. ("TI"1 andlor The Council fcr Tobacco Research -- :S.S.I.., Znc. (•Cr'R") have been named as defendam-_s in soae of thete cases. Accordingly, smoking and health :itiga_ion of_en involves several cigarette manu°aaturinc defendants, TI, andtor CT.t. 13. TI and CSR were first named as defeadauts in amoki.^.g and bealth litigation in Fjge v. nhiliD Morris Sne.. ee ai.. No. 6TaG-64 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) ,•L{yM'F, vhich was tiled on May 25, 19154. lr. Lja., American as xe2l as Liggett i Myers. anc., Lorilla=d Tobacco Company. 8hslip Morris 3 k~D

Exhibit B 0

82405613 IHIllllJHHHHHllHHHll ~ < eoC,"v,'Nge e~."a~! 4

! IIate 2tature of Hearings June 21, 1994 House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, held a hearing on ^Regulation of Nicotine-containing Tobacco Products under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.q Dr. David Kessler {Cocmaissioner, FDA} testified before the Subcommittee. June 23, 1994 House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, continued hearings on tobacco products. Thomas Sandefur (Chairman and CEfl of Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co.) testified. November 29, House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, 1994 chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, heard testimony on smokeless tobacco and nicotine. December 6, The Federal Trade Co[cmission heard initial 1994 recommendations fron a panel of doctors and health professionals on the FTC's 30-year-old tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide test method. The panel heard from more than a dozen experts, including scientists from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and presented formal documents to Congress and other federal agencies. July 16, 1996 House Subcommittee on Aviation, held a hearing to consider H.R. 468, a bill to ban smoking on international flights. The testimony included presentations by John F. Banzhaf, ZSI and Senator Frank R. Lautenberg.

! S p}QpT~141LR1 1N. Z81I U£Q Z8f£ 120 - .. Z) V=S T ZZ ZSttZt60 087L 2160 wa r+3IitnL "flZZ Z"Zt60 OSrt 1/60 w3 MOWN 62Z Z8tPtl6G OstLIl60 YD zUPaMx 'szz Z8JtZt60 08tL 1160 vo ~~Q 'LIZ ziriZl60 B2/LIt60 vJ g!~H '4IZ zsnVso 02113160 wo Iw1hH stz z811t160 OS/LI160 VD OWr 'rrz rsmveo 28+9IfE0 vo =00=yY 'EIZ T4tLOfi2 I HlLZt£tt 7CS a8eO-ssooaeN -Zii 18190f80 48i9I*0 !Pnad ' I IZ £G/iZ20 ZS18t'S0 IX iF IIoIao'J 'oI Z (nV?n*T) 28t20t50 28t641ZQ IPI =PA!H mwd '60Z ZaKI/ffl 28180lZI XL snxn '80Z ZSlLZ1ZI 081LIt60 'do M'LOZ Z8!#2l60 08rLIr60 VD asaaw '90Z Z81£Iti{i ZstY017A XL Z81St!£0 ZS180[LO XL '3 ~~aF3 'IiOZ t81t UiU LS12 ZtIO XL -a.iA `4arrird-£OZ ZifSltiO z8f2 tti0 XL 3 4++Id 'ZOL Z&Si1t0 ZBtIZt20 xs 'tY 'lwd ' IOZ z816I1" Z87IZlIO XL 'ra *agm"Iht '00t tIIltlJ#! t81IZti0 XL 'MI#ti '66I ZSlSIItO Z8JIZt20 XL jJ'qti#X '86I ZSJSiflO Z$iIZ7It7 XS A `ROMH 'L6I ZBJSIilO IStiZf20 XL ':) `APxFI '96I zQlSItft) Z812ZlIO X1 fJtormpH '£6I ZSISil£0 I8t80IL1 X1 ~'t `~!IFlM `sbi ZBlRW10 I8tsO1Zi XZ "tH ~~Ai '£fit Z8td0.+)0 I IB0lZI XL '.t'PPa,i 'Z62 tBJSTl£0 281$0lLI 7iS 'a'rofY'I6I Z&rSIitO 28180tZ2 XL 'Ai %m?IPltl '06I Zftf IJI1O 28JYOR i XL watS '682 ZBtLOthO ISlSOtZi ?LL F+Ifl2'IVpxS '662 Z"U£p ZSjS020 X1 `3Vow 'L8i Z81IIfE0 I811i032 2 J£.i .Qy "leno,i '982 ZBfIII£0 18B0fC2 XI a?ca7 •Eat:mS 'S82 tnvzr IBtLUlSO vo C=32eI1i1 a-daS '0BI I819L80 6Lt9W oS IIAMOMf?'E82 051LZB0 681L0r. I XL SSWD 'Z82 86KEf24 68lO212 I XL Ai+qiI;D'ISI 6BtCUi i 68tSZ1tD NII'Y '£'u2=H '082 68Jftf60 6&: ftl0 'd'I aPH '6LI 06!LLM s81Z222 AN J VDWPCt' 8L2 AwggFwcIEI atse PMR3 aIRQ SMS atesH arro

Date Hature of Searings April 30, House Subcoacnittee on Transportation and Hazardous 1990 Materials continued its hearing on "tobacco issues.,This portion examined cigarette advertising and regulatory issues, including shareholder efforts to influence tobacco company policies regarding manufacture and promotion of cigarettes. May 4, 1990 Senate Cocnmittee on Labor and Human Resources held a 0 hearing to exam3ne puDlic health and fair trade issues related to United States export of cigarettes. 1990 House Subcoasaittee on Coc[anerce, Consumer Protection and Competitiveness held a hearing to consider two bills. H.R. 293 (the "Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1989"), which sought to direct the Consumer Product Safety Cotmission, in consultation with the National Institute of Standards and Technology {•HIST"}, to establish cigarette fire safety standards to reduce the risk of fire allegedly caused by cigarette smoking. H.R. 673 (the "Fire Safe Cigarette Implementation Act of 1989"), which sought to reestablish the interagency Coccmittee on Cigarettes and Little Cigar Fire Safety; and to establish an Implementation Task Force to conduct studies on cigarette fire ignition and possible product improvements to reduce the risk of fire allegedly associated with cigarette smoking. May 17 & House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment July 12, 1990 held hearings to examine public health and fair trade issues related to United States export of cigarettes. The hearing also considered H.R. 5041 (the "Tobacco Control and Health Protection Act"). H.R. 5Q41 which sought to strengthen regulation of tobacco advertising, promotion, and sales, and to establish new warning labels for cigarette packages. May 18, 1990 Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. chaired by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, held a hearing on whether American cigarettes are advertised ilLegal21 in Asia. M N 4~ 5 C=3 i_ra rn ~

Cse N.me Se:te D:te Filed Date Dlsmisted 43 Grshsm TX iZIlV6S fl7l67 44. Ycema FL 02r29r68 14101i68 45. StoII CA 05.23168 10122f7fl 46. Joav, RF. Az. 09•'I7f68 I{ttZ3M 47. S¢msan FL 01 r23f69 0#Oit?170 48. Bailey VA 02tI7t69 t49/w1 49. Smith PA tt1f1717Q P=diag 58. fircaat CA 03R5n0 DSr19ft1 S1. L}'Dea IL 04107170 06r11t7t) SZ ridwslt RJ. 0s?85r7o 0v09rr1 53. D'Exut CA 10126/7fl 0711 IlF3 54. &idgei NY 11113/70 PeudiAg 53. ktgea CA 07t14t72 05tI7tS3 56. CamciaeY CA 1 QI46tJ2 07123t73 57. $wia& VA 11f28J75 11t1S1J6 58. Narlello PA 10121/77 06t26t71 59. Can3oa Ri t#8t02t78 02f24t83 60. viOSeliu CA 09t18178 A4124t79 61. Cmoom3 Sc 1tt131r78 08r26t81 62. Bovelells GA 11t1#}17$ 02i15179 63. AdeLaa CA 11/07/80 u5/1218z 64. SaU CA t91t85t82 07ISZP8E 65. Gaibnit& CA 061Q71s2 0510643 66. Dewey NI 08/20/82 1110219Z 67. 8racb NI 11l22t82 12t{}9187 68. Flysa N7 0?1U1t83 #iSJCi2f83 69. Fiym NI 021fl1t83 11146f92 70. Reaeh NJ t#Zf09183 11J11t87 71. CiaJEaaith CA 07JI0t83 i171flt83 72. Thomas NT 06t2fN83 10105187 73. Penninglon LA 01125t84 06t28189 74. Hetlto NI Q5f I8t84 03/19/85 75. IiaiBlst, et al. tVV 05130184 05/31/94 76. SmitS, D. NJ 09107194 01149195 77. Sclsimlce CA 14l31194 04128f87 78. Alawpisl 2X 12123194 10t0?189 79. Rcrar, LD. TX 0247105 P:adia; 88. Pstkavedc 17t 0?J27/85 09{16t86 8I. Duke I7C 06f12185 07J31192 82. Halliu 141A Q6t19135 12117J8S 83. :ols ?4tA 06119f85 09t29t89 84. Limcamh TX 06t20f85 03t13t89 85. Ed*+a:ds TX 08129185 05f11/87 86. Shadsck TX 08f29185 05/11/37 &7. Liectee PA 09t16t85 10128/87 ~+r., ius+ai..+ataca

0 $EDBRAL RS T4AY EMINGg i195o-199fi7 Date btatssre of Haarings July 18-19, 23-2£, 1957 March 16-18, 1964 June 23-25 & July 2, 1964 March 22-25, 29-30 & April 1-26, 1965 April 6-9, 13, 15 & May 4, 1965 August 23-25, 1967 March-June, 19459 April 15-18, 21-25, 28-30 & May 1, 1969 June 10, 1969 Chairman John A. Blatnik of the Legal and Monetary Affairs SubcoccmGittee of the House Government Operations Committee held hearings on cigarette advertising. The Federal Trade CoscstEission held public hearings on its proposed trade regulation rule requiring a health warning on cigarette packages. Ftouse Committee on Interstate and Foreign Coaaaerce held hearings on several bills requiring warnings in cigarette advertising. Senate Committee on Cosaaerce held hearings on various bills to regulate cigarette labeling and advertising. House Znterstate and Foreign Comaerce Committee held hearings t~n various bills to regulate cigarette labeling and advertising. Senate Costnerce Committee held hearings on the development of a so-called "less hazardous cigarette." flouse Interstate and Foreign Comnerce Committee heard testimony on extension of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. House Interstate and Foreign Comnerce Committee held hearings on several bills to amend the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. House Interstate and Foreign Comnerce Committee held hearings concerning the regulation of radio and television cigarette advertisements by the National Association of Broadcasters Code Authority_ (.M

Cate Nature of H=arings May 7, 1987 House Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism, and Hazardous Materials held a hearing to examine the Federal Trade Cotmnission's decision to close its Cigarette Testing Laboratory and terminate the Federal Trade Commission's program to validate tar and nicotine content claims of cigarette manufacturers. July 27-28, House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment 1987 held hearings to consider fi.R. 1532 and H.R. 1272 (the "Health Protection Act of 1987"). H.R. 1272 sought to amend the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986. October 7, House Subcommittee on-Aviation held a hearing to 1987 consider various legis2ative proposals to ban or restrict smoking aboard airlines. May 4 & June House Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism and 8, 29, 1988 Hazardous Materials held hearings to examine various cigarette advertising, health, safety, and liability issues. June 23, 1988 House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing to review the Veterans' Administration's Veterans Canteen Service operations. The hearing focused on implementation of Veterans' Administration's policy rerarding discontinuation of canteen sales of tobacco products. June 22, 1989 House Subcommittee on Aviation held a hearing to consider legislative proposals to ban cigarette. smoking aboard airlines. July 25 & House Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous September 13, Materials held hearings to consider H.R. 1250 (the 1989 "Frotect Our Children from Cigarettes Act of 1989"). H.R. 1250 sought to amend the Federal Trade Cotanission Act, to prohibit advertisement and promotion of tobacco products to persons under 18. November 16, House Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous 1989 & Materials continued its hearing on "tobacco =ssues." March 1, 1990 The hearings included consideration of Ft.R. 1250 (the "Protect Our Children from Cigarettes Act of 198911).

Cut Yams S'stc Date Fitsd Deu Diamtiud 133. Ifarton MS 05109186 0?J13t96 134. Rslie}i IvS 03115186 I0t20B7 135. ICaeaz I?C 05,27>86 01/II19i 136. Ratbseb TX 06,0Z186 0srzersa 137. ii'aads TX 06t02l86 06,r0"3 138. Dsvsepost TX 06rasra6 II123188 139. Frejesa TX 06r09/86 10113,31 140. Vara TX o6r09B6 I?J06188 141. Boadacw CA Ob+11186 09t18B7 142. Mo+sat PtH 0fi{13186 04P731A7 143. Guaitss t1li 06130/86 04/141EE 1dt. W1ila, P. CT 07fI4/d6 10tI6189 145. FOley ' WA 07131t86 03107118 146. Sarares WA 07t3 i/86 04f23t87 147. Slaschaed MN 09C14186 03t17t87 149. Gelisy., et sl. TX 041Z6J86 061QSN3 149. Lee CA 1012246 03h39/88 ISft Ii"ite PA IOISOtE6 06t1719i ISI. GCM.n C+S t U20F86 091t'It87 152. 4'hampaa, F. CA 11124l86 04f04'P87 153. G.slaad CA I2113186 08l07/87 154. Newtoa TX 121271E6 061I6+$8 ISS. S3eopshire TN 02/04/1€7 08101188 156.Kxaffmsn LA 02J11387 11t2$f40 157, L"taab FI. 0311J187 L2t10784 158. Ita8C7, R IN 03127/87 P*ZdAPF I59. Gillwy, a aL LA 03130tE7 Peadfa8 160. Phitlig MA 06104f87 1fY20B7 161. IdFeell. 7. LA 07Ifi6187 Peadig8 162, ButEeC NY 08tZ7t87 08t08188 163. Moaticmay, et sL TX 08f31f87 08lI0B8 I6a Tsuett TX 4813Id8? 08110t88 165. Nesir PA 13103187 4}7t22J91 166. RTi$es 1N3 1113187 Fead'mg 167. Ma"I LA 0It13188 11114/89 168. Sab,ico M5 0I/Z7/88 0410f143 164. Snuoa CA 0111t188 tiN29B9 170. MtRiBo NY 03l04188 Pcadis; 171. Flnpyada CA 0'3t25188 04128188 172. Emwn, L CA 04t01/88 081i'7189 I73. D¢hya FA 0Sfi3188 09106141 174. Seiph biI) 06t27188 03rZ8189 175. Nfiiaafi, h1_ LA D8129t88 03130f89 176. VilIar LA 101241$8 01103191 2 r. PambeROa NY tI/i118$ U1111141 T, :f4N.1[ . VClDiC

Case Name Srate Date PO.d Date D;smi..ed 262. Psite4nd FL 4KZ8195 04t09196 263. Piard LA 04t13195 05f4746 264. Acadd FL 03r04l95 05/28196 265. Bacsba FL I?I1319S 0512it96 266. Lr:IIc FL 02105I96 05P28196 267, iuyatt FL 10120195 061431% 268. Peyae FL D5/02193 0W03196 269. Meadozs HI 0111418b 11115f89 270. Grmvp VA 09r28189 04113190 271. Aadenoo C.A 09117180 03139t82 272. Lyba;a PA 02t20/90 12112!90 271 Pcbeeg I7C 04a5t90 02J11191. 27s. Vt'~. P. OH #}9t04187 03113t9if 275. tha. NJ 1St06P91 01F21192 275. Sthsltz II AZ 01l04191 10711t91 277. Schehz III AZ 03l08191 08f1d+9I 278. SptinBh.id Ry. ME 0flOU91 03/13t92 279. Fostn AZ 07110192 01/05193 284. Iaaa CA 06f24t92 01l1SJ93 281. Zwsillmsa NY 03104191 04P2I193 282. Paiatx SVY 02122t93 07112143 283. Roai PA 0110191 dit13193 294. Mos:maa OR 01t1<193 07f2?1B3 283. 3s1>setsoa ;!Y 07118'90 11/05/93 286. Whisa 01131/89 08t20l93 287. Bma 4R 09/27/93 10121193 288. Adems 17C 0+{t01t96 Pmdias 289. Alacander FL 03F19t46 Pending 290. A21m FL 1L'1519b Pending 291. Alt=ood TX 0110it91 Pending 292. Anthony FL 08t29195 PeaQ}a; 293. Arabie LA 10+05193 Pending 294. Arnold RI 07t18f95 Pend'nt 295. Arsensnlc FL 08103r9S Pendis8 296. Asbe1l FL 06J1d195 Peadiv.8 297. Atud FL 03fI2196 Pmdiag 298, Bakw IfS 07111195 Psadis8 299. Baxtlsy FL 19121195 Pending 300. Saanaa FL 05111196 Peadis; 301. Sswngates FL 08l03t9S Pending 302. Bena-Feiarld FL 04Ji0i96 Pending 303. EiIby KS 07171l95 Pending 304 Biaceh.c$ iLN. TX 07J31192 Peadia# 305. Blum FL 03i1II95 Pending 306. 5ous m 45tt4t9i Pending tiYa ! 4]1 Ct - WOiDt3

s Ca...''tas~e " Sate Date Fi7ed Date Di.misaed 35 t. Gilboy LA 03/30/87 Pend'mg 352. GiilicY FL 101:0/95 Pmd'mg 353. GocLtlez FL 01/0L96 Peadiag 354. Graoi.r LA 09/2294 Pend'mg 355. Greaier FL I l/15/95 Peadmg 356. GrinaeU TX 10/0985 Peadiag 357. Haa FL 08/23/95 Peadiag 358. Harmon FL 04/12/96 Pend'mg 359. Haapil FL 08/03i95 Pendiag 360. Hasford FL 11/15/95 Pending 361. Hian FL 05,0216 Peadmg 362. Hjoesb FL 08/03/95 Peadmg 363. Hokaasaa FL l2/21/95 Paadiug 364. HoLed PL 08l0L95 Peadiag 365. HoIIaad FL 06/23/95 Peaditg 366. Hama FL 01/17I96 Pead'ag 367. Halia LA 01/07/86 Pendiog 368. HaII FL 0d/11/96 Peodiog 369. Haac FL 02%22/96 Pcnding 370. Hmebia LA 09/(7/92 Peading 371.Icyoab LA 03/13/96 Paeding 372.Iralaad KS 07!11/95 Panding 373. Jacimn FL 0?129/96 Paeding 374.Jasobt FL 08/03/95 Paadmg 375. Jaoob.oa FL 08/03/95 Pcadiag 376. Jay FL 08/03/95 Peading 377. hubm s FL 11/30N5 Peedhg 378. Johnson FL I1/30N5 Peadiag 379, Joaa KS 07/11/95 P.ading 380. Jormga FL 09/13/95 Poding 381. Kabiweylc FL (OILO/95 Pending 191 I(,a FL 08/03/95 Pading 383. King FL 08/L3/95 Pesdmg 384, Knakle FL 0lr29196 Pendiag 385. Ktms FL 06r27J95 Pesdiag 386. Levia FL 08/03A5 Pending 387. Levoe FL t2!11/95 Paadiag 388. Lewis - FL I2/11/95 Pead'oy 389. Lorevo FL 02r29,'96 Pmding 390. h{ugo NY 03/OUBB Pending 391. Mana . FL 03/19/96 Pead'mg 392. Marnjo FL 11/15/95 Peading 393. MeCollnm FL 10l23/95 Peadin; 3(k . MtGaw W'V 09R0/94 Padiag 395. Mice3i LA 07r06/87 Peadas 'rn- ~ u3. o, . wrrnc 9 _

nata Naturs of Haarings September 10, Senate Subcommittee on Taxation and Debt Management 1985 held a hearing to examine S. 874. S. 874 sought to increase the excise tax on cigarettes. September 16, Senate Subcommittee on Taxation and Debt Management i985 continued a hearing which began on September 10. 1985 {regarding cigarette excise taxes). This session focused on proposals to extend the cigarette excise tax to include chewing tobacco and snuff. September 30 Senate Subcommittee on Civil Service, Post 6ffice, & October and General Services held hearings to consider 1-2, 1985 S. 1440 (the "Nonsmokers, Rights Act of 1985"). S. 1440 was a bill to restrict smoking to designated areas in all federal buildings. June 12 & House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment 27, 1986 held hearings to consider Ii.R. 4488 (the 'Nonsaokers' Protection Act of 1986") and H.R. 4546 (the "Nonsmokers' Rights Act of 1985"). Both bills sought to restrict smoking to designated areas in all federal buildings. July 18 & House Subcocmiittee on Health and the Environment August 1, held hearings to consider H.R. 4972 (the "Health 1986 Protection Act of 1986*), which sought to prohibit advertisement and promotion of tobacco products. September 17, House Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture 1986 Research, and Environment held a hearing to examine the nature and extent of radon gas on indoor air pollution and the status of Federal indoor radon exposure research and mitigation programs. The hearing also examined tobacco smoke inhalation by nonsmokers. April 3, 1987 House Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism, and Hazardous Materials held a hearing to consider H.R. 1272 and H.R. 1532 (the "Health Protection Act of 1987"). H.R. 1272 sought to amend the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986.

Case Nam. St:te dJate F3[ed Bste Dinmirud 307. gpitpa FL !0/30/95 Pcatfiat 308. BoltQa FL 11I16195 Pending 3m Boyle FL 21I30145 Peadag 310.Bmm,eta2. FL 10/32792 Pssdisg 311. Biva.rzs FL 0Et03,'45 Pending 312. 23zowa FL 02118196 Pending 313. 8it¢titnglIAm NH I 1J10l44 Pending 314 8cttan " KS 05l25/44 Peadinf 313. Eat2er M9 05F22+'94 Pcadieg 316. Caplia 317. CapPs FL FL fl2f0f!% 05tt}4P95 Pending Pending 318. C.a1Qxi FI. 017,01% Pead'm= 319. Cacmr FL 02l10/9S Pending 320. Cista, R. FL 04t36t96 Pepdim 321. Cuttao LA 03/29/94 Peoding 322. Caadslt FI,. 041101% Pending 323. Csvsasir;h FL 02t27t96 Pcsdot 324. C3ispga FL 1?l11f95 Fapdiott 325. Lhitducss FL 08123t95 Pending 326. CL€D6sau FL 10f23t45 Pendd'mg 327. C'lsiitem 328. C3amz FL LA osroM 08/13143 Pending Pending 329. {7irtiz-Reymecs FL 07124+96 Pending 330. Gtav FL 01/27196 Pmd* 331. Clayiaa FL 04t1dt% Ptading 332. t'.o3Sia FL 0?nt7f46 Pmdise 333. Cclliat Sc 061Q2t44 Pending 334. Commoawestsh of MA 12119195 Pending ~ •r__swAn_we 333. Cooglec FL 12113195 P=dtaY 336. Cordova CA 05112192 Pending 337. Cax FL 11f29195 Pending 33&. Gutai r, 10I10t95 Pcmding 339. Daly FL 01116196 Pmding 340. Ihria FL 08103t95 Pending 341. I?svi? I1H 04t06145 Pmdinll 342. flwa FL 02116146 P.eQing 343. Dodd FL 06It7195 Pending 344. Dnan tN 05lSE/43 Peadiaa 345. Eatls F[. 05t05144 Pending 346. Emu FL 0sr23145 Pendiaq 347. Fas#nv FL 04f28f95 Peadiag 34$. Fiach FL 10123/95 Pmatins 349 Foatt FL 03F20t46 PzadiaE 350. Gaatea FL 1110195 PeadsaE SYl itf}14i-4TyQiII

! 68fLt180 9$BZ't'0 981HZI50 981S2?K 88161/t•0 98J60ttti 98P01ILi 981tr0tt0 98f1i160 981SLr£0 69tL7JS0 9tt10I1£0 Z6tt4fLt 98tLCN4 Z6ItAf£o 9StLALtt LifCOtYO 98AZIL0 68tLO1dI 9$lZIILO LYT921/SO 98/OIlLO LBtOZdtO 98"tLO 98fLOPtI 981f4ZfD 68tdZ180 9tlI £t10 0501160 98t8Z/t0 682U80 98tL1110 6VEOro0 981LIII4 L8lOZ101 99/92F10 9tits£r'OI 9i192tt8 6861i11 98101110 L816Ql90 9$t60!t0 2!Pwd 921L0110 9HiYZltO 9flt9{U10 88PEOlSO 98/90ri0 98TOIffdf SStI£tLI 881fo1t0 Sstllft L8ltttSo 58/EZ2t L8!21l60 S811'C1L2 &sr£0!£o SsA6ZlZI s8!£OlSO 58191ILI 94114tL0 SSf£1ILt Yk+i•Z/90 S81£12I fii+SOtLO S8RI22 681£Z20 991111Lt 981SZl60 S81LZ7II 6$t9122 SHtLZ?I i 98tOZt21 59151111 8&'6Z1I0 S$lSIII1 88IZIl01 581LO11 1 0611111.0 S81£ZtOI S8t6IrZt SBJIZJOI ZGRtI,YO M2R1I pa?Pmd 581601ot 98PLZfll 58tC0101 0620tt0 S8110101 pa+UMclQ alstt MasaQ sMS o~ - " a„~ .~ ASIMx 'zc t •~ 'nsamg 't F i n~lII 'OCt W=ub 6Z2 morx?Q 'YZ I ssmPA"J 'LZt AIHI]I '9it acrai+'I 'SZI 'H%arc4ot "iZt )m'aPs'H '£ZI nAR3'ti 'zzI Tmftl!S "iZ2 XPLAsd '8ZI car= ,qoX '6I : +UtO4S '81 I "T '*aud 'LI I sd!EIE4d '911 PA[flii 'S t t ~H 'tIi VZOPM3Y 'LII laft 'ZI I '3 `=!InH 'I I I A*pOas •ati ?aq6ONi '60I =,4&RS '8UI AiM 'LQt PDOA%1*qS '90t AwQ 'sot A=d 'DOI EM'COI 't `nl[R'Q 'ZOI (=tmDJ) w=J 'tot so,4Q 'o0t RS '66 'FY VMS '86 a?u:nba31 L6 ua43 '96 U*RdMS 'S6 UoMcA mA 'P6 A U3.12t51:11FY "f6 vd!tP.Ad Z6 'Ir sa `aaalY ' 16 t!NMUD '06 S"T+'tt 61 (*iIIS+f} tmfd '88 "*x "WO i

82405629

Date July 1-2. 1969 July 22, 1969 February 1, 3 & 10, 1972 April 1977 September 1978 March 9 & 17, 1983 - May 5 & 12, 1983 Nature of BEariaqs The Federal Trade Commission held hearings on its proposed (May 20, 1969) trade regulation rule which would require the following language in all cigarette advertising: "cigarette smoking is dangerous to health and may cause death from cancer, coronary heart disease, chronic bronchitis, pulmonary emphysema and other diseases_" Consumer Subcommittee of the Senate Cotcnerce Co¢anittee held hearings on the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act, Ft.R. 6543. Chairman Moss of the Senate Coimnerce Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs held hearings on his 1971 proposal to regulate the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes. The Federal Trade Comaaission held hearings on cigarette advertising and labeling. House Subcommittee heard testimony from scientists regarding claims that ambient cigarette smoke was allegedly harmful to nonsmokers. House Subcommittee hearing investigated the Federal Drug Advisory Commission's requirement of a smoking warning in oral contraceptive packages. House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment held hearings on the Comprehensive Smoking Prevention Education Act. Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs held a hearing to consider proposed amendments to the Federal Trade Coaaaission Act regarding regulation of advertising practices. House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment held hearings to consider 2i.R. 1824 (the "Comprehensive Smoking Prevention Education Act") H.R. 182€ sought to amend the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. Senate Committee on Labor and Human 8esources held hearings to consider S. 772 (the "Smoking Prevention Health and Education Act of 1983"). S. 772 sought to amend the Public Health Services Act and the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.

Lata November 16, 18-19, 1993 February 7 & March 17, 1994 March 16-17, 1994 March 25, 1994 April 14, 1994 April 20, 1994 April 28, 1994 Natnre of H.arings House Comoittee on Ways and Means held hearings to consider the Clinton Administration's proposals to reform the health care system (the "Health Security Act"). The hearings focused, in part, on mechanisms for financing health care reform, including a proposal to increase the federal excise tax on tobacco products by 75 cents per pack. House Subcommittee on Health and the Envi chaired by Congressman Henry Waxman, held a hearing on environmental tobacco smoke and H.R. 3434 {the "Smoke-Free Environment Act of 1993"). Rouse Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and the Food and Drug Administration held a hearing on "Regulation of the tobacco i.ndustry." tiouse Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, held a hearing on regulating cigarettes. David A. Kessler (Coueaissioner, Federal Drug Advisory Comni.ssion) testified, alleging that nicotine in tobacco is "addictive". tiouse Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, chaired by Representative Henry AiaxaEan, held a hearing on nicotine and cigarettes. The chief executive officers of the nation's tobacco companies testified. House Comuittee on Coenaerce, Consumer Protection, and Competitiveness held a hearing to consider fI.R. 3885 (the "Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1994"). H.R. 3885 seeks to direct the CFSC to establish, in consultation with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, fire safety standards in connection with cigarette smoking. House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, continued oversight hearings on tobacco products. Dr. Victor Detsoble and Dr. Paul Mele (former Philip Morris employees) testified, co N ~ CD CPf

Data Hature of Hearings May 24, 1990 Senate Committee on Finance held a hearing to examine various issues associated with cigarette smoking and to assess approaches to reduce smoking among youth. November 12, House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 1991 held a hearing to examine the status of the EPA's rule making and other initiatives to implement the Clean Air Amendments of 1990, Novemtser 14, Senate Subcommittee on the Consumer held a hearing 1991 to consider S. 1088 (the "Tobacco Product Education and Health Protection Act of 1991*). S. 1t}88 seeks to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act to establish programs to reduce the use of tobacco products through expanded inforasation and education initiatives regarding alleged health risks associated with tobacco use. S. 1088 also included provisions to clarify state and local authority to regulate advertising and sales of tobacco products. February 23, House Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds 1993 held a hearing to examine issues relating to the General Services Administration's management of federal facilities, including General Services Administration policies restricting smoking in federal office buildings. March 11 & House Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds April 22, held hearings to consider H.R. 881 (the Ban on 1993 Smoking in Federal Buildings Act). H.R, 881 sought to ban smoking in all buildings owned or leased by the Federal Government. The hearings also examined the Environmental Protection Agency's report on environmental tobacco smoke. July 21, 1993 House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment - held a hearing to examine alleged health effects of "environmental tobacco smoke" on nonsmokers and examined the Environmental Protection Agencyfs report on "environmental tobacco smoke". July 21, 1993 House Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Natural Resources held a hearing to examine the Environmental Protection Agency's report on "environmental tobacco smoke". The hearing focused on methodological aspects of 5PA's risk assessment.

"scrA "Isxni .zI . 967971C0 S6RTJ90 'l3 9614I/tU S61SSfZt "fd 4616 ttl0 S61CZ190 73 96ItOt46 S6/fots© '7d 96f6iSlf0 56196110 73 961t8ti€? SEdt ITZI 73 9bt6ZfL0 561EIl8o 73 S6diI2I t6tiZfLO S7I 96fLtlto C6t61JIi 73 961Wtt8 S$t£DW 73 56/tFitF2 SGtEI160 73 S6fZArol 96ftZtI2 ?Ia S619IIOI S618z180 'I3 9filLlliO 56rZZT19{t 73 56rSU6o 561t£t£o 73 f61641$0 £6J4£l8o }C.t S6JLOlLO r61dU9tt Yd 561QO/SA K9Ztot 00 S619ZTI0 t6J£IIII YD SN£otio t6tfiEl£tD V3 S6FLIJIO 1•6foEr9o SNt *4BQRI LBfIWI S3it t6rtL/4I ltJOZTLO Y7 1611otit f6tlil$0 V3 Sfi190R! *6i6o/90 ivi iNi£tta 96101190 '9C) ?6d4Zt5o 461tt1m ?LL SQtE1JtI4 t6tl€lEQ Y,? O6t6I t t 0 zb+O t t#S4 Y'I f6(LO/IO Z6t6ZtZI YyY £LJBIrtI €61IG/Zo V7 6t16t180 4IIltElIP YZr 68tZLtBO :3fLIlIQ YJ LQIdiffA t$16I16o VD 68I£orio 9BiLZ+tO ALI LMZRO 98/9I1L4 HO SBf6IlfU "l9ZIZ1 I $II{40 I$ti01Zfl IAE IYIO£IYO I1T1S+ItFO V~ zalsrJfo ZgrrzRo X,L paas?mm(l a.Q Pqt3 *7:EI atIRS !m}I 't4Z aa147nOH o4i. s!RJ%A '6SZ ;RMS '8;Z ~ "LSZ 8~4~ I '4SZ u+mS 'SSZ caamumn 'KZ DfdF=m'D'ESZ mdow'D ZSZ ROfi.eY. 'ISZ ssm~M '!?tZ SMUa "6>z •AalTz 'stz sussa5 'LiZ iSSt9Ifi '9YZ CO[M "s>z Zamtaft '1"YZ =m?Ilad 'E#Z MFMW 'ZtZ 94*I I t2 ('aJ zPWIi} 2"M8 OK ('Pa3) ho4i?D '6€z mf~ '8£Z "L£Z R+aA '9€Z 4alhRM 'S£Z [pttsgrloeoa)} Aoft "r€z CFWFY '££z ~tKI z¢z AMUMD I £z 'q'cosslqag 'ofZ ~I~d `6zZ 3S T 3YtJ '8Zz iduaRd 'LZZ DRnMSfl '9zZ gotdmDILL 'S*IO lmd 'SZZ (*sY3pa) =A+fi$ mzod '6ZZ (saraaizrY? aadag 'm CD.T-mi1 ZZz acwmN "go

Caac NAate Statr Date Ftled Dismiwd 396. Miceli (Suu: w D.) LA 01l11tE9 Pending 397. 1KtddFatmc FI. 11/07/95 Pending 398. 4fl1et FL C?1S9t96 Pending 399. Mnare. M. h(S 0923194 F®dia8 4(30. A€otaa FL 01I19196 Pending 401. Mn11ia FL O8/iT3AlS Peadiat 402. Neas FL 12lI1l93 Pending 403. Norton I•I 05103196 Peadia8 404. Olson FL 03f2Q'% Peadia; 40i. Pceifiao FL I1tIi195 Pending 4t16. Pceyrs FL 08103f95 Pending 407. Paxy TN f#7t24N5 Patiis; 408. Piclcaioj FL 07/13/95 Pending 409. Piclcaa FL 03fZ9196 Pending 4t0. Pime EL 1013 i195 Pending 411. Pine FL 01119196 Pending 412. Pitre LA 07Ft8792 Pandisi 413. Qaanaemaa FL 1?i21f95 PmdieB 414. Quick FL 11115195 Pesdms 415. Raaieetw FL 05104195 Pending 416. Rtctz FL 08t28t91 Pending 417. 8.irvs FL 10120195 Pending 418. Riz FL 041121% Feadis8 419. Raeos FL 10123195 Prsdin 42^. Radehiya FL 05102196 Peadta8 421. RcB.rs. LD. TX 03s27f85 Pending 422. Roas FL 11103t95 Pending 423. P.tiie FL 09113/95 Pending 424_ Sradas FL 071Z:N6 Pradia8 425. Scatt LA 05f241% Pending 426. Seric FL 10117195 Pending 427. Sksw 428. Shaw (Fadersl} FL No [DJ2ii9S 10t30P93 P Pending 429. S3aw (Stue) -M? 10130195 PmdinB 434. Simon FL 02t61796 Pa¢diD,B 431. Sm.II FL 08103195 Pending 432. Smith FL 12r11195 Pcadin8 433. Smith - FL 1?111195 Prudilas 434. Smith FL fl3t27l96 Pending 435. Smith MO 0VZ]t46 Peadistg 436, SuccBa - FL 12f13195 Pending 437 5urliag FL 44tI6t96 PtadIDB 438. Siasa a( Flcrida FL 62l2It95 Prndm4 439, Suteo€MtrYlald NO 05/01/96 Pradin6 4.40. Stau of lriinaaon MN M17194 Peadia; Ia .Y. i}6}ta..iQOtf

CASE NAME DEFENDANTS CQURT/CASE DATE DATE NO. FILEI} DISMISSED ' Jones. F L B&W L' S D C. ti D. Al. 6i3f69 l l 1 Z'71 S D [Birmingham], C A No 69-325 Peters B&W, t:.S D C.. N D. 1L, i0t7i69 7 19t7^ B.A.T Co ED [Chicagoj C,A. No. 69 C 2340 Readwise B& W Cr Ct., Dane Ctv.. 2t 1171 ~! i 9171 WI [Madison}, C..A No t32-377 Nickloff L&M, B&W, U.S.D C.. C.D., CA 1i3f72 9r'_:173 RJR, Tl [Los Angeles], CA. :Vo. 7 i -1123 Monroe B&W U.S.D.C., N D., IN. 7/26/76 6/4/79 South Bend Div [South Bend], C.A. No S-76-129 Prtce.3. B&W, U.S.PC, 3.D,.GA, 3J8I79 3I4l80 Atlanta Div. [Atlanta]. C A. No C79-381 A Youn_¢ B&W, et al U.S D C, E.D , LA 815/80 4i'2181 [:~,ew OEleansj, C.A. No.84-2049 Dewey R7RT, RSRI, Super. Ct,. Hergen 8/20/82 1 tt2192 AB. 8&W Ctv, NJ jHackensack], C.A. No L-071733-81 Reach AT. PM, Ligg, U.S.D C_ Camden, 11122182 12/9t87 B&W NJ, C 4. ?•!o. 82- 3938 Reach AT, AB, PM, Super. Ct, Camden 219(83 12f 1 1187 Ligg, B&W, Ctv., NJ [Camden], RIR, Loew's C n. No. L-a087S4- The. et al 83

IN THE CIXCUIT COURT FOR THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF JONES COUNTY, hfISSISSIPPF ESTATE OF BURL BUTLER, by and throtrgh AVA DEAN BUTLER, P.ucutrix of the Eatate of BURL BUTLER, and as behatf of ait wrongful deuh besteficiarirs of BURL BUTLER, PLAINTIFF va. CIYII. ACTION NO. 41-1-53 PHILSF MORRIS INCORPORATED, ET AL. DEFENDANTS COUNTY t3P JEFFERSON ) STATE OF KENT7CKY ) !a: Sunn B. Sauadxs, being duly twpr::, depoaea and .tsw aa toltowa: S. My issme i: Stuut B. Saundaa. Siaca July 1933, I have been employed by tbt BdcW Tobacco Corporation ('B&W') u Legal Attittsnt in BdcW'a Lw Deptrtment and subsequently aa Assistant Corpcsrua Secretary. 2. 1 make this affidavit bauad upon pecaotroi inowtedge with respect to the period of my emptn}msaat at BdtW, and baed upon intarmatian made available to me a Legal Assistant and Auiaant Gstporats Secnnty for BdcW with retpecc to artler srrloda of ttcne. rsnatmea et~ 3. During the count of my smploymeru wbh 8&.W, I hive become €amHitr with BkW'e t`< _~. ~ past and preemt intensal praetiea tnd poliCiet with respect to the jaustattoc, msintenaace, atoram dispothlon, and outside disdosurt of privileged and contSdentiai docutnertn;enented or received by BdiW. C\ f ) t s. As a miner of limera2 policy, HdW Las takso mtvy preeantions to protect all of its privueSed, proprSetiry and saattdentid documents and lnformaeion ap'sast public di+atosur.. Ttuae precuttioru includa without 15mitat3oa lnfarntinS empicsyen abatt the mnfldeatEal nature of BdW'a I, AN aa AT3AGHMENT 4

szchmgltsg mstersata pr:pared in insicipsiion of titigstion; and ideot3fying and prepuing potentisi i 16. BB&W, the other major American c snufscsurers, Fi, snd CTR sbzrt tnd hsve long ttured comrnou tejs{ iacuesrs. For aztaipie, $AW, the other major Amrri Cigarette msnufscturea, TI, and CFR chse a comasoa legel inurst in defeading sgsinst peading :nd ugicipun3 smoking and health prodwx liability actioos. in addition. BAW, the osher mqjor Americsss cfguma tn{qvfs:asran, and TI shue and have bag shared ctttamon legs! }nteretu rcistlag to legislative and regulatory maittrs that affect them ss menufac3urers, as members of tae tobscw intiu.uy, uwar et cizarette mtaufsctura. FURTHER,'F#I5 APFIANI` SAYEili NAUGHT. Dmd_ Jura 19, 1996 sZ~_ . _. C7~1, g_ . _ ussa 8. SsunWsrt Sworn and.4ul?tcrlb.d to in my praeau f,)uoe, I My Coassnltiton Expiree: CO tJ m . ~ m Un -S3 ~ CO

CASE NAME DEFENDANTS COUR`I7CASE DATE DATE NO. FILI:D I3ISRIISSED ' Thomas RJR AT. B&W. Super Ct.. Essex 612018 3 et ai. Ctv., NJ (Newark], C.A. No. L-438433- 83 Rogers, P. RIRI, R7RT. U.S.D.C., E.D. TN 4i t 9/84 ?'_6185 BATUS, B&W, jKnoxvi[Iej, C.A. TI No.3-84-J49 Haight, et ai. AT, B&W, Lor, Cit. Ct.. Karawha 5f30184 61I195 PM, RIRI, Li¢g, Ciy, W V TI, CTR, et a!. [Charleston], C A- NQ 34-C-2072 Rogers, I.D. RJR, PM, AT, Dist. Ct., Jefferson 2/27/85 Pending B& W, Lor, Cty., TX L&M, Ligg, TI, (Beaumont], C.A. CTR, et al. No. E 121486 Petkovsek RJR, PM, AT, Dist. Ct., Jefferson 2/27/85 9116/86 B&W, Lor. Cty., TX L&M, Ligg, TI. [Beaumont], C.A. et al. No. E 121482 DiBtasi B&W U_5_D C., Boston, 613185 1116185 MA, C.A. No. 85- 2291-K Duke RJR, PM, AT, Dist. Ct., Jefferson 6t12/85 7131192 B&W, Lor, Cty., Tx L&M, Ligg, TI, [Beaumont], C.A. - CTRZ, et al. No. D 122149 Edwards RlIt4 AB, B&W, Dist. Ct., Jefferson 8/29/85 5111187 TI, CTR, et ai. Cty., TX [Beaumont], C.A. No. D 122617 Shedrick RIR, AB, B&W, Dist Ct., Jefferson 8/29/85 5111I87 et al. Cty., TX jBeaumont], C.A. No. E 122614

SMOKING AND HEALTH CASES FILED AGAINST BROWN & WtLLIAkISOti TOBACCO CORPORATION March 1954 Throveh December 31, 1994 CASE NAME DEFENDANTS COURT1CAfiE DATE DATE NO. FILED DISMISSED Lowc R3R, AT. Lor, U S D C., E.D.. irEO 's114t;4 6ll61;4 B&W, et al. [St. Louis] C.A . No 9673(3) Johnson, 31_ B&W, RJR, AT, Dist_ Ct_ East Baton It22159 3/59 Pivt, Lor, et ai. Rouge Parish, LA C.A. No 67838 Shields L&M, B&W, Dist. Ct., Oklahoma I I1i7154 4/24/61 RJR, AT, PM, Ctv., OK Lor, et ai. C A. No 148482 Johnson, E. B&W. RIR, t;.S D C. S.D., IMS 6/18/60 I12164 AT, PM. Lor [Iacksonj C.A. No, 3004 Shields L&M, B&W, Super. Ct. 4/24/62 I2/ t 3163 R3It, AT. PM. Oklahoma Cty., OK Lor, et al [Oklahoma City] C A. No 13 Civil Cole Fivf, AT, B&W Sup. Ct., New York 2/10166 6116166 TI, CTR, et al. City, NY [New York City]. C A. No 3457-66 Graham AT, B&W U.S.D C., W D., TX 12t12166 2167 [Det Rio], C.A. No. CIV-66-I2-DR Trau L&M, B&W, U.S.D.C.. N.D., CA 6130167 I212i172 RIR [San Francisco] C A. No 47361 Vardy B&W U.S.D.C., N.D., OH, 4f12/68 7/2I17I E D.[Cievetand] C A No C68-3 ;4 Iones, R. F RIR, B&W. AT U S.D.C.. N.D. Ai., 91I 1168 16l23168 C A. No 6&-5I3

0 CASE NAME DEFENDANTS COUKTtCASE DATE DATE NO. FILED DISMiSSED Short B&W. et al Super Ct . Alameda 8129'8{ 9-a187 CtY.. CA jC?akland], C A No. 602580-7 Liester RJR. AT. B&W, C.'.S.I3.C., E.D., PA 9/16/85 I0,28i87 PM. Ligg, Lor [P;,itadelphia], C A No.85-53b3 Fauikinbuty , B&W, TI, CTR Dist. Ct.. Harris 9f27185 9}11i87 et al Ctv., TX [Houston), C.A.:Vo.85-59b15 Ward (Ieffries) RIR AB, B&W. U.S.D C., Missoula, 1011185 -312,'9Q Loews Corp., hIT, C A. No. CV- Loew's The. 85-203-M (Lor). PLt, Ligg, et al. Liunn, et al. PM, RFR, AS, Dist. Ct, Harris Ctv, 10118185 4t 1 U192 B&W, Lor, TX [I-Iouston), C.A. L&M, Ltgg, TI, tio. 85-57812 CTR, et a1. Muckleroy PM, RJR, AT. Dist Ct., Harris 10123185 711 It9D B&W, Lor, CtV, TX [Houston], L&M. Ligg. TI, C A. No. 85-58545 CTR et aS Durnan B&W, TI, CTR, Dist Ct.. ReCugio t II4/85 1/22/87 et al. Ctv., TX [Refugio], CA. No.85-ii- 5085 Van VaSkotn PM, ItIR AB, Dist. Ct., Harris i it7185 10112188 B&W, Lor, Cty, TX (Houston), L&M, Ligg, TI, C.A. No 85-58798 CTR, et al. Takahashi B&W, et at Cir Ct., First Cir., I1/18185 I{26I88 HI [Honolulu], C.A. No 85-4352 4

LEGEND - B&H B&W BAT BATL'S - CTR Grand Met - USA L&M Ligg - Loevi s The. - Loews Corp - Lor - NATD - PM - PMC R7RI RJRTI TMA L'ST rvnertcan ssranos American Tobacco Benson & IIedges Brown & Williamson BAT Industries BATUS Council For Tobacco Research GrandlMet USA Liggett & Myers Liggett Loew's Theater Loew's Corporation Lorillard National Association Of Tobacco Distributors Philip Morris Philip Morris Companies RJ RevnoIds Industries RJR Nabisco RI Revnotds Tobacco acco, Inc Tobacco Merchants Association United States Tobacco ) . 12

CASE NANIE DEFENDANTS COURT/CASE DATE DATE NO. FILED DIS4IESSED ' Coi~ertm e€ al. Livz. P4f. U S D C. SI D, LA :_~~ 87 t•9r89 B&W, Lor. TI [Baton Rouge]. C:v No 37-0331-13 McDonnell B&W I: S.D.C.. tID 11J18=87 61188 8 (B:.;timorej, C A No R8 f-31 17 Schiro AT. L&M. Cir. Ct.. Hinds Ctv, . 1:2?!88 911193 B&W. RIR, et MS [.Iaci:son), C.A al_ c io. 35fl4d Brown. L. AT. B&W, et al. Super Ct.. Contra 411188 8117189 Costa Ctv, C A (Martinez]. C,A. No C88-Q1293 Villar AT,Lite,RSR, US.DC.1t.D,LA i4l2-It88 Ir`3r91 B&W. et al. (Aaton Rouget, C.A. No. 88-887 .Anderson. C AT, B&EH'. Sup Ct. Erie Cty, S'_i 12f88 6127f90 L&L1. PMC. NY [Bu#3aio[- C A. P3f No 06832-89 Purkev B&W LESDC.i1D,LA 5110189 6f2619S [Baton Rouge], C.A. No.89-313-A Galloway RJR, Plvt, AT, U.S_D.C._ W D TX 11124189 1/30/90 B&W, Lor, [Austin], C A. No L&M. Li¢g, TI. 89-CA-1098 CTR Gregg R3R, PM, AT, U S.D C. W D. TX 1217189 8J27/9fl B&W. Lor. [Austin), C.A. No, L&S+ri, Ligg, TI. 89-CA-1099 CTR Embrey B&W, Lor, PM, Dist. Ct.. (Dallas 4/18/90 Z'15t91 TI, CTR. et al Ctp), TX. C.A- No. 90-3056-F +e31 tn GN ~ ~

CASE NAME DEFENDANTS COC`RTICAS£ DATE DATE .'i(}. FILED DISMISSED Smith. ti'1 R3R PM. Li¢g. Super Ct . a3arneda t i_'_7,'85 °"-=~86 B&W. AT. Countv. CA et al (Oakland], C A No 605901-9 Hicks R1R PM_ Ligg, Super. Ct.. Alameda 12/16/85 b: 18f86 B&W. AT, AB. Ctv., CA (Oakland], LQr, et al. C.A. No. 606493-4 Drew R7R. AB. 8&j.Y, Dist. Ct. Jefferson 13123185 9/18/87 Tt. CTR. et aE. Ctv . TX [Beaumout]. C A No E 123246 Takahashi B&W, et at U.S.D C., Ht I21'23785 2?J188 [Honoiuiu]. C A No 85-1433 ;1$cKav AB. RJR, B&W. Dist. Ct.. Jefferson 1213 Et85 a14t88 L&Yt. Lor, et al, Cty, , TX [Beaumont]. C A. No E 123278 McCracken PM. RJR. Lor. I>ist. Ct.. Harris 1/6/86 8131t89 B&W_ TI, CTR. Cn•, TX [Houston], et at C rl. No. 86-00524 Monthei RIR. PM, B& W, Super Ct. Aiameda 116186 12I18t86 Ligg, AT, AB, Cty., CA [Oakiand], Lor, et aL C A No 607140-2 Hillard AT, AB, RJR, Super C: . Alameda 1/16/86 618187 PM. Ligg, Cty.. CA [Oakland], B&W, et at. C A. No. 607493-3 Phillips RIRI, RIRT, Circ. Ct . Knos Cty., U17186 t2/12186 AT, AB, L&M. TN [Knoxville], C.A GrandtMet No. 3-30-86 USA, B&W, BATUS, Pivt. Lor. Loews Corp. Tt. CTR. et aI

flied agsiast B&W prior tv }aaurr 1, 1995, including the date of filinS tad the ds3e of final disposition, is aturhed hereto as Exhibit A. 9. Currently, approzimuety 175 smoktnili usd haalt3t product liability actions are pending 10 actiotu that wan f3led as purported class actions and i 1 actions t3ted by state umrneys;eeerel or other political subdivisions uakiat to recover under a vsfiety of legal theories. (On or sbout December 22, 1994. BAT Industries, P.L.C. acquired The American Tobacco Company. which was merged itxn B&W on or stbout February 23, 1995. Ttteu numbers inclucle lawsuitz t1Eed after the mer=rx against American or against B3W at successor to American.) 10. ln cflnnectian with Its defense of pending and anticipated smoking and health product iiabllity a¢tbas, B&W angagea sad has eaMed outs de counsel. Generally, S&W has engaged both natioaal cautssel ttfd eauasei in juriutictiosa ie which acdom aga{nt it sra peadiap. BdtW's national counsel have included law firms now known n King & Spalding; Kirkland & Ellie; Shook, Hardy & Bsaott; Chadbourae A Puke; Jacob, MediaSar & Finnegan; Paul Welst, Rlfltiag Wharton & Gurican; and Latbam & Wtt3ciru. 11. BdtW's ia•ho,ue and outside mutuet have sought and rectived usistaaoe from BdtW employees with specisilssd knowledge, typically relatiDg to scientific 3saUe7, in ordee to tasiat them in providinQ legai advics to B&W, ta we[l as tn aulst them ia defeodiap B&W in persdia; and sntieipeEad smoklag and health praduct iiabilhy aetiopa. BdtW staploywe who performed this function and who are atthor: or recipients of privileged andtor protected doatmettts that have heat submitted to the Special M>ner fa JA rAmoM review in this action to date iealude I. G. EsteAe, i. W. Hughes, M. L. Sanford, and G. H. S 12. Pkintifh In smoking ard health product liability actions =enerally name and. based upon a review of Bd<.W's r.eards, have long rnm.d as dafedaan all manufacturers of eiysreties CK3 PJ CD t_rt ~_ UN t<..~ T

9

_2. Tobacco Corporation (or their corporate predecessors}. At all times sincs 1968, at least three of these companies have been members of Th 5. As a trade association, TI has no involvement in the commercial or competitive affairs of its members and confines its activities to areas in which TI and its members have common legal interests. Among the functions TI performs as a trade association is monitoring and analyzing public affairs issues and legislative and regulatory proposals and developments at the federal, state and local levels concerning the tobacco €ndustry generally and the cigarette manufacturers in particular. As a trade association, TI considers the common interests of TI and the cigarette rnanufaoturing companies in these areas and carries out such lobbying or public affairs and public relations activities as are determined to be appropriate in view of those common interests. These activities require close consultation among TI counsel and staff and the cigarette manufacturers' counsel and staff. Since the formation of TI, the law firm of Cevington & 8urlfng has served as TNs principal corporata, antitrust, €eg€slarnrs and regulatory counsel. Tbe law firm of Shook Hardy & Bacon has servsd as TI'a principal counsel with respect to advice concerning smoking and health matters, including with respect to legislative hearings. 6. As with other trade associations, Ti's activities are guided by committees comprised of representatives of its member companies. These include a Board of Directors, an Executive Committee drawn from the Board of

CASE NAME DEFENDANTS CC7t'RTIC:~SE DATE DATE Vt?. FILED DIS141ISSED Broin PM. RJR, Lor. Cir Ct . Dade Ctv . 10f 31;91 Pendin¢ liST. NATD, FL. C A No 9i- CTR. AT. Li_e¢, 49738 B&W, TMA Cordova Ligg, PhI, AT, Super Ct - CA [San 5t1',92 Pendin¢ R1It, B&W. Lor, Dieuo], C.A No TI, CTR et al. 651824 Jason (pro se) P:'vS, RJR, B&W, Sop. Ct.. San 6t24192 1115f93 Lor, AT, Ligg Francisco CtY. CA [San Francisco) Foster RIR, AT. AB. Lf.S D C.. -kZ 7/10/92 1/5193 Lor, Loews. [Phoenix] B&W, BATUS, Li¢g, et a2. Blanchard B&W, Liee, ilist. Ct. (Gatves€on 7131F92 Pending Lor, F.'vt, RJR, Cty] TX. C A. No. AT. TI. CTR 92-CV-0735 Conklin TI, CTR, B&W, Cir Ct., Knox Ctv., 8/24/92 3/12/93 RJR Ttii, C.A. !'o. 3-571- 9 Danna RJR, B&W U.S.D C.. N.D„ AL. 9/11/92 319l93 C A. No. CV-92-G- 2341S GuiElory RJR, B&W. AT, U.S D C.. W.B, LA 211t93 11122193 et a2. L-O Div [Opelousas] Dunn RJR, BAT, Sup. Ct.. [Delaware 5/28193 Pending B&W, PM, Ctv ], [ND, C.A. No. Ligg, AT. Lor, 18001-9305-CT- TI, CTit, et a2 00006 Coggins RJR. B&W, et Cir Ct., Hinds Cty, 8f 27193 4(13194 a2. 4IS, C A. No. 93- 7634

_a, TI's national litigation coordinating counsel is Cavingtan & Burting. Ti also has engaged local or other counsel as necessary for each case in which it is a defendant. 10, In view of the common legal interests Tl shares w'sth the cigarette manufacturing companies in legislative and regulatory matters and in defending litigation, Ti expects its counsel and staff to cooperate and consult with counsel for those companies in the defense of the litigation and in carrying out Ti's legislative, regulatory and public affairs functions, with the understanding that confidential information relating to th. parties' common legal interests shall remain confidential to the parties involved and that no waiver of any applicable privilege shall result from these confidential comntunicaiion9. t t. TI has never waived any privilege and maintains restrictions on aaceas to its filea and other customafy security measures to maintain the confidentiality of its ffies. Dated: MaY 91; 7 997 Sworn an~ subscribed to in my presence on this;L2 day of May, 1997 otary Public

CASE NAME DEFENDANTS CtT[;RTIC:ISE DATE DATE NO. FILED DISMISSED ' IIluitt RJR. B&W. PSt. C: S D C_ Tyler 9,793 8-9%()5 Li¢¢. AT. Div - TX C A No Loews. Lor 6 93 CV 502 Castano AT, RJR, S&W, L`.S.D C, Louisiana. 3~29r94 Pending HATL`S. PM. C A No 94-1044 Li¢¢. Lor. Loews. UST. et al. Engle RJR, PM, Lor. Cir. Ct.. [Dade Ctv], 5/5J94 Pendmg AT. B&W. Lis*g, FL, C.A. tio. 94- CTR. TI. et aI 8273 Butler PM, B&W, Cir Ct., Jones Ctv.- 5r12f94 Pending BATL`S. RJR, MS, C A. No. 94-5- Li¢e, AT, ;3 Loews. Lor, TI, et al. Moore AT, R3R. Chancerv Ct. 5123194 Pending SATLS. B&W. (Jac6on Ctu] MS, PM, Liug, C A. No 94-1429 Loews. Lor, CTR, Tt. et at Jacks AT, B&W U S D C.N D., 6/30/94 1112195 Miss. [Greenville Div], C A. No. 4 94- CV 165-8-D Minnesota PM. RJR, S&W, Dist, Ct., Ctv Of 8/17/94 Pending BAT. Lot, AT. Ramsev, MIlYN, Litr,q, CTR, TI C A. No. CI-94- 8565 McGraw AT, R.JR. BAT, Cir C [Kanawha 9120194 Pending BATUS. 8&W, Ctv]. W VAl C A. P!Vf, Lige, No 94-1707 Loews. Lor, CTR. TI- et aE co tv ~ 10 0 ~ ~ ~~ 'IQ

P I, ARON STEUER , a Juatice of the Supre~ae Court of the First Tudicia2~Bistricz, hereby approve the foregoing Certificate of Incorporation of The Sobacco Institute, Ine. and corasenc that the same be filed. Dated: New York, N.Y. January Z8. 1458 s! Arott Steuer Sist3Ce ot t e iipreme E.Q:;rt of the $tat# o$ New York is

CASE NAME DEFENDANTS COURT/CASE DATE DATE ti4. FILED DISMISSED Jones, E RJR. B&tN`. et Super Ct - Contra 131811, 8 t 7 8o al Costa Civ. CA [Mart:neZi. C A \o 282070 PfouiX RJR. PM, Lig¢. Super Ct.. ?Vapa ^I4r86 12:"_,'86 B&W. AT. AB. Cty . CA [Lapa]. Lor. et at. CA . No 54671 Siragusa RJR, PM. Ligg, Super. Ct.. Alameda =%4/8b 311'87 B&W, AT. AB. Ctv, CA [Qakland], et at CA No 608248-6 Badeaux PM, RJR, aT, Dist Ct., Harris '_11_'86 I0f2/89 B&W. L6r. CtY.. T X [HollstonJ, L&M. Li¢g, TI, C.A. tio. 86-06782 CTR. et at. Marosis B&W. PM. RJR. Dist Ct., Harris 3J25f86 5t28/87 TI. CTR, et a( Ctv. TX [Houston], C A. No 86-13788 Quandt RJR. Lieg. AT. Super Ct., Alameda 4/4/86 513188 AB. Pj4. B&W. Ctv. CA [Qakland], Lor, et ai CA No. 59358 t-5 Whitner RIR, Pt4t, Ligg, Super. tt., Alameda 419186 5f3l88 B&W. AT, r1B. Civ. CA [Oakland], Lor, et aI C.A. No- 610649-2 Hurley RJR, B&W. AT, Super Ct.. Contra 4128186 8117189 r1B. LRclvi, Lo:, Costa Cty., CA PM, et at. (4tartinezj, C A. No 285570 Masson B&W, PM, Super Ct., Essex 5/15/86 1015197 B&H, Lot, et aI Cty,NJ [Newark], C A. No L-055737- 86 Davenport PM. RJR, AB, Dist Ct., Harris 6/9/86 I 1123188 B&W. Lor. Ctv, TX [Houston]_ L&M. L.ILe, TI. C A No 86-25985 1 CTR, et at co

-4- concerns that also are at issue in smoking and health cases against T1 and the cigarette manufacturing companies, In view of the joint legal interests often involved in these issues, it also has been common for legal counsel to be retained jointly by Tt andfor the tobacco companies, with the understanding that legal advice and attorney work product may be exchanged among the parties without waiver. 8. The first action fElad against TI seeking to recover for personal injuriss allegedly caused by smoking cigarettes was ;{p,g v. Phil'en orrig,,tnc, et a1., brought on May 15, 1964 in Superior Court, New York County, New York. Cigarette manufacturing companies named as defendants in that case were The American Tobacco Company, Uggett & Myers, Irrc., Lorillard Tobacco Company, Philip Morris, Inc., and the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. Three additional cases were flied against Ti in New York in 1965 and 1366. The next casea flied against TI were brought in California in 1972. ((A listing of smoking and health cases In which Ti was named a defendant prior to January 1. 1996 is attached as Exhibit S). Currently, more than 60 cases are pending in which't7 is a defendant. In each cass, TI has been named a co- defendarrt a#ang with one or more cigarette manufaoturing defendants. At all tirnes since its formation, Ti thus has either been a defendant in a pending case or has had reason to anticipate that actions might be filed against Ti. 9. In connection with its defense of pending and anticipated smoking and health cases, Ti has engaged the services of litigation counsel.

! CV 96 0072414 S ~ r~c , ' lti .. ~ RIOR COURT STATE OF C0NNECTiCtJT JUDICIAL DiSTRICT OF E.iTCHFiELC PHILIP MOARiS, INC.; R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY; BRCWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCtI CORPORATION; : B.A.T. {NC?USTRIES P.L.C.; LORlLLARI3 AT LITCHFIELD TOBACCO COMPANY; LIGGETT GROUP, INC.; UNITED STATES TOBACCO COMPANY; HILL AND KNOWLTON, INC.; THE COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARC1i - U.S.A. INC.: and THE TOBACCO INSTSTUTE, INC. MAY, 1997 AFFIDAVIT OF WtLLtAREi ADAMS SENIOR VICE PRESt[7ENT - ADMINISTRATION THE TOBACCO tNSTTETUTE. INC. William Adams, being duty sworn, deposes and states as fo{lows: t. i have been employed since 1978 by The Tobacco Institute, Inc. t"Tl"i. My current position is Senior Vice President - Administration. 2. This affidavit is based upon personal knowledge I have acquired during my employment at TI and information that has come to my attonsion in the course of my amploym.nt. 3. TI Is a non-profit trade association for the tobacco industry formed under the New York Membership Corporations Law. Attached hereto as Exhihit A is a copy of the TI Certificate ef Incorporation reflecting the formation of TI on January 27, 1952. 4. The founding memEers of TI irfc{udld The American Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Philip Morris U.S.A., Liggets & Myers, Inc., the Lo#iltard Tobacco Company, Brown & Williamson 0

0 -4- 9. In view of the common legal interests TI shares with the cigarette manufacturing companies in legislative and regulatory matters and in defending litigation, TI expects its counsel and staff to cooperate and consult with counsel for those companies in the defense of the litigation and in carrying out'iT' legislative, regulatory and public affairs functions, with the understanding that confidential information relating to the parties' common legal interests shall remain confidential to the parties involved and that no waiver of any applicable privilege shall result from these confidential communications. 10. The index of privileged documents provided to the Special Master in this case reflects a good faith effort to identify the authors and recipients of the documents involved. It further reflects 23's understanding that it has a common legal interest with cigarette manufacturing companies on the subjects discussed in the documents and that confidential communications between TI counsel and staff and representatives of the cigarette companies relating to legal advice on those matters remain fully privileged. TI has never waived any privilege and maintains restrictions on access to its files and other customary security measures to maintain the confidentiality of its files. Dated: June J'7, 149b William Adams /f'fiuf+--- "` 'G~~ Sworn and subscribed to in my presence on this J*f4'day of June, 1996 9raMi £ Cmt. JE. ~ ~ d Cai~ an+b[e

-3- Directors, and a variety of committees concerned with federal government relations, state and local government relations and public reiations. With respect to tegal matters, there is a Committee of Counsel comprised of general counsels (or their designees) of the tobacco companies, as well as, at various times, outside counsel. The Committee of Counsel has been in existence since at least January 1972 and meets approximately once a month. Its function is to nsonitor and evaluate legal Issues of concern to the tobacco industry and In which the participants havn common interesta, including litigation and legislative and regulatory matters, and to provide legal advice an matters of common legal interest to Tt and the other participants. 7. Even before TI was formed, litigation Invo#ving damages claims attributed to adverse health effects of smoking had been instituted against the cigarette companies who became members of Tt. As a trade association for those companies, T1 also could anticipate that It would be named as a defendant in such lit3gai3on. From the inception of TI, legislative, regulatory and public affairs matters with which TI has been concerned have been closely related to issues central to thg litigation. Examples of such interrelated issues include legislative and regulatory proposa3a concorning cigarette package andtor advertising warnings. restrictions on cigarette advertising, regulation of cigarette product features or ingredients and restrictions on public smoking, all of which have been advocated by their proponents based in whole or in part on smoking and health claims and

STATE OF NEW YORK } CITY OF NEW YORK : ss.: COUNTY OF NEW YORK) On this 27th day of January, 1958, before me per- sonally appeared Gordon W. Bickert, Janet C. Brown, Richard W. Collins, Melvin d?. Goodman and John P. Stearns, the subscribers, to me known and known to me to be the persons who executed the foregoing Certificate of Incorpora- tion, and they severally acknowledged to me that they executed the same. s/ John Brownj.n otary t2 iC JOHN BROWNING NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York No. Z4-4452400 Qualified in Kings County Cert. filed with New York County Clerk Commission expires March 30, 1959 (Seal)

! bsuineudncntneata and infotmaion, diractsag employees wtth sccacs to such 4ocumantt tnd iaforemst#oa to keep it confidential, requiring employees m sign cotttidenuality:greementi, cmtiatclning taurity at BWa fac4litiea through, among other things, the use of electronically coded identifEcation bsdtes, and limiting access to dncutornta to those patona who need such accau to parfarm their duties. Ltt of ;.tttbors and IItrdott 5. 1 am familiar with the procedurea used to idetulfy the individuals who suthored and/or rtteived documanta withhatd from production in this lawsuit based upon claims of privilege aadtor pratectSon. 6. 't3e List of Authors and R,cipiems ('List') provided to the Special Maeter in this lawsuit xta forth the tttltist6oru of persons who authored or received the privlleged anOfor protected dacamentt submitted hsr JO 2MM review. Ths List repreaents a reasonable, good faith effort to identify thoes individuals, and, subject to that qualiffcttion, the affiliations of the pasans listed thereta are accurate to the best of my knowledge. 7. The Erst saian ffied t.gaintt SdtW sanking to re:over fur personal inf urim tlteged2y caused by smoking cfyaratuc ('amokin; and health product liability actiom') was Iows v. R.l. $Umtds Tohzeco Cn.- et at.. No. 9673 (E.D. Mo.). j&U was filed on March 10, 1954, and the plaintiff tusoed it defeadsatu each mtnufacturee of cig:rsttes allegedly smoked by the d.nderx nltich ineluded Bd<W, Tita American Tobacco Company. Lorilltrd Tobacco Company, and R. i. Reynoldt Tobacco Company. 8. At all times since eha jtlm cue was filed In Msrh 1954, BdtW etther has had onn ffr more smoking atad health product liability actions pending against It, Ra anticipated that additional such aaiocu might be 6fed against it, or both. A listing of smoking and haa3th product liabii ty actions Cs3 -s~ - u a ` CD _2_ 3t ~ ,- .. ~.). t.l"3

! I, ARON STEUER , a Justice of the Supreme Court of the First Judicial District, hereby approve the foregoing Certificate of Incorporation of The Tobacco Institute, Inc. and consent that the same be filed. Dated: New York, N.Y. January 28, 1958 51 Aron Steuer Justice O L e Supreme o::rt of the State of New York

.4. Guerra, et cl. v. R.1. Repnotds, tnc., et a1., No. 7483 {Dizt. Ct. Surt County, TM filat Ja1L, 10, 1486}, Phillips v. RI. Reynolds. Indus.. Inc.. et at.. No. 3-30-86 (Cir. Ct. Knox County, TcA&. i'tisd 3tn. 17, 1986). Shorety, et at, v. Rd. Rtyttotds, Inc., et at., hia. 4380 (Ct. C.P., Phita. County, Fs. filed Isa. 28, 1486). Badaaut. u aL v. Phitila hlatrfr. Inc., et at. No. 86-06782 (Diu. Ct. Harris Coaaty, Tcx= filed Feb. 12. 14M. Moon, et aL v. R.1. Rrytzofdt. Inr., er af., No. 39Z2 (CL C.P. PhIIa. Couuty, Pa. tiiai Feb. 21. 1986). Iotuuan, er at. v. RJ. Reynolds. Inc., a al., No. H-86-1343 (S.D. Tcx. fi ed Feb. 24, 1sM. Sclzsvenk v. B.I, Reytwlds Tobacco Co., u aL. No. 1523 (Gt. C.P. Pisita, County, Pa. filed Ivir, 10, 1486}. et oL. Pta. 86-3081 (CL C.P. Phila, Couary, Pa. 231ad sldatosl.r, et aL v: Bmwac & W7ttimrczot TY+batco Cozp., sT aL, No. 86-1378E (Dist. Ct. Hur'zs CoUary, T= fiied Mar. 21. 1466)_ Kttentg, ct at, v. .4tnericert Bratrds. Ina., et a1., No. 86-2f783 (Disc. Ct< Harris County, . Tecm filed Map 27, 1990. Baorls, rz aL v. LiBEeff & ddyers. hu.. er aL, No. 86-024173 (Dist. Ct. fiatrls County, TozM filed MsY 28, i9b6}. Rozhgeb, az aL v. American Tobacco Co., et at., No. 398,250 (Dist. Ct, Travis Couaty, Taz- tfta! 7tiaa 2, 1486). Woottt v. R.t. Reynvids, Tobacco Ca„ ez aG. No. 398.251 {S}ltt. Ct. Travis Couaty, Tax. Mod 3uae 2, 198fi). Dave,potr, u a1, v. Phitlr Morris. Inc., ec al., No. 86-2i49S (Dist. Ct. Harris Couaty, Tax. fSFed Iutie 9. 1966).

CASE NAME DEFENDANTS COtRT,{C.aSE ~ D?ITE DATE !Q. FCLCO DIS,i1tSSED Pre`sean P %t. RJR. .A5. Dist C, . Harris G 9 86 I t1 i387 " AT. B&tV. Lor. Ctt . Tl (#-Ioustonj- L&Sl. Li_e . Tl. C A\o 86-2:99+ CTR, et a# Vater PNt. RJR. AB. Dist Ct. Harr:s 6rvr86 1' 6?88 B&W. Lot. Cil•. TX [Houston]. L&ht, L€`ee. Ti. C a. No 8b-25994 CTR, et at Green. W RJR.ti. RJRT. Super Ct., Contra 7f_5186 8:'9r89 B&b5', et al Costa Ctv. CA [Martinez] C A . No 289135 Ratnierez RJR B&W. et C; S D C , E D. LA "28/86 1=."_j87 a#. [New Orleansj, C A No 85-3620 Newell RJRTI. RJRT. t;.S D C., W D-, WA 7f31i86 8l3 tt87 B&W. et a! [Seattle], C ANo C86-979R Sterger B&W. B&H. Super Ct., San 8i'_5f86 1flt''4189 PM. et ai Diego Ctv, C:, [San Diego] C A. No 571157 Flesrcittg RJR, PM, Lig¢, Super Ct, Alalneda 9117186 9! 17{91 B&W. AT. AB. Cty., CA [flakiand], Lor, et al" C.A No 616851 -' .LtitIer. G B&W. Loews U S.D C, E D, PA 1418186 71'6J88 Corp", Lor. T[ jPhiladelphiaJ, C.A. No 86-5913 Thompson. F RJR, B&W, AT. Super Ct., Solano 11t24t86 9t4f87 AS, et al Ctv.. CA [Fairfietd], C.A No_ 95445 Geasland RJR, B&W. AT, Super. Ct.. Alameda 12I15186 8/7/87 AB. F.'vSC. et al Ctv, CA (Oak3and], C A No 610658-0 O o C1't°i Crt v ~ry, Y

STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF NEW YORK) HORACE G. HITCHCOCK, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is attorney for Gordon W. Bickert, Janet C. Brown, Richard W. Collins, Melvin tT. Goodman and John P. Stearns, the parties who have signed the foregoing Certifi- cate of Incorporation; that to the best of his knowledge and belief, no previous application for incorporation of The Tobacco Institute, Inc. has heretofore been made by said incorporators or any of thetn. s/ Horace G. Hitchcock Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of January 1958 s~ .Iotsst Brownin :+otary u lic JOHN BROWNING NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York No. 24-0462000 Qualified in Kings County Cert. filed with New York County Clerk Commission expires March 30, 1959 0-) ~ ~ ~ ~ L7 ~ {(Seal) Q" rn t;`+ ~ ~ CD

IN THE CIRCUIT FOR THE sECaNED jUZ}ICIAI. DISTRICT OF JONES COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI ESTATE OF BURL BUTLER, by and through AVA DEAN BUTLER, Executrix of the Estate of BURL BUTLER, and on behalf of all wrongful death beneficiaries of BURL BUTLER, PLAINTIFF vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 94-3-33 PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, ET AL DEFENDANTS AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM ADAMS Williams Adams, being duly sworn, deposes and states as fo€Iowx 1. I have been employed since 1978 by The Tobacco Institute, Inc. ("T€"). My current position is Senior Vice President - Administration. 2. This affidavit is based upon personal knowledge I have acquired during my employment at TI and information that has come to my at`tention in the course of my employment. rmed 3. TI is a non-profit trade association for the tobacco industry ew York Membership Corporations Law. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of the TI Certificate of Incorporation reflecting the formation of TI on january 27, 1458. 4. The founding members of TI included The American Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Philip Morris U.S.A., Liggett & Myers, Inc., the Lorillard Tobacco Company, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation (or their corporate predecessors). At all times since 1958, at least three of these companies have been members of TI. Do ~ Q ~ (''a - ATTACHMEltT 9 _ -

0 g_ Davts v. Pkitip bfotris Inc., er rtt., No. 6995 {Csr. Ce. Wash. County, TotmL f3cd Apr. 6, 1995}. Perry, et rct v. Phitip Morrfs trsr., et at., No. 2-4'33-95 (C'sr. Cr. Kaox Couary. Tona. Gled Juiy 14, 1995). Flarnmera. ar aL v. tTiutsd 5tases Tabacca Co., No. 95-1333 (D. Kan. fitsd htt. 24, 1995). Sonrag, er at. v. thritrd Szares Tobacco Co.. ez a1.. No. 95-6d3# (Disr. Ct. Puiah of Gkaaitu, LtL filed Dec. 11. 1995). 3fassachustus v. P{cittp Morris Inc.. er ai.. No. 95-1dbW {Suyar. Ct. Mictdiesex Cattnty. Mus. fiied Uea. 19. 1995).

-3- companies in view of the patties' common legislative, regulatory and litigation interests in these matters therefore has been necessary to the performance by TI of its functions. 7. The first action filed against TI seeking to recover for personal injuries allegedly caused by smoking cigarettes was Fine v. Ph'stip Morris. Inc. et al., brought on May 15, 1964 in Superior Court, New York County, New York. Cigarette manufacturing companies named as defendants in that case were The tlsnericatt'Tobacco Company, Liggett & Myers, Inc., Lorillard Tobacco Company, Philip Morris, Inc., and the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. Three additional cases were filed agai York in 1965 and 1966. The next cases filed against TI were brought in California in 1972. (A listing of smoking and health cases in which TI was named a defendant prior to January 1, 1996 is attached as Exhibit B). Currently, more than 60 cases are pending in which TZ is a defendant In eaeh case, TI has been named a co-defendant along with one or more cigarette manufacturing defendants. At all times since its formation, TI thus has either been a defendant in a pending case or has had reason to anticipate that actions might be filed against TT. 8. In connection with its defense of pending and anticipated smoking and health cases, TI has engaged the services of counsel. TI's national litigation coordinating counsel is Covington & Burling, which also has provided counsel to TI on legislative and regulatory matters, among other things, since its formation. TI also has engaged local counstl for each case in which it is a defendant.

3 Name Residences J. Whitney Peterson Zaccheus Mead Lane Greenwich, Conn. William T. Reed, Jr. Sabot Hill Farm Sabot, Va. Stephan C. Stephano 73t55 North IZth Street Melrose Park Philadelphia 26, Pa. 7. All of the subscribers to this certificate are of full age; at least two-thirds of them are citizens of the United States, at least one of them is a resident of the State of New York; and at least one of the persons named as directors is a citizen of the United States and a resi- dent of the State of New York. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have made, signed and ac- knowledged this certificate. Dated this Z7th day of January, 1958. s/ Gordon W. Bickert ar on zc ert sl Janet C. Brown Janet C. Brown s/ Richard w. Collins ic ar o ins sf Melvin D. Goodman Melvin Goodman s/ John P. Stearns fl n Stearns

Exhibit A to Affidavit of i7i31y-na A. g3~s CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC. PURSUt4VT TO THE MEMBERSHIP CORPORATIONS LAW ------- oa0oa------- We, the undersigned, desiring to form a membership corporation, pursuant to the Membership Corporations Law, do hereby certify as follows: I. The name of the proposed corporation is THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC. 2. The pisrposes for which it is formed are not for pecuniary profit and are: to promote a better understanding by the public of the tobacco industry and its place in the national economy; to cooperate with governmental agencies and public officials with reference to the tobacco industry; to collect and disseminate information relating to the use of tobacco; to collect and disseminate scientific and medical material relating to tobacco;'to collect and disseminate information relating to the tobacco industry published or released by any governmental agency, federal or state, or derived from other sources independent of the industry; to collect and disseminate information relating to legislative and administrative developments, federal or state, affecting the tobacco industry; to promote public good will; to carry on all or any of its activities and to acquire, hold and dispose of such property (real, personal and mixed) as may be requisite for the conduct of its affairs, in any of the states, districts, territories or possessions of the United States, and in any and all foreign countries, subject to the laws of such state, district, territory, possession or coun- try and otherwise to do everything necessary, proper, advis- able or convenient to carry out the purposes hereinbefore set forth; provided, however, that the corporation shall have no power to participate in any activity or give consideration to any matters relating to the management or control of any of its members or to the operations by any of its members of their respective businesses, including, without iimitation matters relating to the purchase, manufacture, transportation, advertising, pricing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco pro- ducts.

993 tDist. Ct. Hart3s Couaay, Vaz¢r u phitip htorris, Inc.. er al., No. 8b•25934 (Disc. Cc. Harris Caunry, Terc= til ed Suna 9, 1986). Mount v. American Brandr, Inc., a af.. No. C-86-273-L (D.N.H. tiIed June 13, 1986}. Grau, a at v. R.I. Rrynvtda, Inc., ar al., No. 86-29393 (Dist. Cc. Ilarris Couasy, Tez. filed June 27, 198b). Gian#rsis, a at. v. tinurican Brandr, tr ui., No. C•Sd-Z49-L (D.N.H. filed Juao 30, 1480 hfittrr. a at x Brawrr A 4Vttitcrnson Tobaceo Corp.. er at., No. 86-5913 {B.D. Pa. fiied t?ct. S, 1980. Loving, tt aL v 11. Rtpnotds, Inc., a at.. No. 8648388 (Dtst. Cc Huris Cuiuuy, Taz, filed t3ct, 20, 1986). Mayes, er at. v. R.I. Reynotdr, Irsc., u at., No. a04,413 (Dist. Ca Travis County, Tax. filed Dec. 5, 148b). Cavert, e atL v. Liggtrr Graup, Inc., rr at., No. 87-0131-B {M.D. l.a, tikd Feb. 24, I987}. Citbop v. Arnsricmr Tobacco Co., rr ai.. No. 314,002 (Dtst. Cr. Eau Baton Rouge Parish, iz- #Ikd Mar. 30. 1987). i3+Etron, et aL x Murican Tobacco Co., er at., No. 425.776 (Cir. Ct. Kaznwha Coaasy, W. Ya. filed Mar. 31, I487). Viba, sr aL x American Tobacco Co., rr ai.. No. 425.776 (CIr. Ct. K3aawha County, W. Va. filed Mar. 31, I487). Monrgonrrry, er at. v. Aanrrican Tobacco Co., er aL, No. 425,774 (Dfst. Ct. Travis Couaty, Taz. ftled Aug. 31. 1487). Trueu, er at v. American Tobacco Co., a at., No. 425.435 (D3ac. Cc. Travis County, Tra. fi1ed Stpc. t, 1987). ~ &sk. er aL v. R.i. Reynoids. Iiu., rr al.. No. 3366 (Ct. C.F. Plsiis. C~uuyu , Pa, tiled q~ Dcc. 3. 1987). -t:2- °<7

eiiegediy tmoked by the pawn claiming to have beeas inJcued. Apart fsom Sdc'N. ti3a major Amriran ciqsreaa mmufaavrera have iruiuded She Americau Tobacco Company, R. I. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Liygett & Myers, Inc. (and its predeoessors and succeason), Loriitard Tobacco Compsr,y, and Pttiftp Morris Incorporated. in addition, ptaiutiffs in such actions often have named a defeadaats 2'ha To6acco Instiaute, Inc. ('TI') tasdtor The Council for Tobacco Reseucl5 .. IISA, Inc. ('CT'R'). Accordingly, smaking and hea€th produtt 3tability usioas often IuYe invoived several cigares[e mamsficesring defendaars,lT erdtor Ci'R. As detsvvery proceeds, ci;sreae mtaufuttuets, TI, usd CI7E often sre added or dropped ss defendenn. 13. Tt " CtR firtt were named as defendsnra in t smoking and heslth product liability attion In Fine v. Plsi3ip Morris Inc.. at si., No. E9<0-Gi (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), which was filed on May 15, 1964. The oigsrnta maauf:ctuma that also were named at defendants in jia were The American Tobacco Company, Liggeu 1c Myerss, Inc.,-Z.orlllard To6acco Coatgusy, Philip Morris incorporated, and R. S. Reyrustds Tobacco Company. Sina i4Cr4, TI and LTA have hean named as detendum in other smoking and health product liability actions in which B&W and/or the other Majar Amerlcm cigarette mtnufectsuers also were defendants. 14 Even though edcW wat not n:mea s a defandant in every atnoking and health product liability scaon, B&.W has eniicipatad diK It would be nuned u ax-defendant with orhar ciluecu manuisaurers, 4'1, andtor CT-R in pending or anticipated litigt3lon. In eddlttarn, B!W paresivsd that evan where it waa not t defeadant 'tn a puticular smoking and hesith lawauit, a piainHff`t vedita In such a cua likely would »wlt in the filing of additional lawsuits tgainet Bd;tV. 15. In general, B&YI and other cigarerte rnamufacturerx. 71 and CTR have participated in a Joint defense effort to defand pending and atuicipauud smoking and health product llab111ty actione. '13ic jOtns defecee etfort his Included, among other thiagt, meetings aman: In-house and outside counsei rep nmting 88W and the other major American cigaretre manuficrurara, TI, and CTR;

Eshibit B to Aftldarit of Wiltiam A. Adsms Fine v. Philip tr{orrfs Inc.. er at.. No. 8740-64 (Super. CL N.Y. County, N.Y. ftled May 15, 1964). Flerscn v. Amrrirart Tobacco Co.. er at.. No. 16183-65 (Super. Ct. N. Y- County, N.Y. fited. Sept. 27, 1965). , Mann v. Arnrrirarc To6acco Co.. a at., No. 16i84-65 (Super. Ct. N.Y. Cossary, N-Y. Mad Sept. 27, 1965). Cole v. Phitip ttforru. Inc., er at., No. 345746 (Super. CL N.Y. Coienzy. N.Y- Mad Feb. 10, i9". llckloff v. Liggert 8c Myers. Iw.. a aL, No. 71-1123 (C.D. Cal. ffled iaa. 3, 1972). Corruxack v. Aineritart Tnb=ra Co., er at.. No.72-2394 (C.D. Cal. tsted Oct. 6, 1972). Barnes v. R.1. Rsyaotds, Irrc. a at., No. L-0764531-83 (Sstger. Ct. lbfiddiesax CountY. N.J. tfied {kt. 29. 1933). 8arnes v. R.I Raynnlds. ina., et a2., No. L-068553-83 (D.N.L tfIa! Dec. 8, I983). 73ainer v. Liggert Grarr,a. Inc, a at., No. 84-673SA (Y3.N.J. f31ed Feb. 22. 1984). Rogers v. R!. ReynotrLs Inc.. u aL. No. 3-84-309 (E.D. Teaa, Mad Apr. 19, 1984). ,Ytrby v. R.l Reynctds, Inr., a a&, No. 3-84-372 ($.II. 'Pem Sled May 17, 1984). flatghr, a a!L v. Murirne Tobasc» Co., u aL, No. 84-C-2072 (Cw. Ct. Kanawha Covaty, W. Va. Mad hiay 30, 1934). Raysdcrt v. R.I. Raynaids Tobacco Ca., u aL. No. 3-84,6t16 (E.D. Tem filed July S, 1984). Xogers v. RI. Reytwids, InAu., 1nr., a ai., No. E121486 (Di.tt. CL Jef€cFSOn CoUnty, Tes. ftled Feb. 27, 1985). Ferkavsek. er atL v. R.1, Rsynaldr, Indrrs., Inc., er at.. No. E121482 (Disc. Ct. 3ef€ettoa County, Tax. Med Feb. 27. 1985). AtmqYist. er at. v. Philip Morrrs, Inc., u al.. No- E121134 tDist- Cs. Jeffersoa Couucy, Tex. filed i?ft. 28, 198<), ~ ~ ~>

- Z - 3. The territory in which the operations of the corporation will principally ,be conducted is the City of New York and the District of Columbia. 4. The principal office of the corporation in New York shall be located in the City of New York, County of New York and State of New York. S. The number of directors shall be not less than 3 nor more than 25. 6. The names and constituting the Board of meeting of the corpora residence addresses of the persons Directors until the first annual are: Names Residences Martin J. Condon 806 Sweetbrier Road Memphis, Tennessee Joseph F. Cu2lman, 3rd Sleepy Hollow Road Briarcliff Manor, N. Y. in F. Few 665 Sasco Hill Road Southport, Conn. Panos B. Georgopulo Bowman Gray 360 Riverside Drive New York 25, N. Y. Brookberry Farm R. F. D. 8 Winston-Salem, N. C. ewis Gruber 670 West End Avenue New York 25, N. Y. Paul M. Hahn 14 East 75th Street New York 21, N. Y. Emery M. Lewis 5004 Dunvegan Road Louisville, Ky. Soseph P. McCauley 222 Munro Boulevard Valley Streaa[, L.I, N. Y. O -C" .

•3- Mackteroy, et at. v. Philip Morris. Inc., er al., No. 83-58545 (Dist. CL Fdarris CouUp, Tex. fited Oct 23, 1985). Durnan, u atL v. BrowR & Mliimrrsorc Tobacco Co.. er at., No. 85-11-6Q85 {B3sc. Cc. Reiugio County, 7ex. filed Nov. 4, 1985). Van Polkvmm ct at. v. Pkitip Marrfs. Irx.. et al., No. 85-58798 {i?isc. CL E;arris County, Toz. fiied Nov. 7. 1983}. McQuarrte, er at v. Philip Marris. Inc., rt aL. No. 85-W84 (73sst. Ct. Harris CoUm3*. TeX. fited Nov. 27, 1985). Shtres. u a& v. Philip Morris, Inc., a d.. No. 85-7141 ($.D. Fa. likd Bec. 11, 1985). Dyer, er aL v. Arnrrtcmc Tabacro Ce., et at.. No. 389,464 (Dist. CL Travis Count}r, Tex. fskd I}en. 12, 2985). Ctrsota (!'aulua1ut) v. -Amcrican Brands, Iru.. et at.. No. 85-718U (E.D. Pa. filtd Dec. 13, 19W. Peny v. ,qmericmv Brauk: InC., ar a&, 1'ta. 390,093 tDist. CL Travis Counry, Tes. Bted Dec. 20, 1985). Tutty, er at. v. R.1. Itayno(dS Inc., at aG. No. 390.034 {I7itL Ct. Travis County, Tmx. (tlkd Dec. 20. 1985). Brcksrraen. u aG v. R.I- Reyaatdr. Inc., tr ab, No. E i232SO (D6tn. Ct. Ieffersoa Co+incy, Tex. fited Dea. 23, 1985). Drew, et aL v. R.T. Reyiro{dr. IRC, et al.. No. E1T3246 {Diu. Cc Tex. Med i1ec. 23. t985}. 8erg[ran v. Phillp Morris. Inc.. et al, AIo. 86-0t3423 (Dist. Ct. Harris County, Tex: ftted Jaa. 6, i986}. ,SdcCradcar, et at. v. Philip bfarrtx Ine, cr ad., No. 86-00524 CD4sz. Cc. Hurit Councy, Tea. Ciled Iut. 6. i986}. Shorrty v. R.l. Reynotds. Inc.. erat., No. 86-0377 (E.D. Pa. filed Jan. 6. 1986) Garcia. er al. u Philip Morrts, Ina, cr at.. No. 7486 {gist. Cc. Stazr Councy. Tez. filcci Jan. 10, 1986}. CO ~ ~ 0 (In

-8- Davis v. Philip Morris Inc., et a1., No. 6995 (Cir. Ct. Wash. County, 'fenn. filed Apr. 6, 1995). Perry, et uz v. Philip Mortis Inc., et a1., No. 2-473-95 (Cir. Ct. Knox County, Tenn, filed July 14, 1995)- Hummers, et al. v. United States Tobacco Co., No. 95-1335 (D. Kan. filed lut. 24, 1995). Santag, et o1. v. United States Tobacco Co., et al., No. 95-b434 (Dist. Ct. Parish of Catcasiau, La. filed Dec. 11, 1995Y Mas.rachnsens v, Philip Morris Inc., et al., No. 95-1466A0 (Super. Ct. Middlesex County, Mass. filed Dec. 19, 1995). %":I

10 CD

-2- 5. As a tobacco industry trade association, TI has a common legal interest with the cigarette manufacturers. Among the functions TI performs as a trade association is monitoring and analyzing legislative and regulatory proposals and developments and public affairs issues concerning the tobacco industry generally and the cigarette manufacturers i p purpose of this to identify and consider the common interests of TI and the cigarette manufacturing companies in these areas and to carry out such lobbying or public as are determined to be appropriate in view of those common interesu. These activities require close consultation between TI counsel and staff and counsel for the cigarette manufactutxrs. 6. Even before TI was formed, litigation involving damages claims attributed to adverse health effects of smoking had been instituted against the cigarette companies who became members of TI. As a trade association for those companies, TI also could anticipate that it would be named as a defendant in such litigation. From the inception of TT, legislative, regulatory and public affairs matters with which TI has been concerned have been closely related to issues central to the litigation. Examples of such interrelated issues include legislative and regulatory proposals concerning cigarette package andlor advertising warnings, restrictions on cigarette advertising, regulation of cigarette product features and restrictions on public smoking, all of which have been advocated by their proponents based in whole or in part on smoking and health claims and concerns that also a, = at issue in smoking and health cases against TI and the cigarette manufacturing companies. Confidential privileged communications among TI staff and counsel and legislative and litigation counsel for the cigar

-3- Muckleroy, et at, v. Phitip Morris, Inc., et af., No. 85-58545 (Dist. Ct. Harris County, Tex. filed Dct. 23, 1985). Durnan, et al. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., et at., No. 85-11-6085 (Dist. Ct. Refugio County, Tex. filed Nov. 4, 1985). Van Yolkom, et a1. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et at., No. 85-58798 (Dist. Ct. Harris County, Tex. filed Nov. 7, 1985). McQuarrie, et al. v. Philip Morrfs, Inc., et aZ., No. 85-54584 (D"rst. Ct. Harris County, Tex. ft2ed Nov. 27, 1985). Shires, et al. v. Philip Marris, Inc., et al., No. 85-7141 (E.D. Pa. filed Dcc. 11, 1985). Ilyer, et al. v. American Tobacco Co., et at., No. 389,465 (Dist. Ct. Travis County, Tex. ftled Dec. 12, 1985). Girtan (Gwuafus) v. American Branris, Inc., et at., No. 85-7184 {E.D. Pa. filed Dec. 13, 1985}. Perry v. American Brands, Inc., et aZ., No. 390,093 (Dist. Ct. Travis County, Tex. filed Dec. 24, 1985). t af., No. 390,094 (Dfst. Ci. Travis County, Tex. Beckrtram, et al. v. R.J. Reynofdr, Inc., et at., No. E 123250 (Dist. Ct. Jefferson Countp, Tex, filed Dec. 23, 1985). Drew, et al. v. RJ. Reynafds, Inc., et ai., No. E123246 (Dist. Ct. Jefferson County, Tex. filed Dec. 23, 1985). Bergeran v. Philip Morris, Inc., et at., No. 86-00523 (Dist. Ci. Harris County, Tex. filed Jan. 6. 1986). McCraclten, et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et at., No. 86-00524 (D'ast. Ct. Harris County, Tex. ftied Jan. 6, 1980. .Strorely v. R.J. Reynolds, Inc.. et al., No. 86-0377 (E.D. Pa. filed Jan. 6, 1986) t'iarcia, et a1. v. Philip Morrzs, £nc., et a1., No. 7486 (Dist. Ct. Starr County, Tex. filed co Jan. 10, 1986). - ~ ~ t> -t-

-5- Prejean, et al, v. Philip Morris, Inc., er al., .ltfo. 86-25993 (Dist. Ct. Harris County, Tex. filed June 9, 1986). Vater v. Philtp Morrrs, Inc., ei al., No. 86-25994 (Dist. Ct. Harris County. Tex. filed June 9, 1986}. Mount v. American Brands, Inc., er at., No. C-86-273-L (D.N.H. filed June 13, 1986}. Graru, er al. v. R.1. Reynolds, Inc., et at., No. 86-29393 (Dist. Ct. Harris County, Tex. filed June 27, 1986). Gianitsis, et at. v. American Brands, et al.. No. C-86-299-L (D.N.H. filed June 30, 1986) Miller, et al. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., er at., No. 86-5913 (E.D. Pa. filed Oct. 8, 1986). Loving, ei at. v. R.J. Reynolds, Iac., e al., No. 86-48386 (Dist. Ct. Harris County, Tex. filed Oct. 20, 1986). Mayes, er at. v. R.J. Reynolds, Inc., er at., No. 409,413 (Dist. Ct Travis County, Tex. filed Dec. 5, 1986). Covert, er at. v. Liggen Group, Inc., et al., No. 87-0131-B {M.D. La. filed Feb. 24, 1987). Gilboy v.9merican Tobacco Co.. ei al., No. 314,002 (Dist. Ct. East Baton Rouge Parish, La. filed Mar. 30. 1987). Wilson, er al, v. American Tobacco Co., er al., No. 425,776 (Cir. Ct. Kanawha County, W. Va. filed Mar. 31, 1987}. Vrba, ei al, v. American Tobacco Co., ei at., No. 425,776 (Cit. Ct. Kanawha County, W. Va. filed Mar. 31, 1987). Montgomery, er aL v. American Tobacco Co., er at., No. 425,776 {Dist. Ct. Travis County, Tex. filed Aug. 31, 1987}. Tncett, et atL v. American Tobacco Co., ei aL, No. 425,935 (Dist. Ct. Travis County, Tex. filed Sept. 1, 1987). Nash, er al. v. R.J. Reynolds. Inc.. er al., No. 3366 (Ct. C.P. Phila. County, Pa. filed Dec. 3, 1987). -

ZIALtbio A to +ttYidaeii of 5fi31i,y, k, ad~& • CERTZFTC.L3'E QF iYCCSRP4iLXTIGH OF THE TQSAtCfl INSTITtTTE-, I?iC. PtIRStSANT TG THE ME,{E$ERSSi2P CGkPCSRATI0N5 LAW ....... ao{7oo-..__.. 1. The naate of the proposed corporation is THE TOBACCO LNSTITUTE, I4C. 2. The pUrposes for which it is £armed are not for pecuniary profit and are: to proaota a better understanding by the gublic of the tobacco iAdustry and its place in tha nationai economy; to cooperate with governmental agencies and public officials with reference to the tobacco industry; to collect and disseainate information relating to the use of tobacco; to collect and disseminate scientific and. medical material relating to tobacco;`to collect and disseminate information relating to the tobacco industry published or released by any goYernmenta2 agency, federal or stacs, or derived from other sources independent of the industry; to collect and disseminate isc£ormaticn relating to legislative and administrative developments, 'Eedersl or state, affecting the tobacco industry; to proaota public good will; to carry on all or any of its activities and to acquire, ho;d and dispose of such property (real, personal and mixed) as may be requisite for the conduct of its affairs, in any ox the states, distr3,cts, territories or possessions of the Urcited States, and. in aay and 411 foreign countries, subject to the Iaus of such state, district, territory, possession or coeui- try and otherwise to do everything necessary, proper, advis- abie or convenient to carry out the purposes heraiabegor• set forth; rovide , hovever, that the corporation sha11 have' no power to partscipatr ia any activity or give consideration to any matters relating to the management or contrai of any of its memhers or to the operations by any of its members ef their respective businesses. including, without limitation matters relating to the purchase, manu£acture, transportation, advOrtl.siS$, pricing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco prc- ducts, do h4reby certify as foi2oxs: We, the undersigaed, desiring to form a r[embership corporation, pursuant to the Membership Corporations Law,

11

I declare under penalty o€ perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 2, 2497.

-s- 12. At least 674 of the 2418 documents listed on the privilege log were prepared by or transmitted to Covington & Burling. A listing of the Covington & Burling documents identifiable on the face of the privilege log is attached hereto as Exhibit A. ) DISTRICT OF~COIRMBIA ) Subscribed and sworn to betore me this 23rd day of October 1997. My commission expires: Ob

4 - 8. fihe second reason why documents prepared by Covington S Burling might properly be in Liggett's files is that Covington & Burling is outside counsel to The Tobacco Institute, Inc. ("TI"). TI is a nonprofit industry trade association organized under New York law and located in Washington, D.C. Its membership consists of manufacturers of tobacco products. Several courts have held that each individual member of a trade association is a client of the trade association's lawyer, and that communications from the trade association's counsel to counsel for the association's members are privileged. See, e.a., United States v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitarv Coro., 278 F. Supp. 608, 614 (W.D. Pa. 1967) {'"'[E]ach individual member of the [trade] association is a client of the association's lawyer' . . . . In such a relationship, the attorney-client privilege would be applicable°j; 'Iji re Brand Name Prescrintion Drucs Antitrust Litigation, No. 94 C 897, MDL No. 997, 1996 WL 5180 at *3 (N.D. 111. Jan. 3, 1996) (memorandum from trade association's counsel to counsel for the association's members is privileged). 9. One of TI's committees is the Committee of Counsel, which provides legal advice to TI and its members on legislative, regulatory, and other matters of industry-wide interest. The members of the Committee of Counsel include lawyers from the general counsel's offices of companies that compose TI's membership. The membership of the Committee of Counsel has at times included counsel from Liggett as well as counsel from other companies.

-6- Dubyn v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., No. 3462 (Ct. C.P. Phila. County, Pa, filed May 17, 1988). Hale v. R.T. Reynolds, Inc., et at., No. 89-0094 (W.D. Ia. filed Tan. 13, 1989). Galloway v. R.J. Reynolds, Inc., eral., No. 89-CA-1098 (W.D. La. filed Nov. 20, 1989). Gregg v. R.I. Reynolds, Inc., et al., No. 89-CA-1099 (W.I?- Tex. filed Dec. 7, 1989). Embrey v. R.I. Reynotris, Inc., et al.. No. 90-4517 (Dist. Ct. Dallas County, Tex. filed Apr. 18, 1990). AlEgoorf, et al. v R.l. Reynotds Tobacco Co., et ai., No. H-91-0158 {S.D. Tex. filed Jaa. 4, 1991). Kueper, et at. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Ca., et at., No. 91-L-734 (Cir. Ct. St. Clair County, 111. filed June 24, 1991). Brain, et al. v. Philip Morris Co_, et at., No. 91-49738 CA-22 (Cir. Ct. Dade County, Fia. filed Oct. 31. 1991). Zwillrnan v. Brook Grroug, er aL, No. 91-633 (D.N.IL fiFed Feb. 18, 1992). Conklin v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., et al., No. 3-571-92 (Cir. Ct. Knox County, Tenn. fiEcd Aug. 24, I992). Blanchard, et al. v. R..I. Reynolds Tobacco Co., e al., No. 92-CV-0735 (Dist. Ct. Galveston County, Tex. filed Sept. 21, 1992). Gallagher, et at. v. Philip Morris, Inc.. et al., No. 92-5284 (Super. Ct. Middlesex County, Mass. filed Oct. 13, 1992). Fateey, et ai. v. R.I. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et at.. No. 92-7221 (Super. Ct. Middlesex County, Mass. fiied Nov. 9, 1992). Brown, et al. v. RJ. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., No. 92-7101 (Super. Ct. Middlesex County, Mass. filed Nov. 12, 1992). LO Dailo v. Philip Morris, Inc., er a1., No. 92-8t?57 (Super. Ct. Middlesex County, Mass. t.3 ~ filed Dec. 29, 1992). -~ ~ o~, trx ~ q, W

Exhibit B to Affidacit of Williatn A. Adams i Fine v. Philip May 15, 1964)- et at., No. 8740-64 (Super. Ct. N.Y. County, N.Y. filed Herson v. American Tobacco Co., et at., No. 16183-65 (Super. Ct. N.Y. Cou filed Sept. 27, 1965). Mann v. American Tobacco Co., et af., No. 16184-65 (Super. Ct. N.Y. County, N.Y. filed Sept. 27, 1965). Cole v. Philip Morris, Inc., er at., No. 3457-66 (Super. Ct. N.Y. County, N.Y. filed Feb. 10, 1966). ArIcktoff v. Liggett & Myers, Inc., er al., No. 71-1123 (C.D. Cal. filed Taa. 3, 1972). Camrtock v. American Tobacco Co., er al., No.72-2394 (C.D. Cal. filed Oct. 6, 1972). Barnes v. R.J. Reynotds, Inc., et at., No. L-076901-83 (Super. Ct. Middlesex County, N.J. filed 4ct. 28, 1983). Barnes v. R.J. Reynolds, tnc., er at., No. L,668553-83 (D.N.J. filed Dec. 8, 1983). Flaines v. Liggett Group, Inc., et ai., No. 84-6785A (D.N.J. filed Feb. 22, 1984). Rogers v. R.I. Reynolds, Inc.. et at., No. 3-84-309 (E.D. Tean. fi}ed Apr. 19, 1984). Kirby v. Rl. Reynolda. Inc., et al., No. 3-84-371 (E.D. Tenn. tile@ May 17, 1984). Haight, et at v. American Tobacco Co., er al., No. 84-C-2072 {Cir. Ct. ICanawba County, W. Va. fited May 30, 1984). Roysdon v. Rl. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et ai., No. 3-84-606 (E.D. Tentt. filed July 5. 1984). Rogers v. R..7. Reynolds. Indns., Inc., et rti., No. E121486 (Dist. Ct. Jefferson County, Tex. filed Feb. 27, 1985). Petkovsek, er al. v. R.l. Reynolds, Indus., Inc., er at., No. E121482 {Dist. Ct- Jefferson Counsty, Tex. filed Feb. 27, 1985). .4lmquisr, et al. v. Philip Morris, lnc., er aI., No. E121134 (Dist. Ct. Jefferson County, Tex. filed Dec. 28, 1984). m ~ YA Q t {Jl 0N ~ ~

-2 Duke, et at. v. R.1. Reynolds, Inc., et aL, No. D122149 (Dist. Cc. Jefferson County, Tes. filed June 12, 1985). Bultitt v. Liggett Group, Inc., et al., No. 85-2506 (D.C. Mass. ftled June 19, 1985). Linscomb, et a1. v. American Tobacco Co., et al., No. D-122197 (Dist. Ct. Jefferson County, Tex. filed June 20, 1985). Hess v. Pfttlip Marris, Inc., et at., No. 85-3271 (D.C.Mass. f€3ed Aug. 22, 1985). Df.ron v. R..I. Reynolds. Inc., et ai., No. D-122613 (Dist. Ct. Jefferson County, Tez. fiIed Aug. 29, 1985). Edwards, er al. v. R.I. Reynotd& Inc._ et ai., No. D-122617 (Cir. Ct. Jefferson Couuty, Tex. filed Aug. 29, 1985). Fauikinbury v. Brawn &Wittfarresan Tobacco Corg., er a1., No. 85-54615 (Dist. Ct: Harris County, Tex. filed Sept. 27, 1985). Reavts v. R.J. Reynolds, Indus., Inc., et al., No. 1103 {Cir. Ct. Union County, Tenn. filed Oct. 3, 1985), Cahallero, er at, v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., No. 13,205 (Dist. Ct. Duval County, Tex. filed Oct. 7, 1985). Hertiky, et al. v. R.J. Reynotds, Inc., er at., No. 85-3888-MA (D.C. Mass. filed Oct. 15, 1985). Munn, et al. v. Pkitip Morris, Inc., et at., No. 85-57812 (Dist. Ct. Harris County, Tex. filed Oct. 18, 1985). Phith`ps v. R.I. Reynolds, Indus., Inc., et at., No. L-3783 (Cir. CL Blount County, TermL filed Oct. 21, 1985). Carlisle, et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., er al., No. 387,233 (Dist. Ct. Travis County, Tex. f€led Oct. 21, 1985). Boatrigtrt v. PhilFp Marri.t, Inc., er at., No. 387,233 (Dist. Ct. Travis County, Tex. filed Oct. 21, 1985). Glover, et al. v. Philip MarHs, Inc., er al., No. 85-58293 (Dist. Ct. Harris Co ~ Tex. filed Oct. 22, 1985). ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ . ,~ a m

-4- Guerra, et al. v. R.J. Reynotds, Inc., et at., No. 7485 (Dist. Ct. Starr County, Tex. filed Jan. 10, 198fi). Phiflips v. R.J. Reynotds, Indus., Inc., et al., No. 3-30-85 (Cir. Cf. Knox County, Tenum filed Jan. 17, 1986)_ Shorely, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds, Inc., et al., No. 4380 (Ct. C.P., Phila. County. Pa. ffled Jan. 28, 1986). Barleaur, et al. v. Philip hforris, Inc., et al., No. 86-06782 {L}ist. Ct. Harris County, Tex. filed Feb. 12, 1986). Irfoore, et al. v. RJ. Reynolds, Inc., et al., No. 3922 (Ct. C.P. Phila. County, Pa. filed Feb. 21, 1986). Johnson, a al. v. R..f. Reynolds, Inc., et al., No. H-8&1343 (S.D. Tex. filed Feb. 24, 1986). Schwenk v. R.J. Reynotds Tobacco Co., et at., No. 1523 (Ct. C.P. Phila. County, Pa. filed Mar. 10, 1986). Dixson v. American Tobacco Co., et af.. No. 86-5021 (Ct. C.P. Phila. County, Pa. filed Mar. 25, 198b)_ Marosis, et al. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., et at., No. 86-13788 {I}4st. Ct. Harris County, Tex. filed Mar. 25, 1986). Koenig, st al. v. American Brands, Inc., et af., No. 8fr23783 {D"tst. Ct. Harris County, Tex. ffled May 27, 1986). Booth, et aZ, v. Z,iggen & Myers, Inc., et al., No. 86-024173 (Dist. Ct. Harris County, Tex. filed May 28, 1986). Rothgeb, et al. v. American Tobacco Co., et at., No. 398,250 (Dist. Ct. Travis County, Tex, filed June 2, 1986). Woods v. R.J. Reynolds. Tobacco Co., et at., No. 398,251 (I?ist. Ct. Travis County, Tex. filed June 2, 1986). Davenport, et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et at., No. 86-25995 (I)sst. C!. Harris County, Cx7 Tex. filed June 9. 1986). N3 Y ~ C3 ~ m Cn C. ~ V p t,~ "

both houses of Congress. Covington & Burling's legal representation has involved such matters as the disclosure of cigarette ingredients to DHS, the development of ventilation standards by OSHA, the regulation of pesticides by EPA, labeling and advertising regulations issued by the FTC, subsidies for tobacco production administered by USDA, and congressional interest in the development of so-called nfire-safe" cigarettes. Cov3ngton & Burling's legal fees for this representation have been paid collectively by Philip Morris Incarporated, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, Lorillard Tobacco Company, the American Tobacco Company, and sometimes Liggett Group Inc. 4. One example of Covington & Burling's work for several tobacco manufacturers has been in connection with the reporting requirements of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. The ingredients used by the companies in manufacturing cigarettes have historically been considered confidential trade secrets. For many years, Covington & Burling has received lists of ingredients from each company and then provided I7HS with a master, composite list for the industry as a whole. Each ingredient appeared only once on the composite list, and the list did not identify the users of any particular ingredient. Thus the companies were able to satisfy the reporting requirements of the Act without divulging trade secrets to one another. 5. I have read this Court's Memorandum Decision and ~ Order of October 15, 1997, which holds that Kansas law recognizes a

-7- Dunn, er al. v. RJI{ Nabisco Holdings Corp., et al., No. 18 DO1-93-05-CT-Q6 (Delaware Snpet. Ct. Delaware Couniy, lnd. filed May 28, 1993). Castano, et at. v. American Tobacco Co., et al., No. 94-1044 (E.D. La. filed Mar. 29, 1994). Allrnan, et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., No. 940504 (S.D. Ca. filed Mar. 30, 1994). Higley, e al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et at., No. 940510E (S.D. Ca. filed Mar. 31, 1994). Bernard, et al. v. American Tobacco Co., et al., No. 94-1498 (E.D. La. fIed May 5, 1994). Engle, et al. v. Ri. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et at., No. 94-08273 CA (Dist. Ct. Dade County, Fta. filed May 5, 1994). Estate of Butler, et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., No. 94-5-53 (Cit. Ct. Jones County, Miss. filed May 12, 1994). Moore ex ret. Mississippi v. American Tobacco Co.. et al., No. 94-1429 (Ch. Ct. 3ackson County, Miss. filed May 23, 1994). ns, et at v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., No. 1-400-94 (Cir. Ct. Knox County, Tenn. filed Jut. 7, 1994). Minnesota, ex rei. Humphrey, et at. v. Philip Morris Inc., et ale, No. C2-94-85G5 (Dist. Ct. Ramsey County, Minn. filed Aug. 17, 1994). McGrasv, ex ret. West Virginia v. Ameriean Tobacco Co., et at.. No. 94-1707 (Cir. Ct. Kanawha County, W. Va. filed Sept. 20, 1994). Michener v. American Tobacco Co., et at, No. C7 94-7897-64 (Dist. Ct_ Oklahoma County, Tenn. filed Nov. 21. 1994). Gillrnan v. Philip Morris Inc_, et al., No. 16698 (Cit. Ct. Wash. County, 'I'enn. filed Nov. 29, 1994). Florida, er ai. v. American Tobacco Co., et al., No. 95-1466 AD (Cir. Ct. Palm Beach County, Ffa. fi'°d Feb. 21, 1995). ta N V tb

- 3 - joint-client privilege but not a joint-defense privilege. As I understand the Court's decision, if A and B attend a meeting with their separate lawyers, their communications at the meeting are not privileged. But if A and B employ a single attorney for their joint representation, then their communications with that attorney are privileged. 6. ' I have personally reviewed the privilege log listing the Liggett documents that are the subject of this Court's Memorandum-Decision and Order of October 15, 1997. The privilege log indicates that a substantial number of the documents at issue were prepared by or transmitted to Covington & Bur2ing in its role as counsel for multiple tobacco manufacturers, including Philip Morris, R.S. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, Lorillard, and American, as well as Liggett. I have confirmed the accuracy of the privilege log by reviewing most if not all of the documents on that log that were prepared by or transmitted to Covington & Burling 7. Because Covington & Burling has never represented only Liggett in connection with any regulatory or other legal matter,e there are two reasons why documents prepared by Covington & Bur2ing could properly be in Liggett's possession. The first reason is that the documents refer or relate to matters on which Covington & Burling has been retained by its clients to represent several tobacco manufacturers jointly. Such documents are subject to the joint-client doctrine. Liggett does not have unilateral CC= 3ti: 4_~ authority to waive other manufacturers' claims of privilege with CJ E.1`a ~ respect to such documents. C3 kII4

CV 96-0072414S x STATE OF CONNECTICUT, SUPERIOR COURT•. Plaintiff, - against- JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PHILIP MORRIS INC., LITCHFIELD R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, BROWN & WILLLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION, B.A.T. INDUSTRIES P.L.C., LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY, LIGGETT GROUP, INC., UNITED STATES TOBACCO COMPANY, . HILL AND KNOWLTON, INC., . THE COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH- May 23, 1997 U.S.A., INC., THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE, Ilk*C., AND BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, LTD. I?efendants. DECLARATION OF PHILIP H. COHStI SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' CLAIMS OF JOINT DEFENSEjCOLIDiON INTEREST PRIVILEGE Volume I of II (Declaration and Exhibits A-Z thereto)

DECLARATION OF PHILIF A COHEN 1. I am an attorney admitted to practice before the Courts of the State of New York, and I am an associate in the firm of Chadbourne & Parke LLP, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York 10112, attorneys for Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation. 2. At my direction, a paralegal at my firm collected the publicly available materials attached hereto as Exhibits A through k'W. Exhibits A through G are examples of complaints filed in smoking and health product liability actions against tobacco manufacturers in the 145fl's. Exhibits H through T are examples of complaints filed in smoking and health product liability actions against the tobacco manufacturers (and often others) in the 1950's. Exhibits U through DD are examples of complaints filed in smoking and health product liability actions against the tobacco manufacturers in the 1970's, and exhibits EE through WW are examples of such complaints filed in the 1980's. 3. A list of smoking and health product liability actions filed against tobacco manufacturers (and often others) is attached hereto as Exhibit XX. This list, entitled "Tobacco Product Liability Cases," provides the date each case was filed, the jurisdiction in which each case was filed, and the identity of the defendant.

-6. Dtttlyrt v. Phi7fp ddorrrs. Inc.. tt ai., No. 3462 (Ct. C.P. Pbi1a. Cattncy, Pa. filed 14fzy 17, 1988). Flate v. R.l. Rtynoldr, Inc., er aG. No. 89-0t39a jtV.D. Ia. filed 1an. 13, 1989). t'ialGsway v. RI. Rrynotdt, Inc. er aL; No. 89{sl 1095 {w.1}. La. filed iYov. 20, 1989). Gregg v. RI. Reynofdt, Inc, er aL, No. 89-CA-1fl99 (W.D. Tox= filed Dec. 7. 1959). EmMey v. 1tJ. I{'rynotds. Issc., tr al., N+io, 90-4511(Dist. CL Dallas Coaaey, T+u, filed Apr. 1E, 1990). ,4ftgo©Q et ai, v. R.l. Reynatdr Tobacco Ca.. at at.. No. FI 91-02SS (S.D. 'i'ex. aled 3aa, 4, 1991). Ktteprr. rt at v R!. Rtyrwtds Tobacco Co., et aL, No. 91-L-734 (Ck. Cr. 5`t. CFair Cocmty, Ill. Med Scuve 24. 1991). Brain, er at. v. FhFUp Morris Crt., et at., No. 91-49738 CA-22 (Cir. Ca. Dade County. H3aL fted Qot. 31, 1991). Zwithnan v. Brook Group. er at., No. 91-633 (D.N.I. filed Feb. 18, 1992). Gonklin v. Brmxr & Wtttimnsart Tobacco Corp., rt 4, No. 3-571-92 (C3r. Ct. Knox Cottnr}'. Tean. filed Aag. 24. 1932). Biantharsi, et at v. R.1.. Raynotdr Tobacco Ca., et ab, No. 92-CV-0735 (IJist. Cc. Gztvasion Covaty, Texm filed 5eps. 21, 1992). Gat&sglur. rt at. v. Fhlifp bforrt3 Ine., sr nt., No. 92-5284 (Snper. Ct Middksez Coscty, Ma3s. IIkd {ks. 13, 1992). Fahey. er at v R.I. I{eynatdr Tobacco Co., tt aL, No. 92-7221 (Stcpes. Ct. M'u2dtesa.c County, Msse. fited Atov. 9, 1992). Brown, er a!. x R.I. Reynofds Tobacco Co., et at.. Na. 92-71i)1 (SttW. CL Middlmeic Coutuy, Mass. filed Nov. 12. I992). Datfa v. Ffiitip Moiris, Inc., ra ot., No. 92-8067 (Super. Ct.. Middlesex County, Yaw. filed Dea. 79, 1992).

IN 't'8& DISTRICT CoIIRT OF 88AWNE8 COIIPITY, KANSAS DIVISION TWO STATE C!F KANSAS, ex rel. CARLA J. STOVALL, Attorney General, l } ) } Plaintiff, } v. } Case No. 47-Cv-3i4 } BROOKE 6ROUP, LTD. et al., } } Defendant. } - AF'YIDIlQIT oF SAIfB$ A. GOOLD James A. Goold, being duly sworn, hereby states: 1. I am a member of the District of Columbia Bar and Of Counsel to Covington & BurZing, a law firm located in Washington, D.C. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this affidavit. ' 2. Covington & Burling has provided legal counsel and representation in connection with regulatory, legislative, and litigation matters affecting manufacturers of cigarettes and other acco products. Covington & Burling has been jointly retained by its clients on these occasions to represent the common interests of several tobacco manufacturers, rather than the interests of a single manufacturer. 3. For example, Covington & Burling has represented severa2 tobacco manufacturers in dealings with the Department of Health and Human Services {"DHS^}, the office of Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA^), the Department of Agriculture ("USDA"), the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), the Environmental Frotection Agency ("EPA"), and other executive branch agencies, as well as

' rLpL'd 3_. I32;, !.I SA,`,ILI'}S S. C}n'3ULOS Ct.ri:Ll;:.^. D. RC;iB nn -rr_ °an Frauc'sla,Lallfornia GArficid 1-0316 Ai.:4'_'?? i.. .'':C:;I'L°Adt 431 Dri:: IIuilding Frczno, Califorr.ia - ?-3.43 idt TIi,"', IIYSZT:'J STA^.SS DISTttICT C;?L'!?T, F6R 17SE N:N:TtETSiN DI8TICT OF CALIFflRRIA, TliE SCS6TH&4H DIVISION a corporat.on, LL'',.," :7 L .Y:7S TODACCO CO:NVa, a corporation, P. LORILLAI:D Cfi.iAftY, a corporation, fl:I7.IP iMP.I3 k CD: PALY, LTD., a corporation, D4ES fltit: through TEti. Clc Yd.9, I I?(?. 33779 C.....*A.fY, a cor?:oration, vs. ~ CIVIL ACTION R. J. NuY:~)LU3 YuDACfA C. rvtAl."P ?'"R W.'"AC,P3 l.'~.?: ZD DeSendanta. ]'2aintiff coaplaina of dafeau3ants thati I Plaintiff is a residant of the Stata of Calitorseia, IZ Iha true nasaa ot oapaaitisai iz~di~idus2~•aaiaciata or otherviap of thi dnfoadanta. AOE 6218 through TS%, ars sIItimowa to Qtcs pIaitttiif who theraforf susa i6 avWtiatitiaea aasni-u%Q xi1S pfay Iaa7s to auscrd bis aonpiaiat Mhsn th; .ass hars bsai`aaoartainad. III At all tirnes hereia uantioned d.fsadant. Et. 1.jLayaalds Tobacco Cn,..pany uaa and is a corporation orkanisad and oxistirtD under and by virtue of the laua of the Dtate of Natr Jorssy, acud sogaGad in the Luaiucaa of caanufacturin& aaacg other products eir2rsttea for r::uala to ulti,ato conauaara throughout various parts of the Cohen Deci. Exhibit

-7- Uzum, er at. v. Rt3t lYabirro floidinqs Corp., er a1.,.No. 18 M1I-43-05-CT-Q6 (Shlawatt Super. Ct. Delaware Couniy, Iad. f3kd May 28. 1993). Cartano, er al. v. Amuitan Tobacco Co., et at.. No. 94-1044 (E.D. LaL fned lyfsr. 29. 1994). , .StLnart, er r1t. v. Phitip Mon#s. Inc.. er nt., No. 940504 (S.D. Ca. flied Mar. 34, 1994). ftigley. et at. v. Philip l4fotrrs. fiea, u aL, No. 940514E (B.D. Ca. riled Mar. 31, 1994). Burrard rt a!. v. Amertcara Tobaera Co.. u at, No. 94-1498 (E.D. La. filed hlay 5, 15t94). Zigle, er a!L v. R.J. 3{synatds Tabccco Ca.. a rtL. lYo. 9i-08273 CA {Diat Ct. 17ade Cotzaty, Ft3L flIad May 5, 1994). Bvate of Buttet, er at v. Fhtdho Adorris, Iru , a at., No. 44-S-S3 (Cir. CL. Joaes County, Miss. filed May 12, 199d). Moore a ret, ddissisiipgi v. ,lmrrirart Tobacco Co.. u ai., No. 94-ia29 {C'}s. Cz. Jackson Cossaty, Miss. liled May 23. 1994). Xttggins, ei al. v. Pkitig aKorris. Frtc.. ei nt., No. 1400-94 (Cir. Ct. Knox County, TamL fifad Jul. ?, 1994). MGnnesora, €s rs1. Hrm,phrry, ei a#. v. Phitfp Morris Irtc., u¢l.. No. C1-94-858S {Dist. Gt. Rasatay County, M'ian. fi€eck An. 11. 1994). McGraw, rs rrt. SYarr Y`rrgfrria v American TaL=o Co., a a2., No. 94-1707 tCtr. Ct. K=w6s Caantg, W. Va. ftled Segt 20, 19K. lditheater v,Unefiemt Tobntca Co.. er ot., No. CI $#-7$4?-6d {gisc. Ci. Okfahoma County, Tesm, filed Nov. 21, 149q. tAilfmarc v. Philig Morris Inc., a al., No. 16698 (Cit. Cz. Wash. Counry, Teaa. fsied Nov. 29, 1994). Florida, ei al. v. Anurfcart Tobacco Co., ar at. No. 95-1465 AD.{Cir. Cr. Pa1m Beach Cousay. Fla. flted Feb. 21. 1995). w ~ C!) c}-a CIA tn 1~0

OD caucad to and did suffer the nalignancioe and in,juries hareinafter sct forth. . YZZ Dy reason of the premS.sea, plaintiff sustaincd the following serious and perxancnt inJurieai plaintiff developed caneer of the throat; plaintiff suffered €roa savers pain of body, includin;; pain aad soroness of throat, ehoat and backi plainttff aesffered difficulty in breathing, ewrsllaeting and apeakinyt; plaintiff haadyspnoa, coughing and other respiratory ailmenta; plaintiff's nervons system vae severely shocked arnd chattered. XIII By reanon of the presrisos+ it was necessary ond plaintiff 'did incur bills for the services of doctors, hospitals, and roen- thonalooLts and other teehnicana to his dscaZe in a presently unacccrtaizud ~unt as such services are still continuing and plaintiff 3raya leava to inaert heroin hia dau,aroa in thic reapoct t+hon the anse ara finally dotcrcained. xiv I3y reason of.tbe rreuiseai plaintiff hos been disabled and rendered incapablc of pcrforr..ing his usual work and Hill in the future ¢ so diaabled; that plaintiff was able-bodied and capable af earning in excess of MQ0,00 per aonth; that plaintiff nox 2o and will be for an indefinite period of time rendered in- capable nf pcr€orning his usual rorkall to his damnges in a praeentip anascertainod acount and pleintiff prays leave to inaert his daungaa in this respect herein when the aaae is finelly dotercAned. Zi Py reason of the proziaea, plaintiff has been gencrally daaae,od in the etna of TIiRM lilltMALD T2LIMd73i (030Q,GW.40) D8i.1.t,i.:i e In d•.in;; the thin,^,a heroin alla-od. defcndants and oach of

thaa actod scith wanton diararard of the r£ghta, fealinEa, and health of,the Soneral publict including Piaintifl; by rcasan thereof, plaintiff de_aads exesplary and Punitive de.a?ca againat said defea,!ants in tha a:m of QI.u 7'TLLZ41i (C1,C3C1007,4Q) LJ12.uP.3 by way of exrsspie and puniahaant of said defendants for their false and rSaleadinE advertising and indsceccntai and iry tray of ur.ra£n„ and aua.tinlo to other aigaretta car.,rqnics and advertiaera not to advcrtioa falaaly aad.ta cell harrafu2, deleterious and Carciacaenic producta. . L't77hEtti~Y 7p.E.E plaintiff prays 3udrmeat aEainat deftndaata and each ef them as fallauai 1. i3~1,CC0.C~7 Ceneral dar.aToa, 2. Cpoc£a7l da..^vFOa as allegcd horaia. 3. Mcanplary and punitive da.aLca In the auw of ;'hGDQ,6Lfl.CC. 4. Far coata of ouit, 5. 7ar othcr L1CIIt reliaf. AS£J .U" A SEC:<?a i.3t'A ULTZa°CT Cn1I>Z OF nCTIC.NP pl..intiff allOges thati Plaintiff incarroratoa by reference a~l~l the allofntior~ uat out in part~apha Ie 12, SZI, IV, V, VI, YIIfftX, If X1I, 5371, .L1Y, IV, DafcnBanto and nach of then uarranted that thair cig.arcttcs uere frea 1Yam/InJuriuua oubataaceei that the said ciEarattos uara wholorsodofauitable and fit for such uaa and aonaua=gtion by the general publicf including plaintiff, and that the aczking of aigarattaa,xaa nat hexmtuZ to harvn healLh7 that the s:.aking and ua¢ of ci^arattoy aided digaattoni that the'=obing af cirarattea rcliavesi fatiueG that the a:atcing of ataarottca reatarad bodily rcnawed encrgyi that the a:.Wking of ci{pzrattas J '•adily anerryi that the sa.wkin„ of c£i;amttes gsve bodily anarGY7 that the a='.aY.in; of oii;t;rottes wmld sat advcraaly affaet nor ic:pair the reapiratory ayatea ,nd p.:Ssictl condition of athlotasi that the srokiaE ot

C

worldf inaladint, the ,^.te.to of Culifornia, - IV. At a2l tit:ea d1u, oin .entioncd defon:lant, A::erican ^aobacco Ca:,;,any s:aa and is a corCoration arracined ar.d exiatinr anacr and by virtue of the lat.a of the 8tuta of !'ca Jcrsa'l# crd cn7a;,cd in the bnainaaa of vanu£actau ir; a:-onv othcr ,•.roducta ciis•ottcs for rc-ala to ultisto conam:ers throuchout vnrioe.-. p^_rta of the world, including the State of California. V. At all tissa hcrein mentioned defendant LSGt;ott L i:pora ^abacco Company traa and ie a corporation eri;anizad and cx3atin„ undcr and by virtua of the Lmlo of the : tata of 1teu Jersey, and aa;,aCad in the buois:cao of r_anufa¢turin; a:.ang other producta$ cigarettco for roaala to ulti<.ato conaua:ra t#waurhout v:3'iouo parta of the mcrldi iucludi:y; the Stato of Galifornia. t'I - At all tinee Sscrain ccntionod, defendant P. torillard com{>any wae and ia a corporation crrxnizod and exintiac undar and by virtuo of the la.:a of the 'tata of ?Tosr Jcrsey, and anCar:sd in the bucinaao of rar.ufacttu•ing a:eznd other products tiEarottea for resnla to ultLato conasa[rxs throuChout variossa parta of the world, inw aludiag the atata af Caliiornia, V12 At all tiana heroin aantioaed defon3ant.ibilip i'arria and Coapaayt Ltd, was and ia a aorioration orCAaiaed nadar and by virtue of the laws of the State of Yirg issiaW and on,_agod in the businaas of cannfact+sing among otiser products cir,rettoa far ` roaalo to ultLmate conauuers thraugtsout various rxirt0 of the world# including the Stata of Californis. VZII From Copte(-ber 2418 until :arch, 1950 gplaintiff did er..ai:a in the usuzl and ordinary rz.nn;r for varylnC'pcriqda of tic.c aizarattca "nufacturaa by the caid defenziaatci ard each of ttsca. ;aid ci-;.^so~tus were ae3led by said defondants in pn!,ar and . 2e

D

cellaphana containers and era-eo-ld-in-thaL-form--La~~.1auY ,rholeealors, Jobbers and retailers who in turn sold aaid cirarattes to the Cenaralpublic, including plaintiff. Ix Defendants and each of then m¢liciously, rmntoaly, fraudulently, falsley, and deceitfully reprasented to the reneral public, in- cluding plaintiff, by means of various advertising ff.edia that; the ez:oking and use of their brand of cigarettes,xas not harmful to healthi that the saoking ar4 use at aigarattes aided digestion; that the amoking of cigarettes ralieved fatigue; that the ataking of cirarettes restored bodily enargy; that the suaking of ciDarettes renewed bodily energy; that the awking of cigarettes gave bodily energy; that the smoking of ciGarettee released bodily energy; that the smoking of ciearettes would not adversely affect nor innair the respiratory syatem and physical condition'ol athletea; that the onoking of cigarettes would not hara por irritate the huran throat; that the acakinD of cigarettes would noE leave any un- plaasant after effecta; that the ssmking, of cigarettes waa soathing to the bm~n nervotis 5yateCS; that the smoking of cirarettaa Staa i nervous comforting to the hu.mnfsystcm. x and deceitfully made the aforesaid rapreeentations to the general c public,including plaintiff, intending they and be should act uj+on thes:; that said repreaentationa were by meana of advertise- cmcita in various periodiaaU and nesrspapara of general cireuiation, and tock the form, amang others, of stateaents by indviduala reyresonted as medical and athletic persona by their aanner of lroas or ianruace used; that advertisamanta of this nature were calculated by defendants and each of them to induce the Denaral gofendants and each of them xantonly; maliciously, freu irass ty ntivertincxrants in the cowia aactiona of neetspapors of , c,,,.rsl circuletionF dirocted to the youthful public. That auch unu of the ucans by uxhich the aforesaid repreaoatatio p o m c I arettea without fear of inJury to their health. ol:o ei ubii e t 3. N O ~ 0 C\ ~ ~

15. As a direct and prozinate result of the negligence or ailful, ma2icious, unlawful, wanton, fraodulent and de¢sitful coaaunt of defendants plaintiff suatainad the foF2owing serious and permanent injscries: . ' plaintiff developed, still has and xi21 Sn the future suffer froa canser and as a result thereof ras required to est.r a hospital where ha was oparated on by his pfxysicians and his asttire right Iung vaa ty.o.ed tT uaY.rtj plaintiff suffered, sarfsas sat nill in.tLa fcture suffer from sscare pain of body and miWE pain and aoraneas of the throat, nack, chest, baoY and aid.a, difficulty in swallowing, d7apnaa, coughing. =eneral realmess of the body, and a;reater susceptibility to colEs and other respiratory inftctionsj plaintiff's nerrea and nervous system were severely shocked and shatteredj a12 of said iajnrlas and effects thereof are serious and permanant and the - functioa and use of said orsans ani parts hart hsru seriously and pe3saa.a.t1y iayairtd, simt*+ishad and r.odersQ painfall plaintiff Las Yan disabled txna perforeias 3iis usasi voric aoC duties aad rill in t$e fatura be s@ fisal3elJ plaintiff Lai lost }Sis Mgii and a"'~f~ at teO rats .f syP">fs.lalT Wctr pollaa. (0a) P.r wdc :sasa Bar.a 30, 1433, aat riil ia tsr fletw sa¢tYsr ts Uw aii v 13u Srasttr }.rtian ad his .a=.m and a.reiap. It tbt saasfa~t aars and trnt- a.at .f aait tiarss and iajtri.s Dlaiattif Las Satsartt and e11U.tad Yfaatf te e~ I - the .ea af s}prMGaateiy Sw viatisqi Dellass (i=.ooa) aaa ,eiu in tho futort be sr.ufsea ta .avaf aasitiaatl' s.r i.r a...ssary ..ti.aY tawtirut and aass{ an ts Plainlirt's d..rs" ss the .wont .f tw m.trut nttt Sfa.rsd leuars {#m,000}. WMMcs, }lasatisf srays f"rPnt .Eata.t as[..i..ta ia the a.a..t ef !w ID..iraa 7iits sbasant ssY3aas {*M,OOO} and oosts herein aspended. Ca.a a.. fiaiatilY ast far his aa.f2siat states thats

12. At a11 tines hersin xsntiorrd triers x.s in fuF1 force and effeet in the State of ktissour3 a ststuta rtsich Ss now knoxn as Seotioa 195.fl1S (1; 8eaZsed Statutes of tFissauri, 1949 and which reada as follo.rs; "T![e following aeta and the causing thersof within the state of ASisouri are heraby grohibiteaf *{1} the atnufaetare, sa1e, or delirerT, holding or offering for sale ot any food, dresg& desiae or easotia that is adultarstad er aiairsatadf` . The defendants, aatiag an sialatioa of tha aforesaid !liasossri statute negligently, Kilfully, maliaiously, s+nLvfully, rantonly, fraudu2ently and deceitfully saaufaatursd, sold, and dsliserad ar held or otfered for sale their respeatSre brands of cigarettas and tobacco which bare or contained poiaonous, deleterious, diseased, contamiostad, filthy, putrid or decomposed substanaaa which rers injurious to health and unfit for rw or consw*tioa by the general public, iacindiag glaintirf 13. At all times herein awtiaasd,there ns itt full farea affi effeet in th. itata of Sisaaari, a etstsrte rhish is aeR imowa as aestloa 196.015 (5) r.siaa atatifLes of itsaeovri, 1949, aand which reata as fal3aw t s3'Ae taiieria{ ssts aad te.sassing ttssesf iritaia the atata of 1Mssa.ri ase hereby ps»EtYitetl a ! f f s e(S) the iiaaslaatist af aaT talae atrart3aa..atj •*• 'A» fafiaiaata, aatSft ia Tielat$iY af the atlZlaai! ]tiasari statute, aqliplty azrt Miltt[ll7r, ritaiwa3y, iatartsi]#i ws....., f frasdulaSC{ ly aat iaseitful2l dissemiatat fa2ss alesrtiaa.mts bftah wra aia- 2.dtag in alateTial iattQ eMe.rl3ag thait swp.s..TO lraata at ag...a..w aai tabsas !,t an atfsrt to !aftaa tae rwsar P,+-, iss2rttag )Iaistllt, to ya-oftasa, i.t at .oasss tlais aaid ptedaots, all as mra fully aet forth in paragraph 8 karaifsatwTe. 14. At aIi ti.as brnia ssntiaosi thns ns ia fY12 foras and sffsst ia the itata of fsissasri a atattita YM3sh 3s tar 7wwn as -S-

when smoked, were likely to and did cause the production, ac- celeration, precipitation, activation and aggravation of irri- tation, inflamFSation, infection and tumors of the nose, throat, vocal chords, lungs and related structures of the human body, - all of which the defendants knew, or by the exercise or due care on their part should have known, at all times herein men- tioned. 4. Defendants wilfully, maliciously, wantonly, fraudulently, falsely, deceitfully and with gross negligence represented to the general public, including plaintiff, through various advertising media, that the smoking or said Camel ciga- rettes and tobacco was not harmful or irritating; that the smoking of said products aided digestion, relieved fatigue and restored, renewed, gave and released bodily energy; that the smoking of said cigarettes and tobacco did not affect or impair the wind or physical condition oP athletes; did not ham or irri- Smax:n- tate the throat or lungs nor leave an aftertaste; that the awAeiee of said cigarettes and tobacco was soothing, restful and com- forting to the nerves; that said Camel cigarettes and tobacco and the smoke thereof contained less nicotine and harmful in- gredients than did any or all of the other brands of cigarettes and tobacco; and that doctors, other professiona2 people, and various and numerous well-known persons, outstanding in their particular fields of achievement, smoked and recosmended that the genera3l public smoke said Camel cigarettes and tobacco. The defendants further so represented and warranted that the said Camel cigarettes and tobacco were free of any injurious substance#, that the smoking of said cigarettes and tobacco was wholesome, beneficial, suitable and fit for such use and consunp- tion by the general public, including plaintiff, when, in fact, said cigarettes and tobacco at all times herein mentioned con- tained unwholesome, poisonous, deleterious, irritating and harm- ND -2- {~ (Z) f3"a I

C 0 P Y iN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOtIIS STATE OF dtI.SSOURI IRA C. LOWE, Vs. Plaintiff, No. ?42$3 Ff. J. NBYNOLDS TOBACCO COMP a corporation, and PAT MARIAM, Div. No. 1 Defendants. } P E T I T I O N Plaintiff states: 1. Defendant H. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is and was at all times herein mentioned a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of law, authorized to do business in Missouri and engaged in the business of manufacturing, among other products, cigaretts known under the brand name of Camel cigarettes and tobacco for cigarettes, and selling and distri- buting these products for resale to the ultimate consumer through- out various parts of the world including the State of Missouri. 2. Defendant Pat Mariam at all times herein mentioned sold at retail to the general public, including plaintiff, such cigarettes and tobacco manufactured by defendant ii. 3. Reynolds Tobacco Company. 3. From 1930 to 1952 plaintiff purchased such ciga- rettes and tobacco from the defendant Mariam and others, and emoked and used them in the usual and ordinary manner and as in- tended by the defendants. At all times herein mentioned said cigarettes and tobacco contained and produced when smoked un- rholesame, poisonous, deleterious, irritating 3nd harmful and injurious substances and ingredients, including carbon dioaide, 02) carbon monoxide, nicotine, aamonia, aldehydes, acrolein, for- .~^n waldehyde, tars and formic acid. Such cigarettes and tobacco, CD S r~ -1_ Cohen Decl_ Exhibit C_~ O

0 tisements which were misleading in material matters concerning said Carael cigarettes and tobacco in an effort to induce the general public, including plaintiff, to purchase, use and con- sume said camel cigarettes and tobacco, all as more fuily set „. forth in paragraph 4 hereirabove. 7. At all times herein mentioned there was in full force and effect in'the State of Missouri a statute which is now known as Section 561.660, Revised Statutes of Missouri, . 1949, and which reads as fo2losrs: "2. Any person, firm, corporation, or association who, with intent to sell or in anysrise dispose of mer- chandise, securities, service or anything offered by such person, firm, corporation or association, directly or indirectly, to the public for sale or distribution or with intent to increase the consumption thereof or to induce the public in any manner to enter into any obligation relating thereto or to acquire title thereto or an interest therein, makes, publishes, disseminates, circulates or places before the public, or causes, directly or indirectly, to be made, published, disseminated, circu- lated or placed before the public, in this state, in a newspaper or other publication or in the form of a book, notice, handbill, poster, bill, circular, pamphlet, or letter or in any other way, an advertisement of any sort regarding merchandise, securities, service or anything so offered to public, which advertisement contains any assertion, repreientation or statement of fact which is untrue, deceptive or misleading, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. "2. And shall upon conviction thereof be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not less than tan days nor more than ninety days, or by both such fine and imprisonment; providing, that nothing herein shall apply to any proprietor or publisher of any newspaper or magazine who publishes, disseminates or circulates any such advertisement without the 7asow3edge of the unlawful or untruthful nature of such advertisement." The defendants, acting in violation of the aforesaid Missouri atatute, wilfully, maliciously, unlawfully, wantonly, fraudulently, deceitfully and with gross negligence made, published, dissemin- ated, circulated or placed before the public or caused directly or indirectly to be made, published, disseminated, circulated or placed before the public, inc2uding plaintiff, assertions, representations or statements of facts are more fully set forth

ful ingredients heretofore mentioned, and the smoking of said cigarettes and tobacco was at all times herein mentioned harm- ful, irritating and in,}urious to the smoker thereof. Plaintiff, in smoking said Camel cigarettes and tobacco, did rely upon such representations made by the defendants when,he purchased and smoked such cigarettes and tobacco. ' 5. At all times herein mentioned there was in flill force and effect in the State of Missouri a statute which is now known as Section 196.015 (1), Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1949, and which reads as follows: "The following acts and the causing thereof within the state of Missouri are hereby prohibited: {1} The manufacture, sale, or delivery, holding or offering for sale of any food, drug, device or cos- metic that is adulterated or misbranded;" Defendants, acting in violation of the aforesaid Missouri statute, wilfully, maliciously, unlawfully, wantonly, fraudulently, de- ceitfully and with gross negligence manufactured, sold, delivered, held and offered for sale said Camel cigarettes and tobacco which were adulterated and misbtanded, in that, without notice or warn- rney 8aR«, Ing thereof, they-beGlt contained and produced when smoked such unwholesome, poisonous, deleterious, irritating and harmful sub- stances hereinabove mentioned. 6. At all times herein mentioned there was in full force and effect in the State of Missouri a statute which is now hown as Section 196.015 (5), Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1949, and which reads as follows: "The following acts and the causing thereof within the state of Missouri are hereby prohibited; .e: "(5) The dissemination of any false advertise- ment; * * •". The defendants, acting in violation of the aforesaid Missouri statute, wilfully, maliciously, unlawfully, wantonly, fraudulently, deceitfully and with gross negligence, disseminated false adver- -3-

3. Dafendant, The American Tobaaco Co., In¢., is and raa at a12 tivsas herain saatione~ a 2Fov Sarsoy corporation er;snized and existing under and by virtue of law and engaged in the business of ranufaoturinB, among other producta, cigarettes Ynown under the brand name of Lucky Strike cigarettes and distributing these products for resale to tat8 ultimata canaw~er throughout various parts of tFtE wor11, inciudint the Sttta of Missouri. t. DefasMant, !. Sarillari Ccapasy, is and xas at all tisss hara3a mentioned a]FSar Jersey oor9oratiou orgaaisad and asisting under and by virtue of law and gnzstixG In the business o: r.anaact.L- ing, awng othar products, cigarattss icsam smdar the brand nama of o1d Gold cigarsttas and distributing thesa products for rasala to the ultimate aonasmmer throughout various parta of the world, inclu3- ing the State of Missouri. 5. i?efeo6ant, Sroxri 3 Filliamson Tobacco Corp., ia and ras at all times herein muetioaad a iSorth Carolina corporation ortaaisad and aziatiaa under aad Sf virtue of lav and engaged in the busiaess of svsufaaturing, amcog other products, aifsrsttaa fa+om under the brand nsas of iooi cigarettes aaa tiatrilutit+E tism proinats for nsaia to the nltisata sonsumrr thmaghastit iarious yarts of ttd roz'IQ, iaaln3in< the stata sf ltisaouri. . 6. 9aftedant, Graat xtlaatis i IaaiHa 'lyt CM., !s aad raa at ali tiw hesaia a.ntion.[ a ritrrlaat sasporatim orsanis.t ant osatiag mitr aat 1! .istaa sf Va aad aap4M In tir Lusiass of ari2iag at retail, MM[ athsr thfngs, tht aiariauttaest brands at ai;.r.tts, to tae pnera2 gidr2s., iwsiriias tlalnuff• 7. rioI the year 1930 to 1M FSainti3f tit s.Wta inn the rrtl sa! ertiaar; seUDOr for e&r7iag a+:tals af tiae the afay- aentioa4/ brands of ciprttas aod tobacco. Sail sigrstt.s ara ssa2ad by the rasy.otiva aanufaaturan of .ach 1reei of aissrstte in a paper aat sriloptsaor sent:ia.r and an a.it In that toraa to the .arior Ynolssalsrs, JobMrs aai r.tailarr, iasltit€ng taf.adsnt.

in paragraph 4 hereinabove, which were intended or calculated to induce the general public, including plaintiff, to purchase, use and consume said Camel cigarettes and tobacco and which assertions, representations or statements of fact were untrue, deceptive and misleading. „ 8. Defendants were ,jointly and concurrently guilty of negligence in the following respects, to-wit: A. Defendants negligently and carelessly failed and neglected to prevent, guard against, give notice to or warn the general public, including plaintiff, when defendants knew, or by the exercibe of ordinary care would have known, tkat the said Camel cigarettes and tobacco, and the smoking thereof, contained such unwholesome, deleterious, harmful and irritating ingredients hereinabove mentioned, all of which made their said products, and the smoking thereof, dangerous and not reasonably safe or fit for use or consumption by the general public, including plaintiff, and were likely to cause the plaintiff and other members of the general public who used or consumed said cigarettes and tobacco to develop and contract illness and disease thereby. B. Defendants negligently and carelessly failed and neglected to talce reasonable precautions to eliminate or render harmless to the general public, including plaintiff, such unwholesome, deleterious, harmful and irritating in- gredients above mentioned and contained in said Camel ciga- rettes and tobacco products, and the harmful, irritating and injurious results directly caused by the smoking of said cigarettes and tobacco, when defendants knew, or in the exer- ciae of ordinary care should have imon, that the said ciga- rettes and tobacco contained such unwholesome, deleterious, harmful and irritating ingredients that made their said CO -5- CD CT'1 V ~ ~

raaentLtiuns media were directed to various rap by ncans of variouajaducational inatitutiona, uith portic u.2ar reference to the atudant bodies oS said inatitutiona. That the effect ot auah false represantations =do by dafondants and each at them and directed to the general public, including the plaintiffr was to introduce them to snakingr inducing then ta" ralicnancy. That plaintiff roiled u;ron the knastlcdMs ci:i21, and reprosentatioas of the dafendants and each of them that cir ,arottes were safe for hue'.an consumption. XS Said defendants and each of them negligently and curaleaaly, a:anufacturcd ciC•arettea and other tobacco praducta cantaining un- whoiesoc.a, dcletcrious* harcfulp irrltatind and earaino,anic in- ~-,redienta; that said ingredients radc eaid products dan„crous and unoafa for huean eons=ptionj that a=kin,- of said ci;,arottcs cauaed hia-ta suffcr the injuries aat forth. :;aid doferdanta and each of them negligontly and caroleassly failed and neglected to take preeauticns to alininata or render hars2lesa to the general pubiic, including plaintifi'# the nnsrholesome# deleturiauai harnfui, irritating: and carcinogenic indredienta containod in their said productai that in the exorcisa ot ordinary care aaid defendants ahaould have Ynown that their aforesaid products con- tained unwholaaaaai deleterious, haraStslE irritating and caroi- noaonio ingredienta that dada their acid products dangerous for use and aonsnmptian by the rencral pablie# including plaintiff, and that the aane were Iikfaly to ol the general publie"wt;o censuned said products to develop and contract acrioua illness or disease and malignancies thereby= that aaid defendants and each of them carolennlr failed and naglected to provent, guard aCainatF ~,*iva notice ca•'crarn the Gonaral publiet including pSaintift, that said product was umrho2ceoc:c and can- taiacd deleterioua, irritatinn cqrcinogenio and hnrctul in*,~radiontaj and ttmt the sane uaa likely to cauaa the plaintiff and ather csos:bcra of the Concral public who uaad and conauu.cd aaid product to dcvclop and contr ct ecrioua illaona or diseaao and asslirnanaiaa thcraLy. i:j rausun of tLc atoreeaid pa•e:aicasf plaintif£ uaa !1. O U"3 CN ~ U'~

16. Plaintiff inoorporatEs by reference all of the a12egations set out in parsraphs 1, 2, 3, #, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the first count of his oo®[plaiat ss though fully set out henin. 17. llslntiffIs inyurias and siokaess sa heraLt wsatioasd rere directly and proximately caused by and through tAenegligenoe and aarelessasss of defendants, their agents, sarvants and e;aployaes in the following rslpsots, to-72tt (a) ' Defendants as;lipntlT and urslsKly failad and r.etisatsd to prsimt, scard ataioat, give notice to or rua the pea.ral publia, ineluding plaiatiff, when defendants 7auw, or in the .xercise of ordinary earr should have imoun that the aforesaid respsetin brands ~•S cigarettes aad tobacco contain .acwholesorse, deleterious, harmful usd ir- ritating ingredients that Ladt their said prodnots daater- ous and not reasonably sate for ose or soaaummptioa bY the general publia, itwludixY plaintiff, arA =ere Sitrtlf to .anas t2re plaintiff snd stisar sr.lrsrs of the ganrsl public who sosi or s.daasE thair gait prodwta to darelep saM1 eog- t2sst seli,iM iUM•S or tilMif tLfTebj. {i} Detsdaats =¢S[acW and ssrlss.lx fsilai and aeslestsd to take awsassiSS sso.astisas t• s3l:iaste or saNsr baxecless ti the paua2 #+ 22f, issbsilaL );'+Nt**`r, the aobsisssvee, asiists Hatitiast !n tlyir u3E sxsirsls, tM= ittsnintts tasr, .r in t3t easrsias .t satiaaa: saas shss2! Lan iana taes tir at.r.asdg i.spslctn 1r.fss St,sspr.itss and taiaaes sewsiiasd tcvb.iNS.E, iiletiid.frs, ltastul and Srsttitini taQ+stlsats thtt sMt t6sis sel! Fslysts {.apsvns e[ a.t reasmallt astt for us* or sonsWtieu by the Lsesnl pvblis, iaeluMn~ pltiatiffs and rsrs liloely to asast the plsintiff swt st6er sralers K the pesral luYLif vma n.N sr .oeswd tb/1d sa14 pi4leAts to dROloj cIL fsRtrlet serlovs 1llaasa or ttaasa, thereby. -~- CO ~ -o-'~ CD <T7 V C)

As a direct result thereof plaintiff's nerves and nervous system have suffered severe shock and the plain- tiff's life expectancy has been materially shortened; the function, use and movement of all of the aforesaid organs and parts of plaintiff's body have been impaired, diminished, and rendered painful. As a direct result thereof plaintiff has been dis- abled from performing his usual work and duties, and in the future will be so disabled; his earning power has been greatly diminished, if not destroyed; plaintiff has lost and in the future will lose wages and earnings on his work and labor at the rate of $60 per week. As a direct result thereof, plaintiff has incurred and in the future will incur expenses for medical, surgical, hospital, and nursing care and services, presently.over such $2,000, the amount of/future expenditures being unknown to plaintiff at this time. WHEftEFOttE, plaintiff prays Judgment against the de- fendants in the sum of TWO IiUNDAE4 FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($250,000) actual damages and TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOL- LARS ($250,000) punitive damages, totalling in all FIVE HUNDRED ($500,000) THOUSAND DOLLABS,/together with his costs herein expended. js/ DOtiALD SIEGEL fsI H[3LLYERSON & RICHARDSON -F oTor'-P'i&~'i3`f 722 Chestnut Street St. Lcais 1, Missouri 4Arfield 1-2313

products dangerous and not reasonably safe or fit for use or consumption by the general public, including plaintiff, and that the smoking of said Camel cigarettes and tobacco products was likely to and woa3d cause the plaintiff and other members of the general public who used or co'nsumed said ciga- ~sbw<ea rettes and4products to develop and contract illness and disease thereby. C. Defendants negligently and carelessly, and with- out taking appropriate steps to inform themselves of the truth thereof, falsely represented, and warranted that said 3s+at FREc cigarettes and tobacco werefma3e4fram any injurious sub- stances, that the smoking thereof was wholesome and bene- ficial, that said cigarettes and tobacco were fit for use and consumption by the general public, including plaintiff, when in fact they and the smoke thereof contained the harmful ingredients heretofore mentioned. 9. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants' breaches of warranty, representations, and conduct and negli- gence herein mentioned, plaintiff sustained the following serious and permanent injuries and damages: Flaintiff's nose, throat, vocal chords and lungs and related structures became irritated, inPlamed and infected; a cancer of plaintiff's right lunch was produced, aggravated, preciptated, activated and accelerated, requiring the re- moval of p2aintiff's right lung by surgery. h~s As a direct result thereof plaintiffASUPPered and in the future will suffer pain of body, anguish of mind, fear, melancholy, difficulty in swallowing and speaking, shortness of breath, coughing, a generalized weakening of his entire ability and increased susceptibility to colds and other respiratory infections. -6- tn

E ~ ~ v

IHi ST1Ta ar ttItS4III3 to Defaadant rHILZr MOZYIE b#70IirAEL, LSD. IYC., a Corporation Ioey are hereby sa..oned to appear before the a6cvs-nmad court and to fili your plsadin= to the pstition, copy of which is attached hereto, aad to serva a copy of your pleadina upon iabert H. Wrray: attorney for plaiatiff risos* address is 1000 Semp2e Wildins, Kaasas City, llissouri a12 ritbia 30 days after service of this so:vocs upon you, ezolusive of.tha da;~of service. If you fail to do ao, ,judysnt by dafar2t will be takes asWat you for the relief de.anded in the petition. Dated Yovaimber 23rd 1954 Cohen IIecl. Exhibit D

F

18. As a direct and proximate rsault af the negligence and carelessaass of defendants plaintiff sustained the folloeing serioxts and permanent injuriesa Ylaiaatiff developed, still tias and will in the future suffer iroa ca.uer and aa a result thereof xa8 required to enter a'rsos}pit®1 where hs was operated upon by his physicians and~dii& entlre rignt 1ur& c:as raaoved by svrgery; plaintiff auffered, suffers and will in the future suffer from severe pain of body and mind, pain and saretuss ot the tBmat, rqek, chest, back and siaea, difficulty in sualloxing, dY.pnaa# eossghing, general veakness of the body, and a greater susceptibility to colds and other respiratory iatectiona; plaitttiff'a nerves and nervoua system rere severely shocked and shattered; all of said in,#uries and effecta thereof were serious and p.rmaneat and the function and use of said organs and parts hats been seriously and permanently icptired, diminished aad rendered pain- falt plaintiff has bsai disabled iYroa perfamin4 his usval xor8 and duties and will Sn the future be so disaEled; plaintiff Aas lost his wages and srniags at tA* rate af aypxoxiaatelir assty aollara {#Sa} par week sZaea litreh 30, 19520 and will in the tntrre aoatinw to lsae all or the greater peatien at his vagas ant pErntnps. Ut the a.eeuarf eare and traatseat of said tisesse anQ.iafwrias plaintiff Ess iaararst and eDl.t=at.d hiase2f ta exqrnd the sna of agprazSaaiely Stieo STrowaat Dallsss {$2,000} ad win in the tatnre be s.qalr•E to asg+ad adiitiaosi fme tar aea.ssai7 asdieal tmtamt and eaxi all t! ;1a1IIt.ft4s {atagi in the YOVit of '1t0 XwWiyl F3Tty 'L70nsaad Dsl3an {}2"a00ff}. YEZRKFpa, llaistift Prtys julpmt iPiait isflattats in the aaavat ot !wo AsaExnd 7ttLy 3Lewat IIellars.({t35.C00) and firr his costs herein espended. 1393 Arsfaa DsiltlM ln BjG3 lf ~~ ?Ei l n Trial by 1s¢q daesadt[.

"so vital to all who sacke= that you anst accept and aust believe the taa beeause they are the inpaztial findings of a group of distiaduished doators: , A, That by tht}tsfe of the aforesaid advertisin= and stata- atnts and represa.ntationas defendant represented directly or by i.piicstion, thats " (a) thilip lsorris cigarettes do not cause irritation of the upper rupiratory tract. (b) That Philip Morris aisarattss sra less irritating to the upper respiratory tract than other brands of eidarettes« (a) That Philip tbrris cigarettes ara Iess irritstin; to the upper respiratory treat than the four.leadin; brands which aompete dth Philip Morris. (d) That the irritation produced by other cigarettes is of longer duratioa than that produced by Philip Morris. (a) That certain purported findings and conclusions of physicians based upon purported tests or ezperia.ats aade by them were uade aad pub£ished for the,so£e benefit of the medic.l professfoa. (f) That after a day of ssakin: Philip Morris cigarettes the throat and .outh of the ssoker will be es fresh and co.fortabls and the breath as pure and sweet as in the morn- in; before smoking. (g) That Philip Ptorris cigarettes protect the saokar from s.oker's coughs, effects of inhslinf snd throat irritation due to inhaSinf. ,~. Defendant krtw+ or by e:eraisini dus esre, could have known, while .aking all of said statesenta and representations abo+re men- tionad, that said statements and reprssentations were untrue and that said ci;arettas_coatained and produced when s'whed an.holasoaa, poisonous, deieterious, irritating and htafnl and injurious sub- atancee and ingedieets'# iaoludins carbon diosida, carbon .onosides .k.

2 si 3 a.rc:ann t.. • 5 cae:.:_t :.ss . ti.:<, as'~`t<t 24 ciycrct.a~' ~ 1 26 fcu. I g.k ~. kT 26 i, nicc ca UrcEm*V _ef sy52r at c° aa.th ai.c c:.rai~t ot ae r<gat saa5r ,.c s... c,.* sr.5: y ;xr. cStY. c i.e

! Cqt M2'S, !SIlfOttll, AZ Iit ZSL CItL732S G9tTtT W~A! oT SAfitOiCT1T. 3Q8A I. iC!!, ESOC Yast iSth Serraoe lioszias, Ranias. Ts. Plaintiff, PHILIP )AR12! & CotRA7R, LTD. INC., a corporation, 111 fifth Arsnns 1hs Sort citj, ILs Sart, Defendaat. tLliliCR TQi WiMAGti. lfos coa.s pitiatiff and far bia canss of action asainst defendant, states= },. Ihat the plaintiff is of lfansaa and resides at =330 Siast 55th Zarraca, in /S.rtis, i.naaa. _2. That defendant is a corporation duly orsanissd and eaistius under and by virtue sf the lars of the State of Yirginia, with its sseatti.e offices in N.. Totk City, Xw 2osk, and its factorias In the City of Kc6.ond, Virginia, aad eafaged in the ..nnfactuss oftobacco pzvducts,'intindin.t cigarettes branded respectively "Philip ibrzia" end.*Simhi;l^ and }ips tobaaea branded "Itatalatioa° and ta the sale and distribution thereof fot resale to .a.bers of the ysneral public, 3aolodins plaiatiff, tLrondhont various paxts of the world, incindias the States of Missouri and irnsas. ~ 2. That during tho years 1932 tto 1?S2, inclusive, the dafen--- deat eannfactmed, sold and distributed its Philip tbrris cigarettes and represented to the general public, including plaintiff, by s asissina., radio and television prngraas, tbats . _yt r!f' . -~'ss{ --•_.1~1F~ V

L. . :.tL::w . ~i:«vrz t . ~t.:.L 10 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 i:.:arce~ eor;ot_ticc, Cn~>~+en atYcuai ~.nunl.er, Sa:.:LE, xcea' Lci~' ~.graite~ nt: tu~ti~j ei,~:ut. Tur ~ C?~ CGr- -fire 7:<: :.ea utm thc ~nu- rine ti:cret4sswrooshout ti:is r..r-a1s Lhi t-Lt~ tT2L~1!`.-e c€. ••c .:.es~€r C.uiw, ~. ot.az+i•4:til. c•w:c:7i cf :x turnvi:;. s ' C=- i...:IIt. 'Pti!`w f:S4

radical oacic dissldtioa; by rbicb op.=ation;p2aiscitt•e itty"ni, stsraaaidm.atoid assclf,~ctltd'~iita a1jo~ular vein and the spinaL accesaorf narve rexa t.eawd, eicaS with other bones and .utcisa rhich piafatiff is +mabie at this ti's to desoriLe. 12. Plaintiff further states that as a direct result of said operation abo+n deiteriYed he hu,feen entirely depri.ed of the use of his voice and hds suffered and iathe future will suffar pain of body and wind, Laar, a.l.ancboljr~difficult7 in swallowing aad. _. speaking, shortnest of'breath, ecii;h.iat, a generalized weakness of his entire bodJ. aad Sacr.ased smserpt€bi2it7 to coids and other respiratory infectioasj his nerves and nervous s7st.n htve syffered severs shock and plaintiff's life e.apectanc] has been aateriall7 shottased# the fusitioa, use and avae.ent of aII of the efozesaid at- ;aas and parts of plaintiff'r body turo been ispaired, disinished and rendered painful and useless; that plaintiff has been disabled froa perfnmin; h" usssai work anddotiu aad in the future wil2 be - so disabled p.rf.nast2f. Ria earnin2 power has been co.pieteif d.s- - ,, . tro7ad and plaintiff has Iost and will in the future lose larse suas of aoney on accoEmt of his inability to work, the ersct asount of which is unknown ti plaintiff at this tise3 thet he has incurred E and will €ncur In the future expenses for .edical . surgical, hospital , and nursing cars ltd servieea, the exact anosn;t of which plaintiff , ca:mot at this tias state. . That as a direst result of al2 of the foregoing, plaintiff hae suffersd both actual and punitiea dasiates. 1tNit&fD1L, plaintiff prafs Judpmt atainst the defendant in the wa of TYO WIt3#l3f# !IltT T&W6d1®f DOLLAdf (#2Sti;Ei80.4Q) actual - da.ages and TWO HIMliD TIliT TMp7dAlm !%II.Ia13 (#TS4,iJ64.60) punitive ds.ages, or a total of IIfL HUi®iiD T$Wt+t70 DOLIa11lS ($500,000.t30) together with his costs herein expandedd. ro.tii-.Murra7 iCQQ Tsp ie inilding [mmaas City, ISissouri 7as 1836 Attorney for tiaintiff.

k, lhat philip Korris, Iae. Is a tersisa-aorporatioa orpanised aad ezistlafi nader the laas Of the ltats of Tirgiaia, do:isilsd at 2lehuad therein, arthoriatd to Eo aas daias be[itsta ia tLe itate of Lonisiana tp harias fi2ad proper eredeatia2s rith the searatai7 of st.te aol yariag appsistet the 0 t Corporation ipar, 490 ffibarnia Laah 71dp., 7se erleaas, Lsri[taas, ae ita assats for sertias at process. - 40 # s. i'hat p. Lorillsrd COnpasy Is a farsitn aerporatioa ariaaized sad asistias aader the isrs of psr tersp, da[1aSled at terser city thereim, aethorissd to da basineaa ia ths state of Loni- siaaa by ha.ia{ filed proper aredentla2s 7ith the saaretar7 af ststs aad having appoiated fsaood Phelps, Charles Dtinbar, Jr., . 6aster D. %ark., 7r. and Louis 3. Cla.eris, 420 Elberala ilds., Ifr Or2eaos, Lonisia8a. 6. Defeadfnt, Tosd ta", 2nc. is a LOaiaia=a Corporation /asioilad at patan tonse, Loaisiasa, baTies appoiatsd 22ao iar.2son aad ve2ter J. 3aaahet, 3455 f2orita street, 3aton forit, Loaisiaaa as its assats for ssrrias of proasss. 7. Dafenlast, taat Soan tthias3 Iharsaaiss, Zaa., Is a Loaisiaaa aorporation lesisi2ad at patea 2ovje, having appoiated 0. ,t. N211oa, 1A37 Laarel Street, iate! lesit, Loaisiaaa, sa4 Char2es p. port, 92151 Y122K itrtet, satOR 19140, Lesiaiaaa as its asaats for ser.iae ot praaess. 6. That whsa petitioaer tas apprezisate2s tfeive lears of aie he started saohins tobaaoos aasetaottred bt dsttadaats,

3eetian 561.660, 8erised 3tatutes at 3tissouri, 1949. and which raaas as fouc+ra~ '2. iny person, tirm, corpontion, or association who, xith intent to sell or in any viaa dispose of aar- cfyndise, securities, serrice or anything offered by such psrsoa, firs, corporation or associatian, directly or indirectly, to the public tar sale or distribution or with intent to incraass the aonsu.`ption thereof or to induce the public in aas asnner to enter into any oDiieation re2ating thereto or to acquire title thereto ael an 1AterMt therein, scdW, pnYlisbts, iisses+++atea, a~2~r~au~~ia~~tte or }Isoaa tsfara thr~'y~s'~lief or u~si, . W.t~s.a/ IIr iadireitfj, to be ~f~w, ptii2iahK, OSi~ aasiaatei, oiran2ated, or placed bsrere the public, in this state, in a s.-rspapar or other publication or Sn the torn af a book, notica, handbill, poster, bill, aircuiar, pamphlet, or letter or in any other way, an adrertiaessant of any sort rsZarding srrchan- ditE, aeaurities, NrTiBe.or anything so offered to the pu4lio, which adTertisement contains any assertion, rspresentation or stateoaat of tast which is smtrua, . deceptive er nialsading raa gulSty of a aitda4.asusor. '2. And aba12 upon conviction thereof be punished by fine of not Iess than traaty-fies dollars nor aore than fiTe hurxtrsd do2larf or by i.prlsaneent in the comty fai.2 nat 2au than taa days nor sora than ninety daja, or by both aWh fiat and iapslsoemisat! PratiAiog, that nothirg h+rsin siuil apyi7 to aq pro;rtaDOr or publisher of any newspaper or agasiaa who publishes, alasaainatas or siraulates sey uuk .tfstis.u.nt ritb- oat tb. Imerl.tts of t~r salaMal or vcRratAfai satm~e of ssah .te.rtiis.nt. . ^ms Mta.ds:efs, aeting ia .lsiatias of tSr atarseatd ltlssosri statute ne9lis"t7.r, siS2YI3t, .a2lsians7.f, tetiatdhlI7, wttoni7, frcai.i..¢t27 and 4teitfaii7 ari., ltltllshM, disamalmatet, sires- latst, sr #3aeet latars tSts ptii33t, or sausal, dSrst2F or Satirest- If, ti be auif, Published, disseminatsE, eilvelatil or jlaset 1efO1e the pk2is, ia.2.fift t3aiatitt, sa.e3tiw# rqras+atatiar or stdsastte sf fysta, sa sm7 l7tllf wt lsetk is paTSpsph 8 haein- arSstst !s iaffss the psarsl )r6iia, ift2ali:i )141stIff, t+ la+slasl, we, sA esosoose isfa.tanta' rsspsatits )rsads of ci.t,arettls and tabaaso, and whiah atssrtiaas, rsgnsantatieas or atatamaats of faat tiera untrus, daa.ptive or afs- 2latl.nL.

cc

! E nicotine, amaonia, aldehfdas, acroisia, foraaldehida, tars sad or could have imow by exercising ordinary care foraio acid, and .hen it kaerftbat such cigarettes when smoked, were likely to and d{d &trse the produetiao, acceleration, pre- oipitatioa, acti•ratioa and aggravation of irritation, €aflasmat- ion, €afestioo and tumors and oancers of the aose, throat, vocal cords, lungs, and related stroctvru of the husan body. 1. Shet all of said stat..eats and representations were . 1mawSag the see me false and uctrue, and a intentionally >ade by defendant for the porposa of causing and inducing the sesbers of the Several pieblic, including plsiatiff, to rely upon the truth thereof and to purchase and nss said ciiar- ettea. ~. That plaintiff, dariag all of.the ti.ea hereia a.ctiooed, hed the right to rely apoa the truth of and statements md repre- seetatioas, and in ralissaa upon the truth of said advertising and statements and represeestatioca beretafore set out and beiirrind the sa.e to be true and being uas.aie of their falsity, purchased and used Philip 7brris cigarettes ezclusivel7 in the uaual and ordinary way intended by defendant. 1. That at all tiaes hersia ssotioaed thari was in foll fores and effeet in the ftsta of Missouri, a Statute which is co,r known as laat. 196.015 (1) LTised 2tatutes of Missouri, 1949, aand which raads aa faliartt "The following sots and the causing thereof within t!u state of ISissecui are hereby pro- hibited# . "(1) S!u saufaoture, sale or delirar7. hold- ing or offering for salo of an7 food, drug, device or cosmetic that is adqlterated or sis- braaded=" That defendact, aatiat, in violation of the aforesaid Missouri itatate, wilfully, .aiiaionsl7, nnlarfrlly, rantonly, fraudulently, deceitfully, and with gress negligence, satrtfactured, sold, delivered, h.id, and offered for sale said Philip 16rris cijarettes and tobacco

4250,000.00, topther rith legal Sntersst thereoII froa data Of Jadisial dsaand oAtil psid, toXsthsr vith all costs. tnrther praSs for a trial by jary on all issxas and f.r ali necessarJ Orders, ;eaeral aad sQsitaY1r'relist. 3r tttarays; L A BRURYISIS 205 lnarican Eank D1ds., iaton SOUsei Loi[isiana XELT27 M. IEtSZ SYA Enildind IIas Jrsacisto, California 0 8iA2Z Ot L0019Wk 3A21EH Ol LAi2 EA401 iI006t D77022 X2, the csdsrsisaed authority, personally eaa* and appearsd E. ALTA EEtAt7ZZLD, vhns after being duly awni +Sapossd sod saids That he is of eoanatl for the petitioner in the ahort and faregoing gstitioni that he has read aaac and the aliegations contained thereih arc trns and eorrett to the he.t of his kntvisdfs, iafornati0a isd belief. sYOii !0 aNII 307lC17i20 before as this _ day Of isaaarl, 1959. 7bfjjY FH3=

uIatory system, and other injuries not 5. 21at at.a1l times material to this Cotap?:iat, the defeadynt er¢rsssty sad/or impiiedi7 iarranted to the piaintiff that said Lucky StrSke diaptosed. cigarettes weref•it and safe for, tisir intended purpose of hsmman coasumption by smokinf. . 6. " Tl+st. in fact. said Lucky Strike cisarettes were r s>te for h+rman coasnmpfion but contained namerors substances which were Larmfni to the homsa body when said cigarettea were ved for their intended amaa consumptioa by smoking. • 7. That at ili times material to this Complaint there was current scientific literature available to the de£eadant but ucsrailabte to t1s pi:intiS or ths general pnblic, indicating tkat `s£garettoe wers aot fit radd safe,for,hamaa consumption but c^^••i^-d namerous suhstances which were harmtal to the 3ramaa body when said ~cigarettes were aeed for th{ir intended . prr}Ose of Itfmaa consumption by smoking. 1. 23si the defendant was possessed of soperior knowledge Coa- ceraing the niture and the maaafacture of Lucky Strike cigarettes. -Q. That tEe plaintiff had no kaonledge of or ordinary meana to de- termim tle Litaaee of said cigarettes for human caaeumgiioa. and the plaiatift relied a.pea the'defeadsat's c:press andJor implied warranty that said Lucky Strike c3t aratles were fit and safe for human coasexzeptioe. 10. That ai sit times material to this Compfaist, the defendant aagiise.tt7 maaafactared said Lucky Strike dgarettes coat+in3ng sabsta:ces tbid made them )srmtri for hamaa conmmpt€oa; or ia tYf aitersati.e, that the de£sadant kaew or should have known tLsi it did not ysre sufficient information or knowledge to determine that said Lucky Staike eigarettas ware not larmfui, -ad.aelligtntl7 represepted to tle geaeraf getiRc that saidei[ar.ttaA tare set Losa: body whea used icr human consompiim: er, ia the O~e av ~- aTtersati.e, tLt the def<ndsat ae=ttgestty fsited to sara the ylaintiff that the ~ d said iuci7 Strike citarettes br ]smen coasaatpttes'Eaeld caaas larat._ Url V {.J•1

1 times mater£ai to the Comptsint, the defsadaat, throagh its ad.artisin=, represented to the general public that said Zucty Strike cY;arettas were milder than other brands of citarettes and that "sr }~ thousaad doctors had to stued and wsre harraleso to the hnmaa body aad $tsg{ safe tor Lvmaa coaqmaptios: that the defeadaa; be.r that the ;eaaral )a6lic. becansa of defeadsat's superior knowledge of tha aatnraaad maaufact- + ariaj of tobacco prodscts,, relied upon the :iozessid~zepzessatat£aas msds by ;ks defuda3t; that ih"s defendant irii.adad that the jsnoral pntri£c should rely upon said reprsseatatiaas, that the defaadant imew that sa£d reprasentstims wers false and fraadalent; or, L the alternative that the defendant knew £t d£f not h:vs s.f8cieat kaowlsd;o to make sach representations; that the piaSstftf ra€£ed upon said rapruaatstioast that the p€aiatitf had no knowledge ~. tYat sa£d represeatstioas were falss aad fraudulent; that tys pliiatiif was tatacsd becanseof.said repressalat£oas to boy and aae,s,a£d Lacky coasompt£aa. ciprsttes far human 1 12. '1'hat the defendant gilfu€€y sad Intentionally uased harmful, poisesoas and deleterious srEstaacea contained la or produced by ths smoking of sa€d Lack7r Stiila d;arKtse to come 'vta contact aad be absorbed by the lips, moath. throat aad respirttory system of the plaintiff, without the pIaai£fi's 7oiwlsd(a or cosaaat. and that as a direct and prozimsta result of the afors- said hafterY, the plaintiff was caased to desslop a caa<er of the lua=. or was taesed to have a previously exist£ad, dormaat eanccroas caaditi a of the lmm; €erased or adgravated, wu caused to suiter permanent icjarT to his heart and circulatorT systsm. and was caused other serious and drisTaBi pensoaal iaJar£ss aad dama=es as hereinafter slieXed. _ • €3. T1at a. a direct sad proximate resxit of a.tt the aforesaid a€€eµtiws, the plaintiff was thara6y caaeed to 1s jr£eroaslT and )srmaaavdlT fajered a.d shasYeft tiat amaa( his injuries hs recafved a'ASacar to lis lmcf; senrs £ajarF to his aarroas system; that a cuc£nageaic cosdit£oa of the la.d was cassed to develop, or a praa£pas€y sxdstisi d8rmaat carctaoienYC aoaiitlaut

2 3 25, 25i! 27 1# 282 28; ~ 30 31 i 321 aooesnt of such expense €s unimmm to plaintiff at this time, and plaintiff pra2a leave ta insert ttee sane herein when it is de- terminad. Xi. Plaintiff ROSE G, KARLMg is th0 sale heir-et-lear and next-of-kin of Fred Lawrence ttarlove, deceased. XII. ' EI reason of the prenises, and as a direct and proxiva- result thereof, plaintiff has been deprived of the support, .are, Iove, affeatiorn and society of Fred Lavrence Marlowe, de- ceased, to her dassage in th^ ssss of 'ibo I$u:dred Fifty Thousand Dallara {;250,'3ff0.40}. C42F7?S TWO I. Plaintiff repeats, realleges ar.d incorporates by re- ference, as though full} set forth herein, paragraphs I through and including YII, au: paragranhs X thr3ugh and including XII o£ Ceunt t3ne, an fits herein. II. Defer.dant 23ILIP ?lORRIS, It:C6gPORATED, in cuntfactur- ing, sell€n3, advertising and distributing its tobaccos and cigarettes, €9pliedly warranted that said tobaccos and cigarettes were of inerehantable qual€tp. III. That contrary to the warranty of defendant PHILIP tt0¢- RIS, IhCARFOYATED, the tobaccos and cigarettes were not of mcr- chantabie quality, in that when used by Fred Lxrence Marlowe, deceased, for the purpose intended, they caused, precipitated or aggravated the development of squamoua cell ea.rcinoaa. lv. That prior to the filing of this coaplaint, and within a reseunable time of the breach of warranty, as aforesaid, p2ain- -lo-

~ 14 That the aea of these tobaaaos 1m that aaotat elther canset, prscipitated or auratated the deeslapasat of a squasoas ceil aaraiaosa aaaaer of the tossar andd laads. On June 80, 1458 petiticasr eatersd the Charitr Hospital of Lesteiasa at 7s. Orlsaas, 7.oaiaiasa for treatiaeat of the caaosr. That the defendants, =roYII & YilliYSaQ Toba4co Corp., ]t. j. deqaolds ToLacco CxpaaT, The Aurieaa Tobacao DoapaaT, thilip ltorris, Zaa. and P. 7,orillard Caapavy, rere .aatoaip aad sresi7 negligent aad their aetioa. rsre rsakless, carelsss aad .ith total diare;ard to the health of the pablic and particnlarlp this coaplaiaast, in selling, adtertitiaa aad distributing aad salliaa its tohscco• aad cigarettes rithoct vsrsinas that the defeadaat rss "atonlr aad Eroasl7 negligent aad its actions rere reeYlaas, careless aad sith total disretard to the health of the public and particularly this aoiplaisast ia siring assarasces of safety in the sellis;, adYartieiaa, aad distributing its totaocoa sad eigarettsa3 that the defeadaat ieaa natoal7 aad =raaslT negligent and its actions +rare rackisss, carelrss aad arith total disregard to the health af the poblia and parti- 4alarlT this aomplaiaaht ia the aaarfaetsriat, prac.ssia;, siziaa sad asia{ the tairediests aad tobaoeos rhieh soaplaiheat aaeked; t9at the defesdaat .arrantN that its prodrets tiers ehalsseae, •has ia trath sad fadt ihet Tars sat. That the defeadasts, Tood To7s, Iae. aad Food Tofu ithical phas*seies, Zac., rere sed73deat is selling aad distribatini these tobaccos and aitartttes eitbost Varaias the pabiia sad

gELLI. ASIM and GERRY ldiay tl Street 11 12 13 ~ - 14 : Attotness for Plaintiff faa Ircicisco 11, California Tslsphcne: ltikms 1-1849 IN THE AMIT6D STATES DISTRICt COURT, l:t1RPFtRRN DIS2fiIC2 uF CALI?Okl.IA, SUItIA.°_H!{ LIYISIUY. kOSE !.. tiARIII4i.. ~ Plaintii£ }, Vp. R. S. dL~LDS TOSACCO C.T2MY a cor;loration, PHILIF MORRIS, I.\'COdFOR.t3ZD, a c~rporati" . P. LORILIARD COKPAtiY, t car- goration, LIGCETT b YYE.tS TO- gACfA CO., a corporation, TKE A2fERICJ:}: TOBACCO CdlSFA..Y, a corporation, ) JVBY I'tLA.f. Dr„*A1DE7 Civil k:o. 38775 Defandants. 14i 22 23 25' a : 26 27~ 30;1 3I i~ 32~{ Plaintiff cotWiains of defendant R. J. REYl:OLDS 'rfSACCOi Ct2IFAi.T, a corporation, t2ut: CEIEIhR 07i& 1. That at the relevant ti~s hereinafter nentianed, plaintiff xsa and now is a resident of and a citizen of the State d California; that the defendant R. J. REYiiOLIL9 TOBACCO CCNFAKY, a corporation, is a foreign corporation, organized and existing nnder the lus of the State of tt.r Jersey, with an office and principal place of business in said State, and having a place of husiness in the City and County of San Francisco, State of Cali- fornia, within the juriadiction of this Court. II. That the amaunt in controversy herein exceeds the sua a Cohen Decl. Exhibit fi

0 0 25 26 a reas=_ aLle time of the breach of uarrant7, aa aforesaid, plain- tiff ROSE £. Y.9RLiJ'+*E gave :rzittea notice to the defendant R. J. Ce€I3t0i.Ds 76BACC6 CWPAh9C of the breach, as aforeaaid. V. BT reason of the pramises, and as a direct sad prox£- srte canas thareof, Fred Lawrence Marloae, deceased, vas caused to suffer the development at4d foroation of cancer of the luzsgs, froa nhith he died. COtM1' THM I. Plaintiff repeats, realieges and incorporates by re- :erence, as though fully set forth hereirn, paragraphs I, IV a:.~.°' t' .,= Caimt Tst^, .r file herria. II. Defene.r•* k. J. Z•Z3:OLPS, in aanufacturinII, selling, advertieirg er2 'f '-_S:t'rg if their tihzccnc end cigarettes, fre'_.ed:.* va.rrarte' thr.t sti4 tobaccoe ar.d cig.rettea vere fit forr the ~urnoee irterdcd. F-e3 4_Pvrerce Ysrlave, deceased, re- ?ied up-m the -rpsseni: tt^.r.t and varrantiea of defendant, and haa no lmowiedge of the unfitness =f the said tobaccos and ciga- rettes. III. That the tabaccos a^d cigarettes of the defendant, as aforesaid, vere Rot iit fer kximan consmnption and usa, in that .hen used for thz purpose irteadrd the7 canted, precipitated or aggravated the dr.^rl,nvFrt ~f squ4rwas eell carcinoma. _ COUhT FCtl11t I. Plaintiff repeats, reallegees and incorporates by re- ferasce, as though Fvlly set forth herein, paragraphs I. IV and V of Coamt Two, on file herein.

Breva a Yilliaasca Corp.7 The a4serieaa Tobacco Ceapany aad 1E. J. E.Iaolda Tobacco Ccapaay, safalTs CIa Iorth state spbacco, 7ui1 purhaa Tobacco sad Prince Albert Tobacco sad vhea he tas approzi- asselT tonztata or filteea years Of asa h. itartH srakias Catal ci{artttes sanntactnrea by atfeadaat 1. J. l.qaolds Tobacco Coapaay, at ths rata of tw packafes'or =ore per daT, and coatiaaed saokiatg Catol ciEarettes entil approsiaately the year 1952. 9. Shat during this period ha alsa saaked Philip ltarris Cigarettes ssautactnred by defendant Philip I[erris, Zac. -.+• 73 ia the year 1952 petitioner s+ritahed to Tiearoy ciaarettea and contianed aaokina Viceroy cigarettes aaaatactnred by deten- - aaat Drova i Miiliaasoa Tobacco Corp. at Lhe rate ot approzi. sataly two and one haif or three paeks per day until Saanary ot 195& whsn he than sxitched to Keat cigarettes asanfactnred by P. Lori3.lard Cospaay' and continnes to aoke Kent cigarettes at the rate of two and oat half packs or thret paaks par day ap to the preaeat tia.. '4:j- fV petitioaer svitched froa Caasl eigarettes aad ph11Sp korris ci{arettes to filter tip lieeroy cigarettes and filter tip Itst ai{arettes beaansa ot adTtrtissaats sat asstiraacet of satety asd rarraaties by the detaadaats btvwa ! Yil2iaassa Tobacco Cerp* and p. torillard Coapaq, that thtse pra[ttts rare rhaleaeae asd wra sater aaa less haiilsi thai tffe aoa- filter tip cigarettes. "Ii3 Shat petitioter beaaae a coatimad tobaaan addiat asa is •aable to stop aackiad aissa the ap of about fifteen years aaa bae aaeked tso packages of cigarettes dasly ap to the present tiae, taekiaa various braads as shesn herain.

II. Defendant PHILIP r%7P.RLS, It;COkPORAT°ll, by advertising expressly warranted that the tobaccos and cigarettes sssanufactnred, co:uvour.ded, ao2c, distributed and so a(hertised, and more parti- cula:ly Philip Morris cigarettes, were of x'serehantable quality and fit for huaan consursptiun. Fred La4zence )[arlowe, deceased, re L'ci upur, the representationa, advertisements and varrantics, ani had no knowledge of the unPitrxss of tne tobaccos and cigaretx a-..d particularly Philip Morris cigarettes. IIf. That thr toba~.cos and :igarett«a of the defendant, a;.d aora _articuisc:y Philii Morris cigarettes, nera mfit for hLr:ut cor.sucptiorn in --hat vhcr saed for the purpose intended, they caused or a;granatPd the daveioonrent of sq•uamous ce21 carcLno,ma. PUTi 1. rlaivtfi> izpests, rea.legcs and ircorporates by re- £erencc as tF.ouTh :~t.y aet f•rth Sereir., paragaphs I through arc'd incLuding L1I, Z- ';;a.regrapns i'.{ th.acgh ano including XII 22 23 24 25 26 27 " 28 29 20 J1 in Gount Or.e, ;31c herei::. II. That t~ba<cos ar.d cigarat2 s, and a+ora particularly Pt,iap >i;,rris cigaY.ttcs, are poter.t, poa%rfua, das"roas and delcteri~,ua =.at-rial, a..: suLstances wh'.c`.: *uy cause carcinoma ~~rts, bronchial t.att, iips, tongue and Iit. Ca That a11 ~f tn- aforesaid fects c=cre knom to the de- p,,,3 ~ _°cr"dart PIiILIP KO::RIS, IT.COItPDAATE4 at the tires herein mentioned, CD and i:s this conrecticn, defer.dar.t possessed spccial hsrwledgc _aaoeet to the :..anufacture af tobaccos and ciga-

2 IV. That Fred Lavreace Marlowe, deceased, at all tiaes sren- tioned, had no sgecia2 knowledge, nor eas be aware that by the use of tobaccos and cigarettes, as aforesaid, they auy cause bia to be affected with the serious and fatal injuries and iI2- nesses hereinabove set forth. - V. ssad of the special knowledge of le. the dangerous and deleterious affects caused by tobaccos and cigarettes, and nore particularly Came2 cigarettes, defendant 11 negligently and carelessly failed to varn the general public and 12 the decedent, Fred Lawrence }tarl.mra, of the dangerous and de2e_ I3~ terious affecta of said tobaccos and cigarettes. 24. AS AND Ftlu A SECpW'D cAlAit oF ACfIQN, PTAIIiSIFP CGtF PS.SIh'S OF 4EFEtaTANI PtIILIP MORRIS, IHCflRPORASED, a cotporatioa, that: CQUi.7 OftE I. That at thz relevant tiues hereinafter vantioned, plaintiff was and 3ae is a resident of and a citizen of the State of California; that the defendant PHILIP MORAIS, I?iLURPOIIA- 'fBD, a corporation, is a foreign corporation orgaaised and asiet- ine under the laws of the State of Virginia, with an office and prineipa2 place of business in said State, and having a place of business in the City and County of San Francisco, Stats of California, within the }urisdiction of this Court. II. That the asount in controvetsT herein azeeeds the saa of 2Et: 7HDUSAhB DOLLARS ($14,460.00), exclusive of interest and costs. III. 8^ Tnat when Fred Lawrence lYarlow, doceased, vas fifteen -7_

"That T6ili} Uarris ciprsttes acaf be a.aiced as sueh and aa oftea as a.e l3Yes, aahaaFered and ua.arradyy throat irritation; that saeh ci€ar- . •ttas ua be .njo}rd to tIu'fail rith.+t mr1 and with never a t6oc€ht of tbroat irritatia.; sud that aw aat s.oke st~al siµrattes all Tw piatu .itb ao thau€ht af irritatioo aerrin€ your Alaafuss.'~ ~ . "2h[t Philip I/.rris s.oters are assured gtatectiac sad raat protaetiae ia aa.al degree, ui a.akia€ rrsalties, ..okats ar€h and .fleastscft inhalia€, asd thtast itiitati.o{that so other cigarette a pt.taetior like fLilip 1latris; that the fata.ce bstwar Philip lfsrsis cigarettes and other Yrads of .ipssttes is vital, .or* than iaportaai , that) ~tlf. }rotestiai pro.idad by the i~AC~ciC€L ~ ~y. ~t ~Ltaa affiAat thraat Philip %ertia ei~zettes ar" bsasfisiallT useful in ,farntallis#, precluding and r asryttotp thd,bar.fal stfacts of ot- yssetts . rhamyntisal~by ~a.ia.at ~edi~nl~aat~hariitiehas been ion€ kso.n to ..ia.nt sm6acs of the .adical pro- fsssiaa, has bstu seie.tifiaellz FraVsd and is so as to bs sitboet sarailel ta the history tta..^ "2L.t lhili~ ilartis si€.rattes prste.t the saker froa lrtiti~iiii iw to #ahalSa€; that ia such respect the atfeet ~f s.skia€ Philip 7bsris is strit i of ra.trastad tritY that of ferr stirr lsad~ cigarattss `sa+€ leith that Of stha bro#.; that said ee.fatia€ titri.s ari theM'tiits as irritating for iah.teta as a3rs Phili 1Yrr3s; that the irritation sass.t by thr lasts fin.tls.s as l.a€ as that eaesad by 1'hili; lbcrisi.tirt Philip Yorris s.oters njsy the rsn3d a fi.+iat tabacae; that th.re is a ritsl diffar.a.e between the irritating tende"is of lhili€ Aertis wd atMr cigarettes as they aff.et tbe tlaeatj lY.3f, trasbad A" ather gssts of the body Whaa taitia. Yrcice is isialat that by s.akias Philip Morris cigarettes ar yy ehaa thereto fram other ttas aaa say axo3d,tha pasltios of inhaling help his throat; thtt .daaut doctors have At id+.lia€ is a.a®ditias for rtrieh Philip cigarettes are beasfiafal aat eu.ptiaua2: • .-.a . ' "TLat certain ftugorted fisdia;s aad wrsafs based upon poryroztad .:yerlasats are finiis€s of a&touT of diati.guial+ed Jeatars fer the .ola b..afit of their aasFfaasioe, tr.Ya arda sr.r.lY to find out if !fillis liKris eia+tretirs iMre af diffeteot, were reported sat te the 2@ilip fbrris Co.paafs but for the .ols Laaefit of the sadiial frafa..iw and .era published ia nKboritatfirw .sliesl jausala for their a.n profession racvee tirs the p~~ al f.biis, for the €ai#nte af other doctors a~la~ e as aed laeaus dasftorsL~_ lst~ su~t~t and tb p~uY~uli sia~n thereof is .aditsl swa soastitrta aeWsstiooable proof af the sYperiaritT ef Philip Morris ei€arsttas

2 tiff ROSE E. ?tARS.ddE gave written notice to the defendant p lKIAEI9, IItCORPOB.47Eg, of the breath, as aforesaid. V. By reason of the premises, and as a direct and proxi- mate cause thereof, Fred Lawrence lRarloare,..deceased, was caused to suffer the develupment and formation of cancer of the Zungs, froa vhich he died. „ 10" II Z. Plaiztiff repeats, realleges and ir orporates by re- ference, as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs I, IV and V of Count T`m, on file herein. II. i 14, Defendant PHIL4.IP MORRIS, IP+tatRP6RATED, in +aanufactur- e_ e 19 20 22 23 ; 2a '', 2 ing, selling, advertising and distributing sf their tobaccos ard cigarettes, impiiediy warranted that said tobaccos and ciga- rettcc were fit for the purpose intended. Fred Lavrence Mar- iowe, deceaaed, relicd upon the representations and varranties of defendant, and taad no iasoviedee of t:te anfitnese of the said tobaccos and cigarettes. IIi. That the tobaccos ard cigarettes o`f the defendant PgILIP MORRIS, i2CpRPOBA.T£p, as aforesaid, were not fit for cum= consumption and use, in that when used for the purpose intended they caused, precipitated or aggravated the devetopaent o€ squa- s»us cell carcinoma. .^.QU{•"r FOUR r 1. Plaintiff repeats, real2eges and incorporates by ra- ference, as though fu11y sat forth herein, paragraphs I, IV and V of Count Two, on file turein. -11-

incur hospital€zatioa, srdical and inoidsatal esgense. Tia exsat aaxmt of such expense ie unYmo+rat to plaintiff at tleis tias, and plaintiff prays leave to insert the ssr herein rhen it is detes- aiued. x1. Plaintiff NUS;i E. MAYia4i£ is the sole 1¢sir-et-las and aest-of-kin o: Fred La+rrsrce ?4rlove, deceasad, _ xu. 67 reason ni tse prwSses, and as a direct aad prc=i.ate result thereof, plaintiff tsu been deprived of tUa support, care, love, affectioc and society of Frod Itwrence 15ulors, decsas.d, dsuage in the sun of Twn 2iuadred Fifty TPbusaid Dollars 22 ,. 23 24= 25` 29, . 2a {: (5250,0.)0.00), 1.~ Plsintiff repeats, reeile;ss and incorporates by rafe- rence, as though fully set forth herein, parsgrapha I through and including VII, and para;raplu X through and inclaQing XII of Count IIaa, on file herein. 12. Defendsnt t. J. RZ'CiOLD6 S45AfiC4 C,QiTANY, in wu- factnriag, seS2.ing, advertising and distributing its totuc[os and cigarettes, i=gliedl7 warranted that said tabeecas sad ciqa- rattes vere of serctantsble quality. II2. That tontras7 to the varrant7 of defendant Y. J. 2[T- 316Lf16 ToEACCO CilfPL14Y, the tobaccoa and cigarettes .ers not of . s-reLactabla quality, in that atue used by Fred Iswreaca 3iarloea, deeaassd, for the purpose intended, they caused, yreeipititad or tad the drvelopment of sqcusws call careiroat. 32_ LV. Zlsst prior to the filing of this coRlaaint. and rithin

~ exi.tiajkearE"aad circulatory caaditiaa was caased to he aq2ravated; and 5 the p[sfatiff snstaiaed other Ltjuries aot yet diagnosed; and that aiI of liability for doctors and other medicai evease.; great mental and physical paiII and sutfsrint; physical handicap and disability; embarassmeat, aaguish' hvmiilatioa aid great emotional instability; that he has been rendered unable to attend to his work and employraa$t, and to lead a normal Iite; that Ms life . expeactaacr has beea reduced severely. - 'W}[Lp,LFOitE, the pisintfff enas the defeadaa2 for compensatory damaies ud demands jndaraenf ia the anas of 0148 IfZLZ.IOH FIYE idli2fDYZD TAOVSAAD (S1. 500, 000.00) DOLLARS and demands a trial by Jary of all iesoes triable aa of right by a jury. II. . The plaintifl. ED7YIH U. OREFSE. snas the defeadasst, ttltEltIGAFi be a=fzavated, precipitated or accelerated; that are saffer or iacsr the falio.riag ast loss of earnings and dirsiaishmeat of bSs overall earning capacit7: TO&AGCO t.Oi[PAKY. a Ksw Ter.er Corporatioa. and arerc . 1. The piaiatltf re-avers tla allegations of Parafraph. 1. 2. 3 and 4+of Coot I= 2. That the defead.ai advertised and recommended the use of Laehy Strike cijarettes as a aeaaa to or aid in redtaiaY or cor2roliin;t3u Act, Titls 21, t7.L.C.. Chapter 9, and the Florida lood. Drum and Cosmetic or "cosm<tic^ ~fthia the me.aiaf of the Federal Foa& Dro¢ k Cosmetic wattit of th. hsmaa body. - 3. That the said Lucky Strike'cisarettea are a"drat". "dav€e s are permanent aad'coatiaciag in aatni.: - ftYdoii as aaser direct aa pramats resnt of ffie forsgoiag,

! a AS A2+'0 FDH A r'uL'RZfI CAUSE DF ACI'ID'6, PIAIliTIF1' LOMPIaiD 1731 ! OF PEF"Y2DAkT LZGGETY & 4^lEx_~ 3'CBACCO Cd., a corporation, that: all the other .atters hereinaboYa set forth. IY. That Fred Lawrence Marlowe, deceased, at all tinss ztia- ticned, had no special knowledge, nor was be aware that by the_ ccoe and cigarettes, as aforesaid, they saF cause him affected vith the serious and fatal injuries and illnesses nir.above sat forth. V. That although possasscd of the special,kaowiedge of the dangerous and deleterions sFfects caused by tobaccos and cigarettes, and sore particulart; 01d Gold cigarettes, defen- dant negligently and carelessly failed to warn the general pub- Iic and the decedent, Fred Larrenca Marlowe, of the dangerous and deleterious affects 4f said tobaccos and cigarettes. COUNT Ut:E I. 21; That at the ralavant tisies hereinafter mcntioaed, plair 22 tiff was and now is a resident of and a citizen of the State af 23 ;` California; that the defendant L20CET! b 2i7£li& TYSEA,= c0. , a 24~ corporation, is a foreign corporation organized and existing un- ~ 25,~ der the lavs of the State of New York, with an office and prin- 1&t$ 14! 201 cipal place of buainess in said State, and having a place of iness in the City and Cocmtl of San Francisco, State of Cali- 28=,1 fornia, within the jurisdiction of this Coutt. IZ. That the amount in controversy hereia exceeds the sum of TEN S}DItSAb'D DOLLiRS ($10,000.00), exclusive of interest and ~ ~ 32~~ costs. . 'a JJJ (DN W

years of age, he started smoking cigarettes ssenufactured by the defendant PHILIP MORRIS, INtS?RP6YATED, naalely PhiLip liorris oigarettes, and when he was approxiostely taent7 years of ags, he was amuking Philip Morris cigarettes manufactured by the de- 5 6 9 i. 10 ;1y fendant PHILIP tfaRRIS, IFtARPt}RATED, at tiu rate or more psr day, and that he coatinued so smoiciag the said Philip Morris cigarettes until appi:oxisiatelT the year 1958. IV. That Fred i.avrence Marlovs, deceased, by reason of the acts aforesaid, and the continued smoking of cigarettes manufactured by the defendant PHILIP MORRIS, INC0g841RiZEi3, Fred 12{: Lawrence Harlowe, deceased, ssuked Philip Morris cigarette a 23,; manufactured by the defeadant PHILIP Y,023tIS, IXCOYP4&42ED at the 1q•. rate of two packs or aore per day, and followed his earlier prac- r5, tice of continued sanking, and did so until approximately the c W year 1958. 6 281 SQ :i 31' V. That Fred Laureace ?tarlovc, deceased, became a confirme tobacco addict and was unable to stop amokimg since the age of fifte;n years and smked two packs or more of cigarettes daily up to 1958. YI. That by the use of the cigarettes maaufactured by the defendant PHILIP MORRIS, I.4CQSPORATED, sa aforesaid, in the a- a<scsnt3, cguntities and at the ti:ae specified, they either caused, precipitated or aggravated the developnent of squanous ee11 car- cin.oma, coammonlg referred to as cancer of the lungs. PIZ. 24cat on necembe_ 16, 1958, Fred Isvrence lfarlova, de- ceased, died of carcinocse of left luug with metastasis to .edias- terial 1ysph mdes. (DO PJ ~ CD V <J"t NJ

which were adulterated icd sisbrandid in,that without notice or varnies thereof,' thaT bors, contaia'sd and prodnced, when s.oked, auch unwbolesc.e, psiionoos, deleterious, irritatins and bar>t. ful substances as hereinbefors described. . 2hat at all tises herein sentioned there ws in full force snd effsct in the ltste of ltiss4uri, a statute which is now known as Eection 196.015 (S), isvised statutes of Missouri, 1949, aad rhioh reads as follorst ^Sbe following acts and the causing thereof in the State of Missouri are hereby prohibitedj (S) the disseainaticc of any false advertise- asnt# +l* u The defendant, acting in violation of the aforesaid Missouri Statute, wilfully, .aliciousli, unlaufollf, wantonly, fretdulent- 1f, deceitfully ud xith gross negligence disaaainated false advertisam.ats shic4i •rera aFisludin; in naterial sattars concern- ing said Philip Norrds ei{arettas and tobacco in an effort to induce the general publio, including plaintiff, to parchase, use, and aautsee said Philip Morris cijarattes and tobacso, all as eore fully set forth heretofore in this petition. That at a1l;tires hereiittemtioued there .as in full force and effect in the ltats of 3Fit'taeri, a ftatute which is now icgarn ae festioa 541 .6601 lavisad Statutes of Missouri, 1949, and which readi ss follorsf foc, ttlw viLh ipt it Lo sell or in any +rise dispose of s.rcbaedisb sscuritiss, eerviae or antthing offered by suc{t psre=, fira aorporation, or assoaictioe, directly or iat~xactlY to tb.petblic far sale sr distributida or with intent to in- crea,sa the sansuaptioa ttureaf ot ts induce the pssblia is sa? .anaer to edtar Lnte any obligation relatin=- thereto sr to doq+tirs title thereto ot an intnastith.reia kaa, publiah.s; disswinatss, sironlate, ot g~ascse bafore the pn6lio or esnses, direatiy,et indireetlT;ts bs aude s~ lish.l. dissa.tatted siraslatet tr plaee~ before tbe' publia,.ii: t~ie ttate, am e' naeepaper or other ....5,~-In ..- Is ..^•`.'l#"LY[*INAF'3FTr>--a-- `~.I -d~

"pub2loAtion or in the foza of a book, no Fatsr oz othar .ai` an ~..aa..aa ~.~ a~s.rt sa} sert resird.archandi.e, secer aerriest or a so offered to the pnblic, which 44tertiiwsmt aatai»s any aasertion, repre• eaatatian ar stats..nt of fact which is unttue, d.e.ptiw.or sis2eadicS, at4elY be guilty of a sisdeMSaors !' 2. Aad sha21 upon conviction thereof be pnnished bs t ftft of not Ysss than #23.GG aer .ere than .0G, sf by tmprisotwnt in the Cwnty Jsi2 not ela thai tan dtls'dor .ore than 90 da7s, or by both alaN fine and i.pritaa.ent{ prosidiat, that net~herain shall appYt to any proprietor or puLl of any nsnsyyer ar usasiae who publishes, disserii~ttei or .ffat2ttts sn~ snch ad.ertis...nt uithsut !6i kaarlette of the 2urrZU1 or untruthful ~ ' nature' a! s~ eh adrartissrnt." 3 That the defendant, acting in fieYation of the aforesaid Missouri Etitnts, wilfully, ssYicious2T. un2arfuFFy, wantonly, frandulsntYT, deceitfslij and with gross negligence, eade, published, disseminated, circulated or placed before the public, or caused directly or indireetlit to be rade, pubYished, diaaaminetad, cir- cn2tted or placed before the public, including plaintiff, assertions, representations or stateseats of facts as aore fully set forth heretofcre in this petition, which were intended or calculated to induce the general public, including plaintiff, to purchase, use and connme said Philip Morris cisarettes and tabacco, and which assertions, repressatatiens and statements ef fact wre untrue, deceptive and .isleadins. U. 'Shat as a direet and proxisate result of plaintiff's use and soEin= of said cigarettes as hareinbefore described and of defeadant'e false and untrue statements and rspreatutaticns as herein- befere aet forth, plaintiff sustaiaed the following serious and pataanent iajaries and de.a2esa l2aintiff's ;tose, throat, vocal cords and lungs and related structures became irritatsd, infls.ed and infscted and portions thereof became canceroas and malignant and aa a direct result thereof the plaint3ff ws csniad td be operated upon on lebruarS 16 , 1912. said oparatida consiatins of a total Far2n=ectoer and a left -j- A.J i~

2j~ T'.3t h:• r::asor of tnt r>ccmises aEo:csaid, the dei._• ^u I G(P .. J. Oia~, T'J3.lCr"RtAt,Y vai /'ey?iAr,.-.t and it5 R^'t: v<r., .-z~cL'ass a*+a ss;t•'% tital di'trcr+,? ^n rr,e "caith srr 5•i c,.,:•. •3f tFfc anhi?- ., .. ~s..; . • ' ----- ...L_1, c^c ..'+_tsrc .. ,{ e t: {a} Ir +_,i:_, 13:CCL£,is.ry amd ciatri~ucir.~ !t, c_- b1.tCS 4r.`.it th aZ4'.ilid b.aT•_ CC iilgE:2ttis __ fS.F:ar~3 }'i' i_•^..~LO.i TJ'LA:.CC CGtR!.;-'i, ati withaut waxtir; 3~ '.hat c•._<•:•tc: t-~. J. .u-Y5i3t75 :O9.tCCL, C01•:PAAY vaa Il fs_rtf:-•r :.cvt`_z= : zr.-1 i_s a.aijns v„rn carctess nr.•1 A._s wi.tf. .~ C . .,, Ii• .•r . . .e ~._'. . . __. . v _ _ . : . 9. _... _.. .e~:'. ' !t.- t:1W .:I i[s r- . . . ., . ..• -.-uc:.r-. .. ..._. ~ttea; Tcac tn. ;t. ~. t•>Y:Di.LS TUdACCO C'J7iPA;:Y .-a:. :.a r?::t132 Lfg(L P-t ac.i tt, z.~ caicleaa ar.d ~ 23 .=ch tY.a. :.iar";ar'. r-: tt: ae~l.:: ard s-•?iare ~z tSe ~ubiit, 2'v 3:'",:rz+.~nE.artc t3.' ae~.•aed; 21 (e'e Ir. thr-• ur~_...•..'•r.;. -+Sro s-t •i^.faaurinb ar:d 22 J= thv iF:3sLaC1~r•~S AS+! t1bPG_:J.i iw<Li: '1,^, t.hf _i"ar°tt 23 .f.aLi;.>. 3~: jr.lO.V'C }..: i.•r..~ 1zL.Zt.rR 2•i I,E iip!r' ^n' 25 t, 26 ~•>.:-Fr,ds,._ F. .1. «:T•')U•5 2ftMCr•r, ^,•'PAhY as afJrrcai8. 27` FreR casss::3 ta suSfPr the r x- 28 .^i.~r.-.•rt 'tt:,- '.rFm v?eiu t.- 29 di=c. 30 ; Thzt fr r aso:: •,f tfi. an~ ;._ a P_rc'ct .r.(! ras=:it therert, the decedett was ecquirr.d to acd dSd _3_ ~ V

2, Defendant R. J. REritiQLD6 TOgACCp CtkSAiVY, by adver- 3' rising expressly warranted that tLe tobaccos And cigarettes < oasufactured, compounded, sold, distributed And so advertised, ~ And s~ore particularly. Ca>M; cigarettes, were of a merehantahle 6 quelity and fit for tasoan cunsoaptiar.. tred isvrence 34arlore. T, deceased, relied upon the representationa, advertise.ents ar.d 8 ra.ranties, and had no ~,owledge of the nnfitaess ef tbe tc- 4 bacws aad cigarettes, and particularly, Casse2 _igarettes. i0 ZII. '-I That the tobaccos And eS garettes of the defendant, 12 and .;zra particnlar_s *aa:l ct;lrettes, re=r unfit for hiaan 25 25 i7 :1ar,cQtist it, tst ~.ed :Dr the purpose .r`•ended, they u,sad ar aggra7ated the development of squarous cell carcinoxea. CtFLZ.'T MYS I. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and iaccrporataa by re- :araz.ce, as though :u21y set for;.h lvrein, paragraphs I thrau;h a.d ircLudirg YII, And garafirapFztX througiE And including SII i~ Co-s.:t th:e, o:: fiie herein. II. Tt.at taSacau, and cigarettes, And sn:e particularly C~tL cigaiett:s, ara aoter<t, poverful, da.geruus and ieleterias ruterials and auostances which sss7 cause carcinoma of the lungs, vocal cords, bronchial tract, iips, tangue and mouth. III. - Fhat all o€ the a£aresaid facts vere Imo+m to the de- £ecdax:t R. J. itEYT'O21SS TOBACCO COFYATiY at the times herein men- tiur-:d, ard it this .an:ectic+n, defendant possessed special knowiedge and skill vitth respect to the aacs€acture of tobaccos ar,3 ciearette: ar.d all the other ;.atters hereina6ovc set £ortE. ---

1: rettes aad all the other matters hereinahove set forth. 2° IY. 3 .~ 4': the dangerous and deleterious affects caused by tobaccos and cigarettes, and more particc:larty Philip Morris cigarettes, defendant negligently and carelcssly failed to utrn the geaeral public and thre decedent, Fred Iavrence Marlowe, of the dangarow and deleterious affects of said tobaccos and cigarettes. reinabore set forth. V. That although possessed of the special lmovledge of to be affected with the serious end fatal injuries and i2lneases e of tobaccos and cigarettes, as aforesaid, they maJ cause hia That Fred Lssrrence i4arlowe, deceased, at all tises men• tioned, had no special ]mrr+Iedge, nor was he aware that by the AS AS(D FOR A rmn?} CAUSE C5F ACT2AFS, ?'LAII:TI£F f'AMPL&INS S-0.iZLLlRD Ct1*R'ANY, a cargcration that: COWT ONE Z. That at the relevant tises hereinafter mentioned, plain- tiff was and now is a resident of and a citizen of the State of that the defendant P. LO&ILIARD COMPANY, a corpora- tion, is a foreign corporation organized and existing tmder the of the State of ttev IerseJ. with an office and princisul place of business in said State,and having a place of business in tt= City and County of San Francisco, State of California, risdictiot of this Court. =Bf. ZZ. r i That the amocmt in controversy herein exceeds the ssm -'0 of ZFN Y1SOt75A3[D Dc3LtA85 {$10,000.t34}, , exclusivs of intsrest and ~1; , eosts. -13-

IN THE DIt'a'gR1(',TFCOIJRT OF UNZTED STAT}SAN4 F4$ THE SOUTHERN D£ST - C1r 4F F2ARSDA . MtAHi DfVISiOH . xO. g07fJ-Iti#-C-o+'1 C4MPLAIMT--7-3 AMERICAN TdEACCO COMPANY, . .. ° F i. a New Jersey corporation, MA.7 y 0 114 Defendant. . _ gi/1 410 'o3! i -yr ~' ~L~~_ 'wC "W The ptaintlSt, EDWIN M. GREEN, suee the defendant, A3tE~RZCA2t TOBACCO COMPAtiY, a New Jersey corpoatlon, and arer:: L i. That the plaintiff Is a citisea of }lorida aad a resident of Dade County, Florida. The defendant is acitiaen of New Jersey, and at all times material to this Complaint aas doing business in the State of Florida and in Dade Ccuntr, Floiida. The amount in coatroversy exceeds THREE THOUSAND (j3604.90) DOZ,IrSRS. exclusive of interest and costs. 2. That at all tixmes material to this Compla3at, the defendant was engaged in the business of manufacturin= and packaging Lucky Strike general public, including the general public in the State of Fiorida and in Dade CsmmtT. Florid., for the Sateaded purpose of humaa consamptioa by .aid ci;arsites, and of distributing aaid Lucky Strike cigarettes for rassie said r3;arettss. cy:t ~ i farattes for the period from 1924 to 345f;'eonsumiaY said CD 3. That the piaiatiff has regularly and Coasistentlyamok.d a averaje raq of fram 4. That as a result of smoking Lucky f5iriice cigai aaid, plaintiff has besa injured in that he Lat been caused to ders}op a cancer of ttu Ism& or has had a grariovaty asistiag dormant canurous coaditias o flare up or be accelerated and aggravated. ahd Lasaa~tered.'pe ±%+~•^•^; Cohen Deci. Exhibit F

partieu2arlY this caaplaiaant of the haratai results fra: aaakiae these tobaccoa and cigarettes. X• tf Shat the doctrine of rss ipas loQaitar ia appliasbie here }6+ f+~ That as a.direat and pro:isate canse of the joiat,cantrib tinp, .aataa aad prosa negligence of the dsfendaats as aforeasid, petitioner has baea oaased to saffer tha laFalapEtat aad farsation at the apiteraeid aaniwaa af the teasae ant laapa aad Ye has coatin6oasLT suffered, both interaa2lt aad externally, physically aad s<entail7, and causad to be sitk, sa» and lau aad to 2osa t£ae froa his eapiaTaaat, to aofter great aad persaaent loss of oapacit7 of ii.nII aad bodf aad to be perunentil injared In his health, strength aad sarn£aj capacity, 3nclndin= the de+elopeeaL of cancer of the longs and to iacar scsdical aad hospital ezpanses, past and fntnre, and to be all together iajared aad daaaisd In the fsil aam of j2;C,400.60, for vk£ck this sum. he brings this his suit and deuads jndpent accordingly, together rith interest aad all saats. .*Y' 2, G . ?etitiaaer desiras aad is entitled to a trial by jvrr oa all ifeIIas. VIIIIQG22, pttitioner prera for aarrioa aad citatina of this petition upon the defendants aad thst they sad each af thea be duly cited to appear aad aasmer hereto aald after all legal delaTs and due proceediags hsi, thare be jadpeeat herein in the faror of petitioner, 73sholaa s. Jahasa., ant aJaiasS the tefendants, Sraaa i ltilliaaaoa Sobasao Carp.,l.J.2ar7mlas Tobaaco Coapaai, The Asericaa fobacao Co.psaT, llilip xorris, 2aa., ?. Larillard Coapaa7, looE Sowa, Zaa# anL Toad Eava ithical lharucies, Znc., In salida, in the full sa of

t of Sueh expense is unimoxrn to plaintiff at th.is time, ac:d ff prays leave to Insert the same herein v}un it is de- XI. Plaintiff SQSL E. riARitl6*E is the sole heir-at-lav and 11 20 next-of-kin of Fred Lawrence Marlowe, deceased. XI1. By reaeor. of the presEises, and as a direct and proxi- rate resultttxereof, plaintiff has bccn deprived of the support, care, love, affection and society o€ Fred Lawrence Yarlove, de- ceased, to her damage in the sun of 2~.ro Y Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00). couNr rao I. Plair.ti€f repeats, realieges and incorporates by re- ference, as tnough fully set forth herei-,, paragraphs I througt: and ir.ctudir.g VII, and paragraphs X through and including XII of Count One, oi, file herein. II. 21 Defendant Y. LORILLARD CO., in =at.ufacturing, selling, 22 advertisir.g and distributing its tobaccos and cigarattes, iu- 24` 25 ; S 2 32 pliadly warranted that said tobaccos and cigarettes rereof merchantable quality. " Z12. 2hat contrary to the warranty of defendant P. IfsBIL[liai CO., the tobaccos ar:d -igarettes were rot of merchantable qssaiit) in that when used bi Fred Lavrence Marlowe, deceased, for the purpose.inter.ded, they caused, precipitated or aggravated the development of aquaaous cell carcinoma. , IV. That prior to the filing of this coapSaint, and rithin -16-

5 8i ll.i 12i 18'i ~ 19., ; 20 21 22 23 25€ 261 ~ 28~1 s1~ 29 jt 3 {{{{{{4 That by reason of the preadses aforesaid, the defendantf PffiLLP Ii0R8IS, INGOSPOBATID, was negligent and its actiocs va 1111}re careless and with total'diaryaard to the health and welfare of tkw public generally, and particularly the deceasee5 in the fo2- Io.ring respects, to-vit: (a) Ia selling, advertising and distributing its to- baccos under the aforesaid brand of cigarettes as packaged by 1 defendant PHILIP MORRIS, I23C47tPOFATEii, aI2 without warning; ~ That defendant PtIILIP MORRIS, IHCpRIGgATfiU, vas for- { ther negligent and its actions were careless and docs with total ~ disregard to the health and welfare of the public, and particu- ~ IariY the deceased: . (b) In giving assurances of the safety of the tobacco - product under the nau brand indicated, in its selling, adver- , tising and distribution as ci=arettea, That the defendant FHILIP N.OBItIS, INCOBPORATED was fur-1 t ther negligent and its actions vere reckless, raraless and with total disregard to the health and welfare of the public, and particularlg the deceased; (c) In the processing, ssixing and muiufaeturing and using of the ingredients and tobaccos which .ada up the cigarett= PHILIP MORRIS, as aaoked by tred Lawrence Marlowe, deceased, I8. That as a direct and proximate cause of the negligence of che defendant PHILIP MORRIS, INCORP[1EEATSU, as aforesaid, Tred Lasrrence ttarlave, deceased, was cauud to suffer the de.elopaait aYSd forstation of cancer o i the Iunse, froa vtxich be died. z. co tcl That by resson of the predises, and as a direct and 1~ proximate result thereof, the decadent was raquirad to and did ~ incur hospita2isation, .edicat and incidental expense. 'iha.axac! ~.T t.*'f -4- CN

0

"You'll like Philip 16rris, lull m warid's fifl.st tob:ceos - Bn.arred b tatiov." ., ^lke .orrr about throat 3rritatian ersn when you SnLalai" 'ht.'ottser sigar.tte can giee this praof. ifo rorrf about throat i~rritatiaa rsu .haa 7eu inha3.e,^ ^Laatataed iktiaratorJ tests base sonatusi..l~ pra.en tht'adrantsfo of ?lsilip lbrria mr atker aismretteas i. o.t She,irritsatt.twlit7 of s.oka rf foar other ludias branU aeifags" rra thaa three tisb that of the strikioslj osntrist.d Philip 16rris, psrtber - the irritaet sffeat Of aus4 aitarattss ~ observed to iast sars than fin tiaes as los;.^ ^G¢ eo.paiia; - the irritant qsalit7 is the s.oic" of the four other ludix~ brands sas fomd to asers;f ore than tkree tf.ef that Of the strikis=17 aoe- trasted Philip lbrris - and that the irritation lasts .ore than fin tiasa aa laag. Many s.okrrs dne't eren know it - but I1 swkers inhale aa.t of the tis, 2hat's why 7on ased Philip Kotris' superiority for the naso and throat - ro- eaanised by rtiaal tethoriti.a: '•itith Philip lbrris - you bste no opiaiaa - no facts fra. safpr ieate research Of aar aen. Instead ae siapl7 call 7owr attention to the fiadinta of an iaday.cdan t=roup of doaters. You em draw your am ooea nl sians.. ?or the "IS Usatfit of their a.a pro- fs.siae tbtas dastars report fa aathoritatiee sradieal JoarRala use ~wre~nps orted in anthoritativs aadital joar~ nala." ^ispeaia117 if 7" iahala re...be= + Philip lforris aro.ides aatL aa.pleto as4oy.ant -~lus real protect- iti - L itf aa._ . p asura r wrt pw °-»-aloyfa# tbe last sitsratts of the day as esah as the firtt ± th.ir tbr.ats as aoefortable - their breath as pefa nd aast ar it the .ataiag. , ,- "f.okias's erce f~m t~hra }w'rs not rerrisd by throat irritttios or a.otar's ao.~6." "That Philip lbrris ai4arittas earese ao thrcat or aoae irritatiiry that e4w a.ot.rt bars ehantsd to tte! '~ aus of irritatios of _ the nsEO asit t6tMt iols' ~i` irsEias. bia slured aa.qlataiy Of Lis defirttaj itpre.edi that t a.ck.r Of ?dilip iilttii sisarittffsW rels aad davwf npan a.d be aadW'rid of frsad6w lrae.irritation of tha .uosa dva "ta a.aidag.", -It-T( 'Tg"IWFfi?i[W~nPr ~'"z;:X

12. 12 th total disregard to the health and welfare of the mrallq, and particularly the deceased in the follar- ts, to-vlt: (a) In selling, advertising and dist ting fta to- baecos m3der the afnresaid brand of cigarettes as pac defendant !. il3RILLUD Co., all without varninga That defendant P. IfItM.AP.L' iX}. vas further negligent and its actions were careleca and doae with total disregard to the healttr and welfare of the public, rzsd particularly the dacea4ed; (b) In giving assurances of the ufety of the tobacco product tmder the name brand indicated, in it: selling, adver- tisi;eg and distributior, as cigarettes; That the defendant P. LORILLARD CO. was further negli- gent and its actians were reckless, careless and with total dia- re_;ard to the health s;d u.lfar.^ of the nublic, and uarticularly tt~ teceabed; - (c) In the ar3c~ssing, :iCing and manufacturing and using of the ingrcdi zvts Rnd tobaccos which cade up the cigaret- tes, Old Gold, as >c.k:.E by Fred Lswren_u Y.arLzma, deceased. LY . That as a diract and proxiaeta eause of the negligaace of the defendant P. i::2IL:A10 CO., as aforesaid, ired ;.awrence Atazl<,ve, deccesrd, s.as caused to suffer the development anE for- mation :: cancer of the lungs, from x+hic:.h he !fed. . • That by reasoc of the premises, and as a direct and proximate result 4ierecf, the decedent .ras required to and did incur twspitaliution, esedical and incidental expense. The exaa -is- YIII. That by reason af the preaisea aforesaid, the defen- t P. I13&ILEARD W. was negligent and its actions sere care-

0 22r 23' 26'1 2 291 301 11' t-~iai Ljarh sd:-s. VIIZ. Th.at by reasa:. .>, thc :xc^tiaz.~.a arorjsa4?, t=.: _ 3.. . t-s*. LiCtiaTT & i4Y.:it> TtsbafiC:. C<s. Vi3s a.r~l:,ci'a a-. its acti..__ cere careless and sritu total disregard to t'ra: health and vel- fare of the public generally, a..d particu2arty the deceaced in the following respects, to-vit: (a) In seiling, advertising and distrissutin; its to- baccos under the aiarcaaid brand of cigarettss a_ packaged by LlGCyiT & t^ln"25' 'LYxBkCfA taf., sii xitiwut warning; That daLenvaEt Li~ku'LZ'I 4 M'iiKS T6&A,w?J Co. was further negligent and its actiuns were cnraiess and dorti with total dis- r+-gard ta the aealtt a.:d s.eiSarF of the public, and particularly the deceased; (b) In giving assurances of thE safety of the tobacco a-ocnsrt unde= the ra.uL brand indicated, in its srlling, adver- tisirg and distribucioc. aa cigarettes; That the d<inndaEt LIGGyTr 6 MY:RS 2G'ACCO C.O. was fnrther neglig_nt aria ita actions ;zerE .eckless, careless and tal di.regard to the aaslth and welfare of the public, atticularly the deceased, {t} In th. processing, mixing and manufacturing and usirg of the ingzedier.ts and tobaccos which -,adc up the eiga- rett~s, I:hrsterii:ld, 3s srnked by Frea Lcrer+ae Marlowe, deceasec L'G. :hat ak a Circa ana ora.i=tti c:;use cf the EEgligenefl of the ~::,fendant Lla::"tT L MT5!i.S iQ11.CCU CO., as aforesaid, Fred ~r,t ar.c ,:cn , sras .:a+_[ed trr ss:ffrctne develop- or. ;,f tar,cer af ths 2cmgs, frt+m, sahi.ch he died. Thit by ,.eesoa of the premises, nnd as a direct and proxitiata result thcceoi, the decedent was required to and did

IZi. That when Fred Lawrence }iarlove, deceased, was fifteer years of age, b.e started smoking cigarettes manufactured by the 4~ defendant P. IORILLSRD CO., nameiy Old Cold cigarettes, and vher $ he vas approximately twenty years of age,,ha vaa sua3cir; Old Ca3 cigarettes unufactured by the defendant P. IDYILLlRD to., at a of two packs or more per day, and that he continued so 8j smoking the said Old Gold cigarettes until approximately the 9i j ysar 1958. IV. is 0 n 11 ~ That Fred Lawrence }iarloae, deceased, by reason of 22' the acts aforesaid, and tte continued saoking of cigarettes :aanufactured by the defendant P. SfDRIL2ARr3 CO., Fred Lawrence Marlo+re, deceased, smoked Old Gold cigarettes manufactured by the defendant P. LJRILURD CA., at the rate of two packs or sore per day, and followed his earlier practice of ccntinued amoking, and did so uatil approxiarately the year 1958. V. That Fred Lrrrence Y.arlovs, deceased, beeaee a confirs ed tobsceo addict andvsa unable to stop smoking since the age of fifteen years and smoked two packs or aare of cigarettes daily up to 1958, 23 Vi. 24f' That by the usc of the cigarettes mamsfaeturad by the 251{ defendant P. LORSLLARD CO., as aforuaid, in the aaomsts, quanti E6iI ties and at the time specified, they either caused, precipitated i 2y;1~ or aggra;ated the develops~er,t of sq~umous cell carcirroee, cosman 28`1 ly referred to as cancer of the lisngs. 24'i VII. 34~~ That on Decenhcr 16, 1938, Fred Lsvreaee ?Sarlore, de- 31~~ ceased, died of carcinona of left lung with metastasis to srdias 321~ tarial lymph sndes. -14-

V of Count St.o, on file herein. II. Defendant P. LORItS..iBH Co., by advertising expressly rarranted that the tubaccos and ciYarettes aanufactured, coa- sold, distributed and so advertised, and mors particu- 14; 15; ~ iy` i s; 1&~~ 1~: 25 261 i) 27,~ 28i 24'ii 31 32 larly old Cold cigarettes, were of a amrcHantable quality and fit for lsaan consumption. Fred Lawrence Marlara, decea sad, relied upon the rapresentation's, adverti .mnts and varranties, and had no imo+rledge of the scnfitr.ess of the tobaccos and ciga- rettes, and particulariy Old Gold cigarettmS. IiI. That the tobaccos and cigarettes of the defendant, and more particularly Old Gold cigarettes, rare unfit for cuman consuaptioo, ixi that rrhen used for the purpose intended, they caused or aggravated the developnant of squsious call carcinoma. COtT2Tf FIVE I. plaintilf repeats, rea2iegas and incorporates by re- farecne, as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs I through and including VZi, and paragraphsxX through and including XII in Count t)ne, an fils herein. II. That tobaccos and cigarettes, and sara particularly Old Gold cigaiettes, are potent, po+eerful,dmgarous and dela- tarious aaterials and substancas which nay cause carcinoma of the lungs, vocai ccrds, bronchial trtct, lips, tonsus and aoutb. ZIZ.. That all of the aforesaid facts xare Imown to the de- fendant P. SABILIA:2£3 C0. at the tiaes herein rsntionsd, and in this cormection, defendant possessed special Smorledga and Adll with respect to the manufacture of tobaccos and cigarettes and -18-

2 2@t ND DOLLLRS ($14,00Q.00), excltuive of interest and cos III. That uSea Yrad Laxrsace Msrlevs, deceased, was fifteen years of age, he started s.o3cint cigarettes csmsfactured by t1e t 1. J. RSYliCLD6 TOBACCO CfaFNiY, aa.ely Ca.el ci;arette: 7 j; 10 2Q 21 22 23. 24 25 ;' 2 2?' 24 3E and vbsa he ras approxdaatel7 trenty 7ears of ase, bA au mYinf Carl eigarettas aanufactured by the defendant ll. .l. REY6f4fIR5 2o- at the rats of two packs or vore per day, md that ..oidzg the said Casel cigarettes until approx£- matai} tka year 1158. IY. 21ut Fred Lawrence Mariewe, deceased, by reason of the acts aforesaid, aad tbe continued amkin; of cigarettes nanuEac- turad by the defeadar.t H. J. RLTlK3iS76 TOBACCO LY7ltY13EY, Fred Em- reocs tSarleve, deceasad, sockad Csael cigarettes araufactured by the defeadant A. J. REY1*IS5 TOBACCO SxttPANY at the rate of two packs or nora per day, and followed his earlier practiee of con- tinued ssricias, and did so until approrimatalT the year 1958. V. Tait Tred ia.rence ltarlo.e, deceased, become a caafirew tobacco addict tnd vas imable to stop sma:rinz since the age of fifteen years and emoked two packs or mre of cigarettes daily uf to 1956. . TfI. That by the use of the cigarettes maaafactui*d bT the c fendant 1. J. YSIIi4tDS TOBACCO cfl4lAl, as aforesaid, in the s.ar quantities and at tha time specified, tka7 sitlfsr cauud, preci- pitated or aUravatad the develepatat of equaauus call carcinoea cosmoaif referred to as cancir of the luazl. YII. That en December 16, 1958, Fred Lawrence ttsrios, de- ceased, died of earcinoma of left lunf nitb mstastasis to .edias• terial 1yWh aodes. t7~ -2. N y C7 i3i A GN

! • and by virtue of said company doing business in Mississippi has appointed the Secretary of State of the State of Missis- sippito be its lawful agent upon whom process vay be served. (3) Defendant R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey, domiciled`at Jersey City therein, engaged In and doing business in the State of Mississippi. That the said corporation has not been authorized to do business in Mississippi, but is actually doing business in this State and by virtue of said company doing business in Mississippi has appointed the Secretary of State of the State of Mississippi to be its lawful agent upon whom process may be served. (4) i3efendant, The American Tobacco Company, is a foreign cor- poration organized and existinv, under the laws of the State of New Jersey, domiciled at Jersey City tffierein, engaged in and , doing business in the State of Mississippi. That the said cor- poration has not been authorized to do business in Mississippi, but is actually doing, business in this state and by virtue of said company doing business in Mississippi has appointed the Secretary af State of the State of Mississippi to be Its law- ful agent upon whom process may be served. (5) That defendant, Phillip Morris, Incorporated, Is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Virginia, domiciled at Richmond therein, engaged in and do- ing business in the State of Mississippi. That said corporation has not been authorized to do business in Mississippi, but is actually doing business in this state and by virtue of said company doing business in Mississippi has appointed the Secre- tary of State of the State of Mississippi to be its lawful agent upon whom process may be served". (6) That P. Lorillard Company is a foreign corporation orga- nized and existing"under the laws of New Jersey, domiciled at

! III. That all ef the aforessid facts vere ;aso+m to the de- €endant THE ANEHICdi: 1U4ACC0 CCTfFAt+Y at the times hereiu s¢o- tioned, and in this connection, defendapt possessed special ' i.rith respect to the unufacture of tobaccos and cigarettes and aii the other utters beraiaabave set €orth. IY. That Ired Lawrence lSariawe, deeeased, at all times mentioned, had no special knovledgr., nor was he aware that by the use of tobaccos and cigarettes, as aforesaid, they mu7 caus, him to be affected with the serious and fatal injuries and ill- r.eaaes hereinabove set forth. Y. 2hat although possessed of the special imoaiedge of the dangerosss and deleterious affects caused by tobaccos and cigsrettes, and more particularly Lucky Strike cigarettes, de- fendant negligently and carelessly failed to vera the general puSlic end the decedent, Fred Eavrence 15ariore, of the dangerou and deleterious affects of said tobaccos and cigarettes. Ff#3iREFDRE, plaintiff prays }udgment: 21 1. Special daaages; . 22 2. General damages, $250,000.00; 23 3. Costs of suit; and 24 4. Any further meet relief. 2 BELLI, ASH$ and GL4AY By: IS( Richard F. Gerry AttorneTs for Plaintiff -32_

si..et:a all 3t:.e. ",atters keerc'-ab;;%,f set fcren. 2 4 5 6 That 'rrec ;.aurerce Y.ai-itwe, dtcAasec, at a3.'_ tjz, ~- t'.ened, had :us apec'.ai :r.0ute~ge, r.ar .as 4+; axare th-t bs t-te use of tcbaccas ar.d ci;aa~t=ca, as a:rrexaid, tnec mav =aust, f_- tt be r:iecteL sa:.`~ .;-.e eerious aae fntal '_rjcriecs st:: r,r:~i-.a:,ass=_ set L:..•th. v. ?hat ar.c .; - ract?:_,~_-. 'ts,*_,rfi.,. ?s: ",+ .., tFn a_^::?a, -:rn'_.;dgs S`,e dt.-tti:;.~t. s:=c*_, .:ass-e _, :..3ha_c~x a:,: -.~. _._. .C. .. .. -:='St..'. __. l. ~:T'. .. .._. i1: _tutt :t: ... .C_s . v.u_c ... .~.. aOSti. TG*_..C a: CcY.ifl.: ~ iaL a2 'a;C` 31 Ji SCE aCf I'D

a reasonable tiae of the breach of wrrentp, as aforeuii, plain- tiff YOiE t. KAxLDitE gaw written notice to the defendant t. ., of the breach, sa aforesaid. V. al reason of the prrdses, and aa.a direct and proci- rate causa thersof, Fred Lsrreaca Marlo+ee, deceased, wes caused to snffer the developmnt and faraation of cancer of the lungs, c7a he diai. > 9 11F~ , 121 19 , ~ 20 21 22;1 t; 23'. 2411 254'$ ~ 26'II 2728 30 31 32 CDIINS TA= I. Plaintiff repeats, reelleges and incorporates by re- ference, as though fully set forth herein, paragrepbe I, IT and V of Count Two, an file turein. II. Defendant P. LO&ILSARD Co., in mauufaeturing, sellis+g, advertising and distributing of their tobaccos and cigarettesa,' ispliadlX varranted tha: said tohacws and cigarettes were fit for the purpose intended. Fred Lavrence Marlo*,ea, deceased, te- lied upon the regresentations and varranties of defendant, and had no Se,orledga of the unfitness of the said tobaceos and ci- garettes. III. That tha tabaccos and cigarettes of the defendant F. LpAIL2.itB CQ., as aforesaid, wra not fit for hsaun consaqtioxc and use, in that vhen used fo- the purpose intended, they catued, preci¢ated or aggravated the develop.ent of squaanus ca1l car- cinosa. COUNT 7WR 1. flaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by re- farence, as though fully set forth herain, paragraphs I, IV and -17-

Louisville, Sentucky; R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, foreign corporation domiciled at Jersey City, New Jersey; The Ameri- can Tobacco Company, a foreign corporation domiciled at Jersey City, New Jersey; Philip Morris, Incorporated, a foreign corporation domiciled at Richmond, Virginia; and P. Lorillard Company, a foreign corporation domiciled at Jersey City, New Jersey, and demands judgment of and from said defendants'join_tiy and severally in the full sum of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND (t350,040.40) DOLLARS, for actual and punitive damages, together with all cost of these proceedings. Piantiff requests trial by jury. Respectfully submitted, BY PLAINTIFF'S AtTORNEYSi is H. ALVA BR[JMFIELD 205 American Bank Building Baton Rou¢e, Louisiana MELVIN M. BELLI - Belli Building 722 Montgomery 5-reet San Francisco, California R. L. NETTERVILLE P. 0. Box 946 Natchez, Mississippi BY

koapitalis,atioa, andical aad incidental aigsn.a. The axact 2 a.oumt of suck eupense is animonn to plaintiff at this tlaa, and 3 plaintiff prals lssre to insert ttre ua* herein trLan it is d.- 3 terained. 5 X1, 6# Plaintiff lAiB Y. idi22Lfi2 is the sale heir-at-Iar and Trsd lawrence P4rioYe, deceased. 8?{ ]I: tataan af tl.a .ar.mi.~ a ...t - u___. __. 23` ~_- fcaatia- 10 ~~ aate result ther.of, plaintiff has been deprived of the stspport, 121~ care, lo.s, tffection and society of Fred Lnrrence 1;ario.e, 3.- 12#' ceased, to L.r dsssge in the sun of Two &mdrei Tift7 rAaussnd Dollars {425Q,00d.0Q}. COI1ti! ZSiO I. ~ <a1?~j Plaintiff repeats, reallages and incorporates by r.- '~~'~s ±3 911 and including YII, and paragraphs Z thras3t and inaludi:g III of Count One, on file herein. though fully sat forth Lersin, paragraphs I ttroagh 18;ersncs, as 3 f II. Defendant LIGGLST 6}!YilY S6Ei= Cl7., in asnufactur- fut, selling, advertising and distribctiag its tabsccos aad ci- tarettas, inpliedlT vtrranted that faid tobaccas aad eigarettes +es of sarahantable qualiti. - 27 28 29 30 31 32 III. lhat contrary to the warranty of dafand.at LICt7iT! i M7rP3 2US+CM CO., the tobaccos and cigarettes were aot of aer- ehantaile qualitT, in that when used by irad i.erreac. Marlwa, try deceased, for the purpose intended, they csusat, precipitated or ~ aggravated the de.elopssat of sqnsmsus cell caraisor. C) C3'F IV. .„1 TYat prior to the filiat of this so.plaiet, aad ttitkin C1% Ct -22-

J

! ! 5 2 2 3 3 a reasonable time af the breach of warranty, as aforesaid, p3ain- tiff ROSE 8. 16AHIA478 gave written notice to the defendant LIGGETT & MYER.S TOSACCQ Co., of the breach, as aforesaid. V. By reason of the preaises, and as a direct and proxi- mate cause thereof, Fred Lawrence riarlowe, deceased, was caused to suffer the development and foraatiorn of cancer of the lunga, from which he died, t'6ilh"E 'tHXiiE I. Plaintiff rrpeata, rcalleges and incorporat.a €erence, as thou;n £nlly set fo*th herein, partgraphs I, IV and V of Coua:t Two, or• €i:a harcir. II. Defendant LIGCe77 & HY3RS So&i.CCU CO., in mar:ufactur- ir.g, sellirg, advcrtisiF:e 2nd +Eistrtbutir.g ef their tobaccos ard cigarette<, i-~licc'ly varrar.ted that said tobaccos and ci- ;arectee vere fit for the purpose intended. Tra2 Lawrence *;ar- lowc, dec.ased, reliei upo- the represer.tations and warranties of Acfendant, snd had ns knovledge of thP wtfitness of the said tobaccos and ci,aretts. III. That the tobaccos and cigarettes of t:ee dafendax:t LI6'GSIT & 3{5T?i5 TCkEACCA CO., eg afoxesaid, vsr. not fit for hu- san consusption and use, in that when used for the puzpos, in- tended, they caused, precipitated or afgravated the derelomert of squaavus cell carcinasa. C4UHr Fs3tIR 1. Plaintiff repeats, rsallagea and incorporates by re- ferenca, as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1, IV and -23-

Charity Hospital of Louisiana in New Orieans, Louisiana, for treatment of the cancer. That the said Nicholas E. Johnson died March 20, 1959, from said cancer after a long period of suffering. - (16) That the defendants, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, The American Tobacco Company, Philip Morris Tobacco Company and P. Lorillard Company, were wantonly and grossly negligent and their actions were reckless, careless and with total disregard to the health of the deceased, Johnson, in selling, advertising and distributing and selling its tobaccos and cigarettes without warnina; that the defen- dants were wantonly and grossly negligent and their actions were reckless, careless, and with a total disregard to the health of the deceas*d, Johnson, in giving assurance of safety in selling, advertising and distributing their tobaccos and cigarettes; and defendants were wantonly and grossly negligent and their actions were reckless, careless and with total disregard to the health of the deceased, Johnson, in the manufacturing, processing, mixing and using the ingredients and tobaccos which as E. Johnson smaked; that the defendant warranted that 0 their products were wholesome, when in truth and fact they were not. (17) That the defendants were negligent in selling and distribu- ting these tobaccos and cigarettes without warning to the de- ceased, Johnson, of the harmful results from smoking these to- baccos and cigarettes. That the deceased, Johnson, purchased many of the cigarettes from defendants and their agents. That defendants, `by reasonable diligence should have known of the dangerous or hazardous tobaccos that were bding sold to deceased C1S) That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable hereto (19) That as a direct and proximate cause of the joint, contri- buting, wanton and gross negligence of the defendants as afore-

ity therein, engaged in and doing business in the Stat i , State of Mississippi, and this cause of action Is a of said corporate defendants business in Pike issippi, being substantial in scope and each of ~ Mississippi. That the said corporation has not been autho- rized to do business in this state, but is actually doing business in Mississippi and by virtue of said company doing business in Mississippi has appointed the Secretary of State of the State of Mississippi to be its lawful agent upon whom process aay be served. (7) There is a diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the defendants and the auount in controversy, exclusive of interest and cost, exceeds the sum of Ten Thousand (gI4,0ao.oo Dollars. ta? That at all times complained of herein and all acts com- plained of herein, on the part of the corporate defendants, ;rex out of said defendants actually doing business in the County of Pike, a component part of this Federal Court Uis- said defendants at all times were furthering their business interest in this state to such an extent as to make them sub- ject to the processes of this Court. That the acts complainet of herein occurred in Pike County, Mississippi. That said county Is a component part of this Federal Court District. (9) That when Nicholas E. Johnson was approximately twelve years of age he started smoking tobaccos manufactured by de- fendants, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, the America Tobacao Company and R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, namely: Old North State Tobacco, Bull Durham Tobacco and Prince Alber C7o Tobacco and when he was approximately fourteen or fifteen year ~ of age he started smoking Camel cigarettes manufactured by de i_,7 fendant, R, J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, at the rate of two ~ ~ packages or more per day, and continued smoking camel ciga t,7 ~ rettes until approximately the year of 1952.

i 2 III. That s:ncr yred T.,usrrerce Marlowe, deceaaed, was :'£ft€a years of s~c, h.k etarted sar..4ia.l agttrctCaz s.:ziactured by t*h- defendant T2E AME82C42: SUlsnCi,C CCdfpAt;Y, namely Lsuky Strike ci- garettes, and aben h- was apprxxi:aat¢ly pwecty yaars of age, he was saotdag Lucky Strike cigarEttca taa.:zfasaurcd by the defsa- :ant t?t :Sh'SFiI?:Ah D,r,+.C^1? ''ot-m.:iBY, at the ratc of tw packs or sore per day, and that he continued so smoking the said Iucscy Strike cigarett-t u,:tii approaisstcly the year 133$. L~. Tha: =_<•.i Lax-exe ssr2o.*e, deceased, by reason of th act;- afoceeaid, anc the eor.ti:aea smoking af cigarettes svtnu- ia.::tured "o-a t;:e ;.. ^-!Ant Tt AY'tlGk Til3ACC6 CClff'AKY, 7red e,avrt-3'e s.aoked Lucry Strike cigarettes vanufactureE by the defendant Ttir. AMffikICdt? TOBACCO C023FAtFY at the iate o: tc^ pa_r.s ot ti._e pc: day, and =ollowcd his earliet practice-of contirntea scx*ang, and dia so u:.til approximately the year i9S8. Y. That Fred Lawrence riario++e, decaased, becave a confirm- Fd tobacco addict and was unabte to stop smo-rSng since the age ot :ifteen years .+-rt sR+okee ren nacks or a+c-e of cigarettes daily up co 1958. YI. That by the use of the cigarettes manufactured by the defendant THc A2SzRLCAY; TQBACCid Ct24FAC.Y, as aforesaid, in the aanunts, quantities and at the time specified, they either caused 2 291, 32:E pcecipitatad or agZravatee the developmant of sqotunus cell car- co cinoaa, cemnonly referred to as cancer of the Iungs. {V YSI. C3 That on Decenbet ie, L458, Fred Lawrence Hariove, de- L" `--T ,eased, died of carcinoma of left lung with metastasia to oediaa- -y C-> -26-

! said deceased, Johnson, was caused to suffer the development and formation of the epidermoid carciaoaa of the tongue and lungs and suffered, both internally and externally, physical- ly and mentally, and was caused to be sick, sore and lame and to lose tise from his employment, to syffer great and permanent loss of capacity of sind and body and was permanent- ly injured in his health, strength and earning capacity, in- cluding the development of cancer of the lungs and incurred medical and hospital expenses and died Mrrch 20, 2959. (20) That as a direct and proximate result of the joint, contri- buting, wanton and gross negliqence of the defendants as afore- said the deceased, Nicholas E. Johnson, departed this life; that the said deceased was very dear to the plaintiffs herein and afforded them much companionship; the deceased suffered much unimaginable pain for the period of his sickness until his death; plaintiffs have lost the society and companionship of a husband and a father and have lost the earning capacity of their father and husband for the period of his life expectancy and plaintiffs have suffered much grief, sorrow and mental distress as a result of the death of their father and a husband and have expended sums for funeral expenses, and plaintiffs have suffered other damages, all as a direct and proximate result of the wanton and gross negligence on the part of the defen- dants; therefore, they have-been damaged in the tull sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand ($250,000.00) Dollars, for which this sum they bring this their suit and demand judgment accord- ingly against said defendants jointly and severally with all court cost herein. . WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDER9D, your plaintiffs, Mrs. Eva Mae Wilkinson Johnson; Julius Nicholas Johnson; Mrs. Wonzie Johnson Hudspeth; Clyde Earl Johnson, a minor, by his next of friend, natural guardian, Mrs. Eva Mae Wilkinson Johnson, his mother; and Miss Gary Marcelle Johnson, a minor, by her next of friend, natural guardian, Mrs. Eva Mae Wilkinson Johnson, her mother; brings this cause of action against Brown & TIiI- tiamson Tobacco Corporation, a foreig,n corporation domiciled at

,- . 1 2 3 4 5 6 cwmM z= 1. ilaintiff repeata, raalla;q and incorporates by re- fareace, as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1, I9 and V of Co,mt ttio, on fila t+erain. II. Defendant Y#Et AtffiiIG1Ei TOEICCO CQQAtR, by advertising expressly warranted that the tobaccos and cigarettes meufac- turad, compaunded, sold, distributed and so advertised, end aers particularly Lucky Strike ci;srettes, vera of a nerobantable and fit fcr Yunan conssmptioc. tred Larrauce ]iarlan, i 19;: i 20~ ~ 21' 25 26 2? 28 29 0 deceased, relied upon the representations, adverti.aeuts And warranties, and had no knovledge of the unfitness of the to- baccos and cigarettes, and particularly Lack7 Strike cigarettes. III. That the tobaccos and cigarettes of the defendant, and aare particularly Lnckf Strike cigarettes, were uafit for btaan consumption, in that vben used for the purpose iatanded, they caused or aggravated the dewloponnt of squsmvas cell rircim.a. COUNT YIPS I. Ftaintiff repasta, raalleQes and incorporataa by ra- farenca, aa. thwfh fully set forth herein, FaraYrapha I through aad including Yil, and paraQraphs(X thtouugh and including JCII in Caaat One, on file herain. II. That tobaccos and cigarettes, and .ore particularly Iueky StriFA eigar+ettes, are potaat, powerful, d.ntat'aRU aud deleterious materials 4nd substances which saj eaase csrcinoaa of the limgs, vocal cords, bronchial tract, .outh. s,d -30-

! (10) That during this period be also smoked Phfltip Morris Cigarettes manufactured by defendant, Phillip Morris, Incor- pomted. (II) That in the year of 1952 Nicholas E. Johnson switched to Viceroy Cigarettes and continued smoking Viceroy Cigarettes aiant factured by the defendant, Brown 8 Williamson Tobacco Corpora- tion, at the rate of approximately two and one half to three packs per day until January of 1958 when he then switched to Kent Cigarettes manufactured by P. Lori22ard Company, and con- tinued to smoke Kent Cigarettes at the rate of twaand one- half packs to three packs per day up to the time of his death. (12) The late Nicholas E. Johnson switched from Camel Cigarettes and Philip Morris Cigarettes to filter tip Viceroy Cigarettes and filter tip Kent Cigarettes because of advertisements and assurances of safety and warranties by the said defendants, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation and P. Lorillard Company, that these products were wholesom and safe and less harmful than the non-filter tip cigarettes. . (13) That deceased, Nicholas E. Johnson, became a confirared tobacco addict and was unable to stop smoking since the age of about fifteen years and smoked two packages of cigarettes daily to the time of his death, smoking various brands as shown herein. That the deceased, Nicholas E. Johnson, from the time that he began smoking until his death, from time to time smoked tobacco and cigarettes being the products of all five tobacco companies named herein. (14) That the use of these tobacco in that amount either caused, precipitated or aggravated the development of a squamous cell carcinoma cancer of the tongue and lungs. (IS) That on June 24, 1958, Johnson, the deceased, entered the

, 4 IZI. That vhen Frad Lswrance Narlare, deceased, ras f+ :tae years of sge, he started smoking cigarettes manufactmrad by t},a defendant LTCGI:2T fr"tY3R5 TtDb.lCOD CO., na9ely Chesterfield ei- zarettes, and xhen be was approximatelp twer.ty years of age, he sras smoking C3esterfield cigarettns manufactured by the dafen- dant LI@GL1T 5 MTE.RS TtTBACCO CU., at the rate of two packs or aore per day, and that he continued so smoking the said Cteaterfield cigarettes until approximately the year 1938, Z9. That Fred LasZeAGe Harlow, deceased, by reason of the acts aforesaid, and the continued sao3cing of cigarettes suact- factured by the defendant LItiGn^LT 8 3SYCRS TGBIS.CCO CO., Fred cs Marloxe, deceased, saotred Chester€ield cigarettes aaau- a s 23, 24: 25~ ; 261 i 87 ~~ nnl~ 2 2 factured by the defandsnt LIL:G&Tt & filKxS TOEA.CCO t`A„ at tbe rate of two packs or nore per day, and followed his earlisr prac tice of continued :an+d.ng, aad did so urtil approximately the year 1458. V. that Fred Laxrence 2iarlowe, daceased, becans a con- firamd tobacco addict and was anable to stop smoking since the age of fifteen years and smeked two packs or nore of cigarettes daily ap to 1958. vl. That by the use of the cigarettes manufactured by the defendant LIGGETf 5 14SSRS TODACCC! CO„ as aforesaid, in the aso°.tr quantities and at the time specified, they either cansed, praci- pitated or aggravated the deYelopment of sqoamoue call CarCi- aoma, commonly referred to as cancer of the lonYs. t.3 ~ Y11. g That on Decemher 16, 1958, Fred Laxrence ltartova, ds- LTI V ceased, died of carcinooa of left lung with amtastasis to rdias- y;y .3~-

i ! V of Count 1Sro, an file herein. II. f °H D d t LIt,G81R 6 f a en sn ?ftFg 2pE4Cep bd M CO.,y itertising arpress27 warranted that the tobaccos and cigarettes atnnfac- tured, eoupoonded, sold, distributed and .o advertised, and sare particularly Chesterfield cigarettes, were ot a merctsatatabla and fit for lamaa raasusption. Fred Laxrence 14arlove, decrasad, reliad upon the repsaaentstions, adtertisa.eata and varranties, and had no imovledet of the unfitness of t}u tobaecos and cigarettes, and particularly Chesterfield cigarettes. ZIi. That the tobaccos and cigarettes of the dtfendant, and more particularly Chesterfield cigarettes, rere unfit for b~ conssmgtion, in that when used for the purpose isstfnded, they casued or aggravated the developnent of squamous aell carcincst. 'I . fAUtt7 FIYE 20< 25! 27 28 32 I. - Tlaintiff repeats, reaile;es and incorporates by re- ference, as though fully set forth herain, paragraphs I throa,Qh and including YII, and paragraphsit through and iaaluding III in Coemt One, on file herein. II. That tobaccoe and cigarettea, and snre partienlarly Chesterfield cigarettes, are potent, powerful, dangerous and .. deleterious mttertals and substances which may cansa carcinooa . of the lungs, vocal cords, bancbisl tract, lips, tongue and .uctIl IIx. That all of the aforesaid facts vere Imorsi to the ds- fendant LZCGBri & KYER3 TOEACM 00. at the tiaet barefa sration- . ed, and in this coxmection, defendant possessed special imaw- j ledga and skill vith respect to the eancxfactuxt of tobaaoos aa ]jd -24-

ISRS. GLADYS PACZAME NC. 77,CC$ i VS. I9th Judicial District Court AtBISH OF EftST SA2bYI !#)UffE STATB OF SDiTZSIJU{A T88 TRAYEIERS INSURANCE tX#MPA1R . . TO R. T~. ~Ra__n_ olds Ta6acco Coap _sxy, a foaaii~zae ratian.~domieiled at arsey Ci , eX ersny, snrougn uarrT i+ova~o~- S.eosFarrc, - S agents for service of process. You are hereby summoned to comply with the demand contained in the Original and Supplemental and Amended petitions of the plaintiff in the above entitled and mmhex;dcause, duly certified copies of which are hereto attached and to be herewith served, or file your answer or other pleading in the office of the Cler& of the 19th Tudicia3 District Court, for said Pariah, at the City af Baton Rouge, within fifteen (15) days after service hereof. Your failure to comply herewith will subject you to the penalty of entry of default Judgment against you. Witness the 8onora6le Sudges of our said Ceurt,,at Baton Rouge, Zauiaiana, the 20th day of March , 1961 Deputy Clerk of Court Cohen DecZ. Exhibit J

0 1 1 26, 3 proxisate result thereof, the decedent vas required to and did incur "'*svit _:••at3.nn, +nr•oica2 and i*^tidcr~tal expense. The exac aros:nt of sur•it expenrc is ac:knosrr..t;> :ta#acici at the present time, ur.a piaiati£f pra}a icave to i::sert t3+k same herein w.her. Lt i.: detarvrtined. xi. Yiaintiez R.;Br. €. HAtiuW8 is the sole heir-at-iav and r:c.:.-of-cir, c,f F:ce 3•asurec:ca i<arioae, dtceased. kLI. By reasoe. o: trr premises, ar~d as a direct and proxi- tute resu2c thereof, plaLutiiz tas beer dcprir>d nf the support, car_, Loce, a.' nnx•tet* of. F•red i•avrcacs MarioWe, de- ._aee.i• to i:er c:n.,ege i:- ct=e >um a_ `tL3 nur.; rF2 FStv T`sousand 1. i^..'LLi,orat..} by re- u:c ir_iudiag fi:, ard ii. {,,:agriphs i through .: 1nr:luainR. %II s,:.itnp. uSve-eA<_a,g .ct,c ~aari.,~tzt~ a~a -..dlaecos and ciga- -•C:.-:., i:1S, a.^.! --:•ba.''Atea III, Ft;at cotttva:= =- ts.: .lrtas:cf ._ S~ir:~ant tkf:. AtfEBICAft ..7.gSrt'.tt'9 .C te not of 9er- ~.~eatact~ L;%a. •3f Ez= ...i•:c•scn Me;'lame, =..- ;-rt,,:.c tz••.f precipitated a. ggravsat t::e cevcion~;;t z: squa:+ous ceia carcinocte. .'fo...

i3 19 20 21 22' 25 27; 28;, Helen 1C. iSerron, being sworn, says that sha is a citizen of the United States, over 1L yesrs d age, aiesident of Marin t a party to the within action. This affiant's business address ia: 722 lbntgosery Street, San Francisco, California. That affiant served a copy of the attached Amended Goeaplaint for Damages by placing said copy in an envelope addressed to: °illsbury, Madison & Sutro, Standard oil Building, San Fran- cisco 4, California; Brobeck, Phieger b tfarrison, 111 Suttar Strect, San Francisco 4, California; Amne, 7unoe & Phelps, 333 ltontgomezy Street, San Francisco 4, California, and Sadg- xi.:k, Detert, Moran & Arnold, 100 Bush Street, San Tranciseo, California, whicF. envelope waa than sealed and postage fully ~,Lepsidttereon, and thereafter was on Septamber 14, 1960, de- _ oosited in the United States ssail at San Francisco, California. That there a dclivery service by United States mail at the ?taca so addressed, or regular coaamication by United Statea auil between the place of sailing and the place ao addrsssed. Subscribed and sworn to before ae on; Septemher 19, 1960 (SEAL) JSI Charlotte H. D`Connor 'CFurT t~ nnor Notary Public in and for said county & state (Date of expiration of coataission:. Febcuary 15, 1964) 0

IV. 3 a reasonable time of the breach of rarranty, as aforesaid, pia£n- 21 That prior to the filing of this comp gAtxO CflFlY1N2, of the breach, as aforesaid. 6V. Ey reason of the prentses, and as a direct and proxi- 9 21' 22 . 2& a 2G: 25f t 26=! tiff ROSE E. MA82Afi& gave written notice to the defendant TttE a.te cause thereof, ired Lawrence 23arlove, deceased, was cansed to suffer the development and formation of cancer of the izmg:, from which he died. lAUftf TkIl2Eg I. Plaintiff repeata, realleges and incarporates by re- ference, as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1, IV and V of Cwnt Tw, on file herein: II. Defendant TStf AMEBICAIt TOEICCD CA41.tiS, in srufec- turtng, selling, ae+rertising end distributing of their tobaccos and cigarettes. imptiedly varranted that said tobaccos and ei- garettes, ~re fit for the purpose intended. Fred Isrreace lSSr- love, deceased, relied upoa the representations and warranties of defendant, and had no knowledge of the vnfitness of the said tobaccos and cigarettes. III. That the tobaccos and cigarettes of the defendant THE tMEBICAN 'I4Si= COt1YANT, as aforesaid, vice not fit for hucan consuegtion and use, in that when used for the purpose intended, they csused, precipitated or aggrarated the developosnt of sgoa- a3 29q hj 2 3 s eell carcinoESa. - t ~ ~ {N -29-

i ~ causing daaage te his lungs, which resulted in his death. 5. . . Petitioner 21u'ther'shovi that the said Clarence A. Facianc Sr. bacame ill in September of 1$59 and on or about lFovember 10, 1959 was hospitalized at which time the lung ailment was discovered and at that time his employer was notified. 6. Petitioner particularly shows that the said Contracting & Supply Corporation, its agents and employees, acting in the course sad-4eeps-of their employment, failed and refused to supply and furnish safeguards for the use of Clarence A. Fsciane,' Sr. and failed to warn Clarence A. Faciane, Sr. of the dangers inherent in the work which he was daing; failed to zcake's f1il.l disclosure of tha dangers inherent in such operation and were further negligent ii4 assuring Clarence A. 8aciane, Sr. that there were no dangers inherent in such operation and by warranting that such operation was a safe one, although the dangers were well Smosrn to them. 7. That as a result of the negligence of defendant company,- its agents and employees, acting in the course and scope of their employment, the said Clarence A. Baciane, Sr. received severe and fatal inluries consisting of damage to his lungs which caused - abrasions to his lungs, and which resulted in his death. 8. Petitioner now itemizes her damages as follows, to-wit-, e s curred $ -5,Od0.4o Funeral ezpenses incurred $ 2,000.flo Mental pain and anguish of deceascd $50,000.00 Mental pain and anguish af petitioner $50,000.00 7wss of support $50,000.00 ioss of lave, affection and companionship $So,QOQ.QC'. or a total of $207,000.00 ' ~.

9teLiYE}.jeAY= zlCZat+u 1. s0s><#ap : nahnc 67838 aix..rk~k'Nis: S": x fi. : t 1qTS JUDICIAL D6S172CT COi33T ti0YY i YSZf.LiNSOp SeiACCO r C02t.j 2. 2. uSI0LII5 S47ACC0 s CC![pADi7 T!1 il[ERICAS TOIACCO t pA12St CF =ilS2 L!GN #Dp{ CONtA3S2 lt2LST lf0lur5, 130.1 s P. tOZILi.AiB CQtpAt2, TCOD 40Nl, x ZlC. AI7t ?DOD fCY! lSdICAL r #SAT2 4p LCIII2jAu plAIIfACI=i, 270. x r rrssrrssfcss:trrtc:srstsrsssrsstsstssrexsxsr:ssasrrtrsrsrrsrrerexz= To Sii #Ol0lA)L7 !!I JODOn of S!2 12I1SI2RSI JD)ZeIAL ax#TIICT COit1T YZStM AtII r0! !s3 pA2ISI Ol 3,tSS u!0! #CQ01, S?ATt ot Lncuwu. 0 The patit£oa of siaha3as 1. Johasas. a rasideat of the . 2avfaL s#a af tha Tarish of iast Datoa lonst, #tat+ of Laaisiapa, vith respect rtpnsaats thatr 1. Detehdaxst Erova * villiaisoa Tohacco Corp. is a foreign carporatioa orisaiatd aad azistia5 uader ths lavs of the state of ieatackr, daaiailsd at Loaisvills theraia, engaged in aad doing business £a the Stata of Louisiana. 2. Saftadast i. J. leiealds tahaaao Campsst ts a foreign aorpexst£aa orSaaised and azistiad aecdar the lavs of the State of Iev Jersy, daslalled at Seraar Citr th.raia. arathar£sed to do aSd da£ag basiaess ia the State oY Loaisiua aad having A appaistet IarrT IlaCall aad Lsoaard Sarp1 of 7ev Crieaas, Loaisiau, as its KHts for aera£ae of proes#s. 3. pafeadaSt, Tta iserisaa Pebasaa Caapaq is a foreign car- poratioa srsuissd aat a:istia# satsr the lava af tYs State af Itr Jersey, dmi.ailea at Jersq Cit7 tharaie, sathorised to da aad de£a# lssiaess ih the #tate af LOUiaiaha, haHa# filed proper aradeatials Yith the Stcrttar7 of State aa@ hatias appoiatri vaiter i. 6pascer, Saoad phslpa, Charles i. Dasiars Jr., aad Sater 0. yrarks, Jr., 420 #iberaia #ldi., Nez Oritaas, Loaisiana, as its aSehts for serriat of proeesa. Cohen Decl. Exhibit G

0 i soak ISES. GLADYS FACZA38 9ER4R4 H{7MBSE '/'j,o04 DIYISIOH "o• PARISH 6F EAST BA'SON RCUaE q'BS TR,W&LERS INSURANCE COMPANY - STATE OF IBjFISIAHA TO THS HC}2iCRAB7.E, TBS NINETEENTH JUDICIAI: DISTRICT CCIIfCP MII.TSIR AND FOR TEE PARISH 6P EAST BATON R01it}E, STATE OF ZOSfSSIBNts The petition of MS. GLADYS FACIANE, a resident of the full age of majority of East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, rith respect, represents: 1. That she is the widow of Clarence A. Faeiane, Sr., who died in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, on or about Xarch 20, 1960, leaving surviving hisc your petitioner and major children. 2. That -THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY is an insurance corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State ot Connecticut, domiciled at Hutford therein, authorized to do business in the State of Louisiana, by having filed the proper credentials with the Secretary o£ State and having appointed the Secretary of State as its agent for service of process. 3. That for some time prior to September, 1959, petitioner's husband, Clarence A. Faciane, Sr., was employed by Arastrong Con- traeting & Supply Corporation as an insulator in its general con- struction work. - 4. Your petitioner now shows that while engaged in the duties of his employment and xhile insta2ling insulating material, in accordance with the instructions of his empleyer, the said Clarence A. Faciane, Sr, breathed and inhaled insulation aateria2,•

STATE OF SAIILSIANA FARIS% OF EAST BATON IXIDC7B BEFORE 7+E, the undersigned authority, personaiSy came and appeared: LD H. ALVA SRUMNIE who, being eWorn,-4#etdeposed anda.yLask.j p: s of counsel for petitioner in the foregoing petition; that.he has read the same and all allegations contained therein are true and correct to the bent of his 3mowledge, infor- matlon and be3lef. . . Sf H. A2ra Brumfield SWORN TO AND SI7HSC1i15ED before me, August 4, 1960. s I / v.IhE3T=-A~19LIL$ .~

To the Person Served; You a.re.herehg served inn the sait = action or proceeding on beh.a}p (Name Of corporation, partnership, or other association). ~ME22iC.4.c..' iv~.tl~c (Q. .f Ca.z~a.3frr.o•~ as a person upon whom the summons and s copy af the complaint must be served to effect service against said party under the provisions of the Code of 'ivil Procedure, Section 388 (as against associates doing business under a common name) ' ~ 411 {as against a corporation) I ~ 474 (as the person, firm, or oorporation, sudd under the fictitious name of . ~ You are also served as an individual (Service made as checked above) C. CA&BIl2FiY, SHERTF+

erial lyaph modes. YIII. That by reasuc of the gremises aforesaid, the defer, t I3ti AMi=itIGLty TuBACCG 6JkFAPtY was negligent and ita actions c:aauaaaa ar.u w"a= coui uaaiegarg CO rA!, AEatttt and vdlta2e # aY the public generally, and particularly the deceased in the follawing rvsptcts, to-wit: {a} Ii: atlliug, adrertising and distributing its ta- bac.or undev thc aforesaid brand oY cigarettea as peckaged by defanc;ant Tfin Alti.dICAt. PUEb:.,r'.it CtkeF3RY, all citlrout warning; Tlat detenc:ar-t Tk& di:nkICAN TU6hGLJ CQL'AAY was further nasiigcrt an1 its actions wcrr esrcless anu dar.e vith total dis- reguzcQ t+: th. htalta si:d wc.lfare of the public, and particular:y thk d.-ce,raea; (bj iz giriug assutanccs of the safety of thc tobacco pcucuct un6tL tt.: r~a~ 'axh:,a ir.di:.ated, ir, its selling, sdvta- tising a.c a£str:butioa s, ciga_-:tteE; " 18 n . That ti:~ c_C_i•P,a^t F:i'_ AH.atIG+L'. F18ACC,) CatFA2:2 s:as 19 fu.tku, .,cg.iarut an.: as acticne were iecxires, careleas tnd 20 witn t.,c.:. distega,d tu thc r.ealth and veifare oz the public, 21 anc particul.._if CFk decea>ad; 22 (c:) h: ti.t, pr.,cessing, +mising ar.d manufacturing and 23 , using :,t the ir.giea:iti.fia a... ,cabac.:aa 'rhich made up the ciga- 24' rettes, Wc:cf :,tiika, as sa:,ked by Fred Lawrence Harlowe, de- 25,i `t ceased. - 2$'~ 27 L`• E ~ I it,at ..r a cii~ct ind proxiaatc cauae oi the negligence 01 :n, c~1rt..iar.r FH:: i.tL.3IC,dh T68:.L'Ct, c:LY".FrL\Y, as aforesaid, . 28 i i p 301, FrcL :8wr't,i:< j4G--Ji.C, uCca:IISe.i, Mci tdaSed CJ iuZ€tta Che develop ~ ,I 3it +cent ar.i foraatiaa of cancer o€ the IucYs, froz wfiich he died. A. CD £_1't ~ 321 V That t,y r:.aso: of ch.e padaises, and i~ a direct and

kmk favor of the said Armstrong Contracting & Supply Corporation, its agents and employees, under the terms of which"policies it agreed, to insure and indemnify then against any and all liability and '` under the workmen's compensation laws as a result af their negli- ' gence,and, accordingly, said insurer is a proper defendand herein 15. Petitioner desires and is entitled to a trial by jury on all issues. #SSREB08E, petitioner prays for service and citation of this petition upon the defendant and that it be duly cited to appear and answer hereto, and after all legal delays and due pro- ceedings had, there be judgment herein in.favor of petitioner, bpt9.. tELRDFS BACZA2tB and against defendant, THE TRAYBLEiiS ZMSIIRA?€CB COffiPANY, in the sum of $207,000.00, together with legal interest thereon from judicial demand until paid. In the alternative, and in the event that petitioner is not entitled to the damages as herein prayed for, then and in that event petitioner prays for judgment herein in her favor and against defendant, for worlocen's compensation benefits at the rate of }35.00 per week beginning September. 1959, and continuing weekly thereafter, for a period of 400 weeks, together with legal interest on each past due installment frem its maturity date until paid, and for funeral ezpenses in the amount of $6#7D.fl0, together with legal interest thereon from judicial demand until paid. Petitioner further prays for all costs, and for all . necessary orders and general and eq.uitahle relief. By Attorneys: SI 3'I 4t,+sL4 VEIMA Y. 6BBI} U33IG ROBERT S. 1'i7Rf1E$ 205 American Bank Building Baton Rouge, iauisiana .

1 •NCY 1NtCfT C.ICaO .~<w+rz0 LKx/R!a'[rwa HARNEY. FORD S SGHIOTTMA{+4 ATTORNCYS AT LAW 110 SOYTw GRANC AYCNYC LOS ANGELES q, CALIFORNIA dv2y, 225, 1961. c:: x;'C"."3 h V .k`.'+cmvZ4-c^_• iF.r ie{a;. . ':uaur.c az; TCLCix6NC RHCnat~ S~NEt '~Q ~s __ s._._ ...~ : Lri tlr,..• TCl'...:`:Z`uu.. '_'Ai 4 :,_ S:£i. ~~ sh _twreti anu Y -Zl•l(~.fLJ.~tSva1kL. a. S`.il~~.~ ~+Siv.L1Q wL~Q ....Y 13u wr ~.!~~:li Ce}«ij ~++.L ViSiJ lettcr is to rl!'Ai 7 rc.- at' ,r'~~ ay~YU-aar~c~anad x~srrr~iies r_rc thc_°c~y `, L ,~~-+?.._ ~; 4au and that aa a rcoat of csid"3ra.-oh of .•=.T__.,, by TZx., =_r I ~;llfl t,'iCd 1`S fl£L'L::it QY 'Lh= £L'.hv= ;1»«tJ1 Cr«.."ar c7f ti2 liln..°y. ,.-r;r t:2iii i..LLT?3-I F.`~ttic~~3

gr.:paration, ~a fccr re, p:o<< _tiaw, storsga, ir.tpection, testing, 0 to --a<-,bsrs of t,f.e pssblic, ir.clu:iing PIaintiffa* iathar and huaband, ;:. 1.e9ZIL-'., daccssed, through ratail 3tores, and otherwise, within ths 3tate of Cs2iforniu. diat:ibL~tion, r:nd ea1;: of ta'aacao products, to uit, ciLSrett°_s cu.= :nlp k=wn cts ~C::.aT cz= 5s ez: °LiG;.1 Sm'tZiGA, respectivel III That prior to a_d durir.d the calendar year precedin; his death an or about Bocnm6cr 9, 1960, OLv}3s E. La3::LLE, dsceaaed, di tu7, purchase, n98, and sacka the a,foresai.d tobacco products of 32 c?efaa4ants LIG:.h"Ti ~, tITZE8 :O;:LCCO CC:-3nt2, a corporation, Ab'I~2ICAit :L?id:.CG Gfi.u',iSY, a corporation, an3 37t.1s` LfZ to Y:.kZ, iaclusive, irL the : t=sr intended by the afcrst~iid 3cferdants. aY :;:Gt t;.3 di3fU:.dai.tii iz a CO^:Sr3tion, LGr~.i3S3tiCn, a:L' L4t.3 ZZI to .e.fZ•7., intlti; iYe, and e::.:'_ Cf tJ2C'y cSreiCss3.7, ~CC`-;IcSP.lv. nilu L:,:,tlfactt:rtd, ;rt}d,SCGd, c:orc«-f, in.,pected, tewtcd, di ar2 Ltau, =d sold the aforesaid tc:-:acco products, iz, that t:_a frcr-::ta contuincd various substances i:clndi a, but not Ii=iteu to. 2r_er3c. ters and nicotir_fl, vhich «o.t3.d, could, and did rrodscr car.car in ty_ IuzZer of GL:::..I S. La :..i3.1:, deceased; tteet t: fl daiar.doate, as aforementioned, ncbligentl7, oarelesaly, rae€3essly, and unlawfully, failed to use ordinary, due, and proper care in the preraration; manufacture, production, IItOFLgo, inspection, testing, distribution, and sa2e; of ths afcreza.-.tioced tobacco procucts; that dafendartn, as aforosaid, stiiiCcntlp, caralasal3. rsaklsssli and unlawfully fnilfld co re=ova'snid cubstances from eai.d products before said f..oducts verc aold to the ras.Gers of the public, including GLaIiFS E. LacriS.2, deceased; that defendants, as aforecsntioned, aegli,r,enUy fzi.led to cern plaintiSfa and p2si.ntiffa+ decedent, of the -7- O N

8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 # 18 211 22, 23~ 24 25' 2s 27 28 29 30 z1 32 ' -Lari Cia[s: f.e ?_~; of ~:rd-0G _~u~?.: 2. :.ir L=3 j`li...._:i).y hc.5pitau, MeL.tiC3l d-CC!II?L'aj ~.:d 3 Pcr cost of auit a:.= tuch Gtl:ar and :=thcr relief as to t;"_%: 4'Gi:rL =e'}'r 5e'6n ,}i_'It. •• _d C:i:a L7c h~. . . 1. General d;nagts in tha wzz of ~500yGC3.CJ; 2. ;or su:.3 iacurreu tor burial, fuaeral, hospital, sedical a: d praFSC:,io=:a1 e:cya: ces Sdr, uL-.:?: E. La3.:LLa, Cs^.Qased; . 3. zar cas;L of cuit azu vach ct: er :r.3 furthcr relie: as to :h: GCzrt °µ; _t .. ~..-..n f..~.d A l a .n.... :~ ?tterr.C~•n for ,?=:n:iffs ~3-

SS Attorae}+tet PlaZrtifts b;G Sozth Crand D.var•se S.oZ Ar.Ea3cs 27, CaIi3'or:1a COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CL3f.~A X. S,a33LLZ, A 3'3nor, by ar,.d ti:y-oa her Gt;a.rdis. Ad L!t C!iRI5TI2:'. $. La3zI,LP:; 9ACrID Ke Z~~-Ztai i.lialS2l{ :Z H. Ls3.''.LL.°.a ~ Pisia LIGll'..i= t~ AiYE'S TOUA CCQ CCI PA i' a Y + s} { ~. s ~~ q _ ~ e . a corT.oratiew, F.. I. 1:. C. .1 titSFl h, A C~sr~oration; a^,d LC'~s T Lo :S~ - DefeadanEf 784773 N0. Aation brought in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, and aiat fikd in the Offttt of the Qerk of uperior court of said County. 'PFIE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SEND GitSETSYtCrS TO: LICuva., &~t °'~i C kCCO COi PA Y~ 3a aCr~araL3a: p._tfk_y'ICAS iO3.~CC.O ~ _ ...~, .~ _1.._a di. A's SS'i<'::ay iis :)sj &s f'.. .F'r'z':?.i'.a .•. 'Js: F_*.32AL ?tC[SPITALa . A Ccrpsratio^t ar,d DES :S I to Z,I7s - ........_....._...._...~_..__.__...-, Defendaat.6 You are directed to appear in an a :n the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angelea, and to answer the Complaint therein within ten days after the service on you of this Summars, if served within the County of Los Angeles, or within thirty days if served elsewhere, •, and you are notified that unless you appear and answer as above required, the p7aintifL_ will take judgment for any money or damages demanded in the ~. Comptaint, as arising upoa conttract, or will apply to the Court for any ather relief demanded in the __ Complaint, Given under my hand and seal of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, this-day of e- ~ V ? 241sROLIf d. OSTZY, County Clerk and Olelk of LOS _ ANGELES COUNTY) the Superior Court of the State of California, In ZVZ'Y} ead for the County of Los Angeles By__ 'a KR(?PiG.`SF,^ Deputy in an action when he answers. demura. fsles a n tten notice of his appearance• or when an a ike. and written notices of a must be in writiag, in form pursuant to rule of court, accompanied with the necessary ee, and filed with the C. Cier1

........ »i i.a..':... ..; 4~..v..... ~'y .....a. 4_.^:.-....-usp fifl i..C`:: {tf titr37s 0 1$ y_'r:.. ...._ . ~e Jey ..e::; i:. ..-.:~. .Ti.+e .. _. ..-..y _. i:.: , ....:.i.-y tir,d ZC-Z i to 5.1.; L2Yi C'..~:2 , ,.._.. C~_...«_..-'=y ~ ... ....._ C: ..... :ry v: ~ua..... _. ,.-..~_.:. .:~ ~a _ .. ..__~ ....~w•...~. G: ..._~....~.~, .. .,.. -.; s.. ..~..~ 1:-:a ..,..... :~. ___.._.... .... _a eS tl:8 r~~'r}acYu af <. . .. :.y :.. .,,.....a...... -• . . -.....y ...:4 ..,..,.4C :.v; C:.y;i! 3<•:ri; :.^d . ~- ...e ..; .aL'r ..t_ i.: _..~ .. .. . ......... iS} Ca ...._ :; to Ci _fn:^.Z=:d, Lo Z .. _. -,..~ _ i. ~ L_<._._, :... ~.... -..._ a.-._.-... Y.• i.~_:_. -, ...._. 5. =::°__ ra to ,r.r.xsro t::c rs,.. :.i~ _ 4. cn.-scr.e of ",?... .... 4s ..~:~ iL,Ct :3 a k`„f. ru:,23t Of t}8 i:aFr$32;S;.:C 43` sl. Xe a JS2.`ia atU Gait 00 .. :y' ", -.... _.. `.iy ~..:`I fl: :^.I.. •- a..,_.. to ...rY.e or dru;;o, a3 a:3rczaid, y18i.^.t.aI= } t5~ e~ber _. .._._ ....w - ? `.Lc..., 1. .w. . died on or about De( C:) ;.Y7 _.5_ 1 1 C-,> C) C)

1!.' i`hat glr.i,:..i:a a:e i~c~ci ,.-r! 3o_ia-:o ar_d uyon such bels~r: tL;!. at ii,1 t3 4G9 .'S}ittfQ^"eQ 6S.d Ez::1 Of t::-'-, S'..,:3 9:::3 t`;yC.^.t.i, s3Y'lTU^.t$ and z.:_i JLca o: thc=r cc-4.ft ~: s, &r.3, as ssch, ectro acting uithin t,e cca:..rsa and ccoMo of sdd :~,zrc7 s.^d s.^iay=crt. 12 13 X ~ iw'+.`T j::iC..^ to ths ffi:^f L: thia &CtioA, TiiEas`a 3. ++8M.zsa dt_csed, cor:.a'••ted and the s=:etcas of CIISan'.~^.ta, bF. F. •r. - u .,..~iss~R.., 14. J.! fta 1.a ., ia....~ v~•., v ^C .• " ..e u *sa, .ria C. 3.:. Fiaz, mr D., SL': Z.."a:a s':..~+.`~J: i.iL FsiMUw, u.'•,at ~'l.'.z I to =_ attf. C.^._h Cf tkCv, tt'D Q.:L`.^eir-rai _ . .- • .. "-...-'._cr., diezua3ie, a~ ~.,'.d ,~ V4ww~`...._. ci. £ "'L ei 3'.°~3 L;L.ta tS'.Ilt L=S cr4e-t t?-escvo, an3 __ch ef tt:^u, tsr_,:cr:aoE: to _°? ._•~:cT4b; or L':.:z5, T tw~,:a r, ra3 i,'=uv ,.rd cas.ra2 the e: :'a c: ,._at j'.rior to C::. 'l`!2.'.£^ L_~ t...'a Cct{on, i:faf£CCII.tII, :i. ~. ?1C3°I^A? , a ecr^-`.'~ er c^_~ ~~ i,: _3 I to =o incl_aivets a_3 ea_h cr thc, e::=;r.c3, yrcatn:, ca:eC ftr, p:escribed G: ~4-:•_3, y."•r•rtC-:f!'•`. 5+::'c£:+', A:d " $:1:,CT`-iLCQ t-13 Car O Si'Q '4 t cE=::rt of CL4Nr: t* a.nC reclisest2y failed to rczecss =d to cserciaa in eaid e:„zitact3ar., diE„osia, trestment, czr e, ~r a c:Kntioz of »e.'_' cir_o or dr u,r,a, pc=fara.ar.ce of surgary, =3 i3^..:wis.cn ef tha c,~~o .:~ tr^,t=c::u o1 ==Pt Z. Za' Lri, thut dc;rso of ' Y3s3.c a c.3 atc i2 cuttc=; rily Fosoeasad er~ e..croinad by otYrr dtcvoro, hzs;,itals, raraeo, attcr.dacsta, tsnd t:a licc, a;!~a e:La3© in caid r:oi'ccr•ioas irn the ay.r.o arcn aa the ew+d dc°a:4cnt=, and eoch of t`swn, that cait 3+a:_.dzAta, snd w_c'1 of tK^a, ico3univo, rvc_li,,:..^vl} fa!led to c:arn glai.r.tiffr,, t>w) N -b- ~~ O ~Jn --a ~ ,~

JSJ 5aut2s LraLd Lrormo Loa azi;a2ss 17, £aliSor€ia .~^.~soa 6-&7b2 13 14 16 17 a$ COk:PL12F.1 Fo+'. £AYA4:3 F ZrrsatiCB, 8ruaah . ~. ;. i ? of :`II!`ra31.7) .S. L.: .^>:,':IF<."i 2'.s.i.:iRw A Ct7ry?CraviOLj ti :.°. a....S, 1 to XIX%, iaf 4: tS9a«< :.`s`+_.' 2.£a the plaio.Liff%, GL:;:=a X. L:,::aL3, a:3r.ar, by e:d thr:'.:,qh hur {i.:ardinn ad Litmi C= 4?STi~.: z. LaB:3.Zij fi1.VID K. Za7ai.L; and CF21oME E. La5."sZL3, aad for their first cause of ectioa agaiasy tha da:eadaats, md asch of thaa, al2sAa as fol2avs I :Aat prior to the co:~ty^.vcar.t of the ahsva entitled oatioa,* wIM33ZIL€ B. La ...°`E3rLE was ag^.oimto3 Guars#iaa ad Litea ot the uinor p2e..futitf, GL :,.ru: 8. L4'a£L2.3 by ordar of t'sa aDove datitloG Couswi a: d zna Is the riulg qualifisd and aatitt; SrnrsSiatt ad Litta of aaidd zciror plaintiff. r.ttarteya for Plaizt TTc TM: Si`iP.-x'~"'.I0,3 CGiZ3T CF 5R.: 3;ATS t7F CAZ2e-D3k7d Z2! Atig FQA 4f:8 f.f}L'fiT7 OF SA8 2}IWO L 2:~d °. 3sz9."ZLS, A 33r.ors t7 } AD. 784773 :a..;d thsacrh har Cna^diaa Ad L3taas ) C:: ."!£T3:'~; ft. Za_u,...U a~-'ta Z9 5s 3 ~ u ~. L.*..: zi:j £'.e1P,IsTI£. 8. Lt3:L:s's3 j. Finictitfat 3 va.

e 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 28 27 28 30 31 32 ch of t'_-cn; .,r.:.t defetdsnts, ar,d e.,ck of 'f.:'c'1, did tHL•r'`~ '-t_zC:h t:.~ .=:1^'c~~'~ ,,rC3,, lu'Ta^:Ittf3 A.2L~4 '.a III _'aat ,rricr to the fi'i-, cf tS•_s aczir.n, p2ai:,tiffa< decedent to fi._r did 'ay tf! T'..-CS a CG: a;?, s aorporaticn, ~, ~I3ta: ~:CC1 CGI1':II?, a ccrporaticr., : t:_ D3v` YYKI to ;°.MY, incLusi`ra, F.nd each of them, the parchase said tabacco prodacts. Iv That as a direct and grc:lzate rctuit of the breach of Eafes~erts aa ar:' z_ vtvc F2iGI^d =ri: intiffs, ~LB :?:. : . __. LcL~"~, :i:fED r. LaB :,L~ Cz! Cii:°,i~-_.,u S. LwF_LL u_re -;iver: , •^•iy Of t_._ s2:'_.".jAry, :1ai".'., aff•'ccti'3II, cF.r•J FRd ;....'_eP.3 of SaiC ...._..., E. L;,._a...:, all to ta:J'sr ..:~F.'9 t%`+" gM'i of aC4r%,LL..4s.F4 } .t t L.`S a ^•ir^-zt .=1 a-^'llt Cr ti:[ of v......_iY, ... Ca=i.:_=tiE3Ay ... _.:iv.a'. .~•L.Lci-.r a C'Jr'^T'at$.0:1, and li.`~.";+.1 :i.l`S ta df.r.L, as c_;., _~?iG, Clai.".tiffc3, K. L;:v_LLG and Lav::LLv, H^.:o cc=palxcd to and did incur t+arial, ::tntr:.i, h-9spit.~.I, .^•Br,iL•_l I'r0°=9?iSn3l al'Il9;.308, :.;.lieli oa2 prsss havc not Dae= fr.3.ls uzccrtain.e3 at tLs time of the filing co=plaintZ that tr..n cai.d infare:,.tion is a:cc»eair:e3, e:id plaiatiffa will s.< leave of a'v::rt to a ozd this cc~T=sint ac ~r¢ic,lp. YF:at Ia.^.intiffs, GLZ_:3; DAVID Ii. ia3BLL::, and C:::i:S:Ib:3 B. Zs3sLLs, Swae ctice of tht sfrreaaid breach of vr,:..zantiea to the defer.dazts, LSvZ. ^: ic E»rr.t:, Tfi&ACt:p CGSiFAiSY, a car;,o: ition, :.: d ,~:~MC,:;? ^C='t1v0 CC.i: n2+Y, a corporation, _'to_

13 that sa.id to!)z+:co p:ac.eto, ac :1or=sr,tion°_3, of defondasza, n$ oiare^cctioaed, ;.::r3 s" v of ~e^eh at:.a tE?it~, nor fit far corK:n.^,.tion, mor rca,a. :~ fit for the p-•srposa iatoadod, in said grci.acts cZr>'ti. `!.iL'S.d GL'botrC.c£'S, :IIclGCLi^.g, but not 3.imite4( to, c: ss_i.c. tars. and r,icotir-a. Lav1d, could, =d did, ; r3duca ca^.cer in tfs lun; of GL31:.; S. Lr3ZL5, dncaaaed; that t: fl: cfore the deSanc2ants, LIG=Y & ;4_° a9 7~S.wvO C0T3Ai,T, a oo.roratioa, A!MSi,dfi i05.iCCc CQr.I'AI'Y, a corporetioa, ar•d DOoS XXI to =, and each of thea, an aforea:aationed, bresched the ira2ie3 «:rrantias maQo to p2aintiffs and to plcintiffst decadoat, GLEN2? i. La3'; that p?; ir.tiffs and p?zi: tif_s= decedort relied upon e~-Id ir^liad frt.^r:r.ties of d t2 dtcts, trs aforemcctianed, and hsd _o knazrledZ~c• of the hecsrws irr.clcc3 in the use and ccs.;mption o= tte sforcmestione3 tcSscce *^od=ct3 of dcftn'r.ts. ..... :-77Q:E, pl~rtif:< <: r.q fUr ; --=tt C iezt the daYanda->ts, ach of th.=, 2s fo3lofa. 2. For sti*:s ir.c,=: ri i,~r t::ria2., fu*.:e.ra., l:oapitai, rer'.ical S-ea^.sCS :;r ..~....... 3. For co--t of suit atd c:[.*.z other =d fest*er relief as to : .a Court : ay ssea Jsst. S:.CG,7 C&U5E QF ACT1C2.: . 1. C=:,ars3 damagos in the su2 af z5f30,CC0.fl0; 2~ 2. aor s+is incurred for ',:rial, funeral, hospital, cadical 28 rr d i,ro_°essioral expenses Fcr Za3:?SLE, deceased; 29 3. For cost of anit .ad cu=:: ct.er and fr.rther relief aa to s£ea ,$uat. ~-.~_

+dio .,. nNCr +u.ca c.rcwc ./C,4.~0 C.iLMWTt,enM ~w.s a.aa«ws HARNEY, FORD £ SLHLQTTMAN .'ETOANZYS wT ~...W 8EG $OUTH ORANC .AVENUC LOS ANGELES /7. LAUfOftHtA eTtL'.v .'~.it 1961 0 i p V ~=nrican T'abccco Gc_; r,:,7 .v3 r`~G ".iO.irrL f.zvd C i.~:.f G «a.. rnC..c»s MAG,iON 6-fT6~ ...'-; i .. ' JL c.3 : by c.a v_ `;z-r:S. Sit N3 ^F.ti G:i titL• i:.s.. ° t.!7 TvR `:a_ va^:~ ws sr:frr. ~` ..L.."=-`=anad an3 Scid fi.'lli"4t4Ff•s yCji ~rOcL'15, cT i:'.~CJ&"s$s to r'.Y•a Lc:'.:iilrs rero r.nv fiv t:j s:7 .~cti iater.::73, nor aatuf usr rr^se L:__7 o: ns:.rza t..raa qua].iCy, ar.d tiris letter is to =u i_g y: o. that iE:c a`:.cva-meaticand r.zy=•rar.tiaa kero i,r=cs:3S by yxa and that 2s e : Qo~:it of a cid bra:: %- oi r.•. -: ra:Y.;: Lp pco., Nu. La:n3.Io dt Cd Cs II s`E.'aui$ cf .".:1.-^. 83''w`iiaj'i: :t,.iJ vviSL'r3CCd CtYrCG'3" Ci Lb3 l'S:.y. • Tc=•:n -e ,_ trn:ays J. D:_'J iiiIiliM i • }7. SfIMU3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 0 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 1;':~.; thEt zs .: fLrs<cr c+.°rcct e.nc ~ c_~, ta reza*_t 01, the r.ftuI.f.-C6cC O: cad .::u., ii:_~"_'t:-.. ~. L~= ~e i.uY9 b:.... or the auy^,r.rt, ccC;:::SO^s.'',3pp c:r.:Cl:.y 1070, ¢.^rG=t3o.*:,, c:re. u d tr-~fsea cr ac.4d sG_':`.:. 4. ;.t:;'aL.'=, dccc:.ont, c12 to t^air in the Ct.: of ;hraL Oa a t'tra_t a:cd a:-r_;°3t of tta ea-1frcy_ra a: ~v~r,r'ar.tc fi`. 7. I',:.'?~:I~~..F`• '_,'?~:I~..F`•'_, F'. L., a. A. 1^1.=aa, V. L., t. C. dZM!kZ, i:. I7., S..al:i'3 }`. v:If.S F:C-MAT:.:.y v carFcrIIti^.^., aRCS =53 I rc _"., Ssa3tsi~o, ~.G c.oh 6: ttG:, ts ,'uoat:.:d, pLeSat3Srs# c::Ct` u{3>.Z,+-.T~.^':r 3. Y:_^f3 rC f_21t1 to r~-.« t;d :css !=-,l, :~:.^al, c.,+t 3y t. Sc.2 c.1 ;'^oS.. ,c.r3 cz-pc..aw, r:_, a., ._._ t;.t bcr rilC:^ e-c_^C:.3r Ld «: L} Q t3_i= c_ .__ 3_ .. r : ~n L'_:c._ s:..id a*..2Z ::_s iclra ar ta c==~, ;... .' . ....:......... ..~. ~:.._..... :r.:~~.::.. .".t.S:.. ~;? , *. . n,•y.... .7.+,S.i~.. .y __....J•i o ......:.....:...y (}: a...` a :'.'twt pZIIfw'`.i'£;, f:. 3•5~:.,H47.TJ i. en1 ::r;:: :PM 3. La1lL3y ra.:1c;C ' f_a.;ars"a karr.Sa by rofarasaa =*_~ ,;h rtrL2y c e- ra.." ~!: ..t Ic:,;~h acaFs wd c4c.^p n2.iat=C1Ga OS i rG7rt^s I, Tiy I;I, t'ST, :I?I ccd ;..', Cf tSo:.^ M^tt C`:.to of' :,ttSo s~s: afcr 3vg ant II L ccrIorALSO:i td X.t.LZ, ,... y..: d atlh a_ tzr~., a;.d ..aw c; a, ca,-ewed. iA tExa s ~ ~~ ~~~

0 • XXX Sy reason of the conduct of the defendants &. 7. OLDS T#lSdCCO CO. and Twenty-first Doe through Thirtieth Doe, each of them, as aforesaid, including but not limited to, the dvertising of the said products by means of national magazines, eriodicals, radio, television, billboards, posters, point-of-sale advertising, and other advertising means, defendants, and each of them, warranted to the general public, including VIRGIL Y,6NEY, de- ceased, that the said products which were intended for human use and consumption were safe for such use and consumption and did not contain dangerous, toxic, or carcinogenous agents and substances. 7LYXZ Defendants R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., Twenty-first ugh Thirtieth IIoe, and each of them, breached the afore- said warranties in that they purveyed the said products at a time wher they in fact contained dangerous, toxic, and carcinogenous agents and substances which were inherently dangerous to human Iife and which made the said products unfit for their intended use and - unfit for human consumption. - XXXI1 Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates herein 2211 by reference each and every allegation of paragraphs XK, M, XXII I. - WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against defend 25 ! ants, and each of them, as follows: 26 1 (1) For general damages in the sum of Two Hundred 27 Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00); 28 (2) For medical and incidental expenses according 29 to proof; _ 0 (3) For all costs of suit herein; and 31 (4) For such other and further relief as r-his court ~ 3$ deem:. proper. -a-

1 2 4 Jr ~ 7 ~ 9 3Q II 22 I3 14 15'. 0 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ! sccc.^cL' -.;Zy. .v:I A .++a2 'tA4j" .j yjt 6.I:~ ii.vii GP a?1:a,''.2;F5, GLirJA S~s L.vvs^'='y.T., Y.M-D r. s+Y.Y_li,a. .T'.ai~.+I+., ~~.~S.rt.~'. 'c.r! •. fOa'+F.t.`uzs: ~ :^.ti.. plaicti:.:, GbirjA :. :..13=LLi:, D1IM 7.. L23:.ILL s3i3 - is"~'I'i`hw B. .T.e;_iLI rarlls,,;c ~.t i:.co.,.era:z b+rseia by reSeraace t:Lcnr?• ft:7.1^ e<t fcrt:: .:: a_cbh an Q c: z: f all.:catian of , a~~,s I, I:, ZIZ, rI«, .I i _TY a: Li ±r .irst Cv-,-a of a '=_,-csr v v c•. ft_ 11 z:._ IIi cf thcir sc icr. 1.~.GTu!S-^.- ' i"5r-Zz<<.:, _....:*_ti~ ~._s__.,,-~ u, *_tLd Gols: SzAd. C&b«.".ca . u..zZ3 33' ani ia7t@I:tr i.:+ :;.AQ 'y.•J:~7.::..... A'-=0 LU `.a5 .":j .....`..:Ja'.'S af LhU i.au:3C, j.L^cltld inG Ylr•..vlS.lz ua ta-AI.L•t.f23t clw4y3a1L, G.uaiRlt 31. {l:3.•~.--'r4L, c.:.4 r,`.~ a3 :a z_:tbcrs of tu: ~c..r 3_^sD31c ..:,c: to piaR;...ffs and tc p1aiLti4fst u•ecacsn4, .i.av sa.id ym;:•::cz3 &ars arSe. iusz3.sas, t.znid not FraCuca ill stScc`:.c, bcneiicinl, na:Z irritatinz;, will not ...,a.>c coughing or relatcZ cian::--.rs, ","d, natinfgirr,, ar„ootb, ;--o1.aab3.u, &entla, nsia: tca atren~, at11aya Just rigat, frSaadlp to yr.::r taeL~, :,a_ o, r~.tis to tws sa:u Ofi't-tj that , rraL'•Uyt3 cJ:t as ?L t.'}.3i: 5aa2d pn?til:ets c:• :Gal~.::d 3tf'3S.~.d:3cd8 t.i22ih i caaSZd GL'Ts:Br in tiSB lL•Gg of j7i#iFSCf ffs* . z:;_tcer.t, Gi:~.:ZL :;. Lay3.i.:a pSai.r-tiifa and plaSntiSfs, ~ ce?a: ._rcI#a2 i:zzn ,;td and K : z-rar,tfes - -9-

51. That defendant PHILIP SfOg$IS, aided and abetted by all the other 3efer.dants in this complaint, strove, and ' still strives, to give the impression to the gublic, including ... divided on the issue of the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer; but that there is now, at the time of the service of this complaint, and at all times since 1930 has been, no such divis;.on of opinion or cuncluss.un among reputable acier.tzs.o and experimenters not connected with the tobacco industry; .hat all, or virtually all, of said scientists agree that smokine does increase the 3~s's a: contracting c;ancer of the :espi:•.xccrr tract organs and other respiratory portions of the body, includ- ing the lungs. 52. That defendant PHILIP MORRIS' brands of cigarettes, when burned and smoked, form and release into the respiratory tract organs and the respiratory portions of the body, includ- ing the lungs, various known carcinogenic substances, includ- ing, but not` limited to, various forms of benzpyrene, benz- fluoranthene, benzanthracene, polycyclic aromat3c hydrocarbons and such known co-carcinogens as phenol. 53. That defendant PHILIP MORRIS' brands of cigarettes, when burned and smoked, form and release into the respiratory tract organs and the respiratory portions of the body, nicotine; that said nicotine is a known throat irritant and cough pro- ducer. 54. That medical authorities estimate that there would 000 to 500,000 fewer deaths in the United States annu- al1y, were it not for smoking; and that between one and two million persons in the United States are constantly being debilitated by smoking cigarettes. 55. That none of the medical and scientific reports, studies and surveys hereinabove alleged was made available di- t?7 -12- N 7 O f51 ~ L•I

plier of products for hunan consumption is required to possess, defendant PHILIP MORRIS knew, or should have known, that its cigarette products were carcinogenic or probably carcinogenic. .3. That un.iertna carcur,utances then exiscing, defen- dant PHILIP MORRIS, in the exercise of ordinary'care, should have known that its cigarette products were carcinogenic. 79. That the special knowledge that the defendant PHILIP tu}RRIS naccas<e!i r,r chou}d have nncses=ed. as aforesairi. about .._2 i1rCi;O~iniC natUre of its ciea:ettc products, »ls knowledge and inforesation that plaintiff did not possess, and . in the nature of things could not have possessed, and which said defendant knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care under the . circumstances then existing, should have known, that plaintiff not possess. ', 80. That defendant PHILIP MORRIS, as aforesaid, negli- gently failed to ascertain the nature and quality of its cigar- ette products with respect to the effect thereof upon the health of human consumers during the period from 1930 through 1963, and that defendant was negligent, under the circumstances then and there existing, in specifically failing to perform, or in failing to have performed for it, adequate scientific tests and inspections; and that said tests and inspections, if performed, shown that its cigarette products sere probably car- cinogenic when smoked in the way and aanner in which it was and designed to be smoked and consumed. 81. That the defendant PHILIP E%}&&IS, by other acts and emissions, was negligent under the circumstances then and there existing in failing to exercise the standard of care re- quired of a manufacturer and supplier of a product in common use and especially required of a manufacturer and supplier of cigarette products, defendant's brands of cigarettes, created solely for intimate contact with the human body and for con- 0D 18- PQ ~ LD tFI LYJ -A ~

then and there .n......,,,,,.,.._. for human consumption to ¢ive tc the available medical and scientific reports, studies, surveys and experiments which in- dicated that the sr..okin- of cigarettes was prabably a si_cni`<_- cant factor in the development of cancer, particularly in the respiratory tract organs and other respiratory portions of the body, including the lungs. . 74. That defendant PHILIP MORRIS was negliggent in failEnz to analyze and evaluate properly the results of rne aforementioned studies; and had defendant PHILIP MORRIS so' done, it would have known that there was a substantial and repu- table group of physicians and surgeons who held the view that the prolonged smoking of cigarettes was a cause of respiratory tract cancer. 75. That whatever was the state of defendant PHILIP o the effect of smoking upon human health on or about the year 1930 when plaintiff, as aforesaid, began to smoke said defendant's cigarette products, as the years passed said defendant negligently failed to keep itself abreast and to inform itself as to the new scientific information, dis- coveries and advances, as alleged aforesaid, which had been made and which were being made i.n relation to the etiology of lung, respiratory tract and bronchial tract cancer and the role of cigarette smoking in said etiology. 76. That, upon information and belief, defendant position, which was negligent, callous i and reckless, under the circumstances then and there existing, and still maintains the position, that it is not in the cancer research business. 77. That through the exercise of the ordinary and com- mon scientific foresight and technical skill which under the circumstances then and there existing a manufacturer and sup- CV) t CD iT7 GD l.rt 11[3

New York. 5. That defendant I&c' ti.Oti\CIL FOR TOBACCO dESEARCi€ - Institute Research Committee during the time periods during which plaintiff was a smoker of cigarettes, is a voluntary un- incorporated association with its principal place of business in the =cate <_ .. l-rn. :s3i, _,..n its £secutive Oirector, W. T. HOYT, is in the position of Pres- ident of said defendant. 6. That defendant TOBACCO INSTITUTE, ZNC.(hereinafter referred to as IaSTITU'PB), is a membership corporation organ- ized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. 7. That defendant R. 3. REYNOLDS, INC. (hereinafter referred to as REYNOLDS), is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, and doing business in the State of New York. 8. That defendant AMSRICAN TOBACCO CObiPANY (herein- after referred tn as AMERICAN TOBACCO), is a corporation organ- ized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its prin- cipal place of doing business in the State of New York. 9. That defendant LIGGSST & HYERS TOBACCO CO. (here- inaiter referred to as LIGGErr & MYERS), is a corporation or- ganized under the laws of New Jersey and registered and licen- sed to do business in the State of New York. 10. That defendant P. LORILLARD Ca., INC. (hereinafter referred to as I4RILLAAD), is a corporation organized under the laws of New Jersey and registered and licensed to do business in the State of New York. C=: N3 -2- 4 CD ~ N3 1A.

mz+._+ v *.v~r r AMERICAN A79ACC0, TQBACCX! CO., INC.1 P. LEO BURNET4' 00., INC.; HI 'NC.: '!YJD3CCO I\STI?Li£ i\C. • Lobacc<, ac?au~Lr} xesea.tn . '+ER ifl££. Index Vo. 8740-64 , Co., INC.; ' ac"^at: _ :-er3r s:r.• ;; as ocvv-n_..•e ryr_ IGGE'3"i' & MYERS DCf er3.F'_t5 ------------------------------------------- Plaintiff, complaining of the defendants by his att neys, SPEISER, SHUIdATE, GE{3GHAX & LAW, respectfully alleges: AS AND FOR A FIRST CAIISB OF ACTIDN AGAINST DSSENDANT PHILIP MOSRIS INC. 1. That plaintiff is, and at all tises hereinafter mentioned *ast a citizen and resident of the Cesnonwealth of p2vania. ' Z.-- That defendant PHILIP Y388I9 I1FCORPQRATEa (herein- after referred to as PfiILIP iR8HI8), 3a a corporation incor- under the lasa of the Conimomeaath of Virginia, and has its principal place of doing business in the State of New York. 3. That defendant LEO BtlRNETT Ci}., INC. (hereinafter referred to as BDAaBTT), is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois, and is registered and li- censed to do business in the State of New York. 4. That defendant HIId. 4 IIi0*LRONt INC. (hereinafter referred to as HILL & gNOIILTON)r is a New York corporation, £X3 with its principal place of doing business in the State of ~ C LrI C~?

forming and which were known to all of the defendants to be habit-forming, but which x•ere not known to the plaintiff to be habit-forming. .• , 63. That at no time uid plaintiff smoke any other brands of cigarettes except those of defendant PHZLZP SH3HHIS, . hereinabove identified. 64. That as a direct and proximate result of thus con- ~ sumine defendant PHILIP HQBRIS' c;rarette orednv•t~ o-r -W extended per_od from 1930 into the g•ea_- 1963, ,::,._..Yf __.^.*+_ became seriously ill and did develop adenocarcinoma in the apex . of his right.Zung. 65. That plaintiff's condition and affliction as one of lung cancer was first diagnosed, by biopsy, during the month ~ of May, 1963. 66. That plaintiff was compelled to, and did, undergo a pneumonectomy in said moath of May, 1963, of his said right lung, in an attempt to rid his body of the cancer which had caused, as aforesaid, by his smoking of defendant PBILIP IS' brands of cigarette product. 67. That plaintiff is informed, and believes that he is still suffering from, and wili continue to suffer for the rest of his life, from said carcinomous condition. 68. That as a result of said carcinoma and pheumonec- tomy as aforesaid, plaintiff has undergone great pain and suf- fering, mental and physical and, upon information and belief, will continue thus to suffer for the rest of his life. 69. That as a result of said carcinoma and said pneu- ( monectomy as aforesaid, plaintiff has had to employ, and upon information and belief, will continue to require for the re- mainder of his life, the services of physiciaqs and surgeons to examine and care for him. That as a direct and proximate result of the wrongful and tortious acts of the defendant PHILIP MORRIS, Cz_)L -IS- C:+ ~ Ca £z•f ~

sity and college periodicals and newspapers and to promote cig- : arette consumgtion contests, even though said defendants knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care under the circumstances then and there Pxist3ae chouSd have known, th- ~t such oractice has been condemned in the United States. That said defendants or should have known, that the INSTITUTE has condemned such practice. 1`___ ___ _..._. .___.._ _i .. . cigarette advertising in the United States, a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations of the House of Repre- sentatives of the United States Congress, issued an official Subcommittee report, after conducting hearings in connection with the aforesaid investigation, to the effect that defendant's brands of cigarettes were high in tar content and other con- tents and ingredients believed to be carcinogenic, and to the effect that PHZLIP MORRIS' advertising of its said cigarettes was false and misleading. 29. That as early as 1942, the United States Federal Trade Commission considered a complaint that the advertising for the defendant PHILSP MORRIS' "Philip Morris" brand of cigar- ettes as prepared by defendant SIIRHETT was improper and in vio- lation of the rules and regulations of that governmental body, in that the advertisements stated, among other matters, that the smoke of "Philip Morris" cigarettes was less irritating to the upper respiratory tract than that of other cigarettes and that "Philip Morris" cigarettes did not leave an aftertaste in the mouth of the consumer. 30. That during the period of pendency of such com- plaint with the Federal Trade Commission, the defendants PHILIP IS and SiJRNETT continued thus to advertise said "Philip Morris" cigarettes. That during the year 1959, the said deien- Co -7- (Li O C]-i ~ r3 ~~

i 32 ia E-ut tridzt tr1 =:ZE?„i i2Ba:.ii, dcctX:;1C!?J th,rt Z. f_.?...`3.j,:, LtL`c".9a .r4d. HaS t32Q f.::^.C7 o£ 'ySl,a::.t.if, .1-+.y'1a F:. and r-4LCr i)'iGiLLift, AL'a`A Y..J ~. Ls@BLLa; thnt plaintif,s arl t1e sola 3urririrg kaira at lay of CiIXI" S. Ln3:.:.LN, dscoasod. ' I~z 'lsnt tbst t:na =ao, cef..:oitiea, or detf=dontshig, whstbar izd:fi#.dual, ca,arnto, aas:.ciate, or oth+srssiaa, of $a.ondar.ts, t-:::3 ? to =I, ine3vzivo, a.:.d eLeh of tY,cm, are o.-usoun to the pI+.r•etif£a, v!4 tsr_rsforo cre thaso c,uScad:nta bp asch SietStioun . skca asd ui23, ack IE.sa of Lotrt to ts::c::d th1s aoop2aint wcaa the as .a s?u?1 b.avo bec^ ts tr ~`~:d; th:t pisintiffa a.ro ixfc:ood nnsf balis7o as:G u;on €uch ir.for-. :tto = s: 4 beZief r.2lega, tk.., t sach dsfaz-3ar.t dazi»- :od kan s! x as u~=L :~ vas re--,r.ce_ible, tsLlivcatlp or i: ex:.e atY:cr Lct:oY'_-1c fr:: t«c creafs r.rd `arpmrlr.,t rc: :.r: c„ to ::c: :a, s.?: ah s: a v-W_clf cs::cd 2o4.zry to pl+sintiffs asz : c: c. :r,:'tcr :.Llcts::, SY 'Mat st all ti=as s,^',ivrcd4 x. 2. k"t4Y:Y, Y. II., tr.: !-*.i:S I to 1L, i:clcaiv;:,c^.d cuv't cf tT=, trsra, ar.d toar rs4, g3;;cicia:..s =C v_r>;eora, Licc::cd by tho Steta of Califoraia to praetico :.od1cine rzr.d F,;nc;l ia tizn Ateta of Caiiforata. T 2tmt at si2 timex aoutioaQd, d4SsaCaats, TxOZ:3 YZ to z'v, tncla:.iac, as:4 c:,cis ctf thoa, +scrs dcttors, rasreea, attar.dsntm, rs_ployaea, vd t*s I1Le. of d:.a:L Yt, ::.:IIPF3 3;.~'.,~'~:iTAL BGSFSTAL, a totromtitrn. Y}::t p1ai.^.tita cre i:in.vs:1 snd b+xlibvs and upoA such i:.ara_tioa a:.d'aallal s11c-ra, th;;t dafencSar.ts, SC.'v.ZPn it«;MIAL -2- ~' `J ~~ V f V V

$ rectly to plaintiff, either by the makers or publishers of said reports, or by any of the defendants herein; that, instead, plaintiff was ce^neller{ to rely on such accounts, summaries and interpretations of said reports, studies and surveys as ap- ;_.. -' .. ._. . -.. . .-. .... . ..... .._....srg .<..< -. . ;f. or were disseminated over the radio and television stations to which he was a listener or a viewer. 56. That by the actions of all of the defendants in L1:13 or 16.73I'ett:1y, a ::,1jeI'Ity •._ the aforesaid repcr,=, studies and surveys which tended to im- plicate or to link s.^okinc with various diseases and afflic- tions, includiaa ._an<<er, never came to plaintiff's attenc_3n. That those of said reports, studies and surveys which did come to plaintiff's attention appeared or were presented in a much diluted, confused or obfuscated form, and were accompanied by reports from one or another of the defendants, and especially the defendant C<)i€2TCIIL after the date of its formation, which criticized or contradicted such medical and scientific reports, studies and surveys and made it appear that they were not en- titled to public credence and scientific respect. 57. That the defendant PHILIP MORRIS, aided and abetted by the other defendants in this complaint, possessed economic power through capability of placing expensive tobacco adver- tisements and telecommunications commercials with numerous and competing press and communications media. That said defen- dants, among the various radio and television networks and sta- tions, and among the media of magazines and newspapers, ob- tained and wielded said economic power, directly and indirectly, to coerce said media selling advertising time and space to re- with respect to medical and scientific reports, studies and surveys as to the effect of smoking upon human health, only what said defendants wanted reported, and in the style and eran- ner which said defendants desired. CID It3 -23- a t=3 C)f ~ ~ U-x

the effects of smoking upon the lungs, by pointing out signi- ficant increases in abnormal cellular pathology in smokers, in- cluding metaplasia, hyperplasia and carvinoma in situ in the y,~^ac r~^^r.k? .. 46. That in 1961, Dr. Ernest L. Wynder, of the Sloan- • C Institute, reviewed all of the evidence to that date on the subject of smoking and lung cancer, and concluded that S ~uu.-.isut .. 1:rng would develop. 47. That in 1964, the 3dvisory Committee of the Surgeon General of the Cn:ted States 3rcduced and issued a 397-pace report entitled, "Smoking and Health". That such report reached the conclusion that on the basis of prolonged study and evalua- tion of many lines of converging evidence, cigarette smoking is a health hazard of suFficient importance in the United States to warrant appropriate remedial action. 48. That Dr. Paul Kotkin, an associate of defendant COUNCIL and-member of its scientific board, together with Dr. &ans L. Falk, writing for said defendant COUNCIL in 1960, ad- mitted that smoking was a causative factor in lung cancer. 49. That the then Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. Leroy F. Burney, in 1959 reported that the weight of evi- dence at that time implicated smoking as the principal etio- Iogical factor in the increased incidence of lung cancer, and that unless the use of tobacco could be made safe, the indivi- dual person's risk of lung cancer could best be reduced by the elimination of smoking. 50. That Dr. Herman B. Hilleboe, t4es York State Cam- missioner of Health, in 1959 reported that from the practical standpoint, there was already enough evidence incriminating cigarette smoking to justify advising the public that the available evidence was consistent with the view that cigarette smoking is one of the causative factors in lung cancer.

_ __t_r. . .. . ~ other defendant in this complaint, was aware of medical and scientific tests, experiments, examinations, studies, reports and surveys relating to smoking, which were made or were issued , during the period .r.,a: 1930 through 2853. That said defendants knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care under the circum- staaces then and there existing should have known, that said re- ette products were in no manner injurious to his health, because in none of the advertising ~hich he read or heard over the period of thirty-three rears in which he smoked was there anv ,:n}' t)vaaaaie in,jui'ii3lla Ci[ee;ta ti£ cigarette smokin¢. I 35. That defendant FItIZIP MQRRIS, and each and every ~ iii ~ s, studies and surveys indicated that smoking of cigarettes ause or probable cause of cancer of the respiratory organs and other respiratory portions of the body, including the lungs. 36. That said medical and scientific studies, tests and experiments, and the reports based thereon, were not only - statistical in nature, but were also based upon principles of epidemiology, pathology and biology, and of chemical analysis. 37. That, upon information and belief, some of said tests, experiments and studies were conducted by, or for, deEn- dant PHILIP ISORRIS; that others were sponsored by defendant ODUNCIL; and, upon information and belief, that still others were conducted by or on behalf of, or were prepared at the in- stigation of, one or more of the other defendants in this com- plaint. I 38. That from 1638 through 1963, and particularly dur- ing the decade of the nineteen-fifties, physicians and other scientists made detailed and statistical studies of smokiug, particularly of cigarette smoking, and concluded that there was a much greater risk-of lung cancer among cigarette smokers than Q7 ~ -9- Q ~

58. That the defendant PHILIP MORRIS, on the occasion or occasions of its annual reports to its shareholders and to the financial and general press, constantly stated that cigar- ette ~s3oking was sale, that at had a"psychoioQicat value". and that factors other than smoking were the cause of cancer of the respiratory tract organs and other respiratory portions of the body, including the lungs. 59. That ar thc c>...: .t.- tl.1- nrrIi rn •.r-'7- was such aforesaid statec.eats at its said annual aeet- ings, it was busily diversifying its activities by engaging in production of non-tobacco products, including chewine gum. razor blades and shaving cream. That said diversification was undertaken as a safeguard and a hedge against the day, which on information and belief said defendant regarded as inevitable, when the public would finally obtain unbiased and accurate medical and scientific reports, studies and surveys of the risks to human health and life associated with smoking, and would, as a result thereof, curtail consumption of cigarettes, including defendant PHILIP 1DRRIS' brands. " 60, That the plaintiff commenced smoking defendant , PHILIP MORRIS' brands of cigarettes at approximately the age af fifteen years, during the year 1930; that he continued to smoke said brands of cigarettes, "Philip lforris°, "Marlboro" and "Parliament", regularly and continuously until February, 1963. 61. That plaintiff smoked defendant PHILIP 5lQRRIS' brands of cigarettes at the rate of one and one-half to two packages, or thirty to forty cigarettes, each day from 1930 up to the year 1950; that thereafter plaintiff smoked said cigar- ette products at the rate of approximately three packages per day, or sixty cigarettes per day. 62. That the plaintiff thereby became addicted to de- fendant PHILIP 3#JRRIS' cigarette products, which were habit- ~ _Iq- h.~ ~ fl in 00 C-4 Ci1

dzx,~e=ua ^7:d ur.t"...^w cor_c <° cca z~m_ h__:y's izvolvod in ihe ::se Er.d .:oHiac of 2wcir tctrucc src_ Lts, th_5 ?.fcs-azt;,, a3 r°c-c^rrtion*:;, to hutra r r:h83a, n8a ~ . ¢:;ifC" sr9ic their end RLLt;X7 .°iT2ms ra..;sctively, azd na 1; e=t2%. :,+z1=aS1Y. recklesalT, and urlax- ~':', =~:eze :41 a'd -{ i^-m''.:crt.d to 73aintii'.s rx.d plalatifPat deL eucHt that the vSa of tht T+c°er_entSeze3 products xes sufs, texsf<ei;1, not irrisnti;.g, exsuld aot prosuee i21 affects, ma sa;.at°ying, aw: oth, a=ekzab2c, rerzle, a2uays just right, =-33.ox, fine, or aords to the e3aa eStact. Y '"tzw aa a Ci..ce: e: d: p:er ~te rev3lt cf the afarez2id O.tf d^.fc2.-l1T..; Uu~...:i` 1~ c=.'''w iQ:SivO C{•t:~PAi'T, a Coi`VOra- __.,z, :i :^,ICz,; a c: ; azzt'or, and j;0!j3 UZ to X73.Y '' 'i µe3 cr c_ a4aut ~.... _~. JS 1;L.I tw a ...m.-o- tt... 1u:.e; YJ~.zs a ~.. a t.=re:: {r t`.~ .._1` :... e:' sa.id ... C,:Cfl G"?' ti:i-., 1'].?i.^.tiSfa VS.u'::)A Fs -.i=:..-L:>, DaVIU ~.. ~ ~..._' ., c_ v.. . :.:. :. :.II::_..L'., ?','sY8 b6o°S h& caQfcrL, lovc, ,fTection, =: e:^_d sc.^cices cf eZiL .w:2:~, :.. LcZ~:L7.3, dscaasc3, all to thslr &-=.:;;o in the e^ rf That ez a dira:.t zr:t Pr..d_;zc rc:ult of the ac;lirence of caf r3aaLE, LZw=-1: ..• :•7:::i "_'i2'~CCG CC::.°SLT, a corporatioa, 3` ~ZCi;F: iCB,SCCG GQ.?F,'.,T, a corparation, ar.d ;f,HSS :.ZZ to ZZZX, as 4±'cresa?si, plaifittffs CL'r.:';;+ BkV33 X. Lte93LLB axtd B. {.$'"..''..:.LA .SCfC cC.=rfatn.: `'^.'j did i'LcSlr 51.irial, funeral, 3.o,piU,1, ?.sclicaL rmd profeaci_r--l c:gcrsea, which expenses havs zot Lea: fully e;c_*-taSned at tl:,* tSae of the filing of this that w3',ca coid ih_°tv:=cvion is ascertained, said ;'r~rLi_:a ,ili F-f le:.rc af CCr.rtU to rr_€cd this cocpAaiztt

ther deceptive practice, to wit, the use of a fictitious byline with said magazine article. 106. That as a rcsult of his reliance.,upon the false representations hereinabove alleged, and as a result of the con- cea!:nents and contrirance= aad artifices as hereinabove alleged, to keep plaintiff in ignorance and uninformed as to the danger, or probable danger in continuinz to smoke defendant PHILIP XQRRIS' brands of ci_arettes. as hereinabove alleeed. plaintiff was, as a direct and proximate result thereof, damaged and in- jured by incurring and developing cancer. That by reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars. AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACrld2P AGAINST B£FENDANT PBILIF MORRIS, INC. 107. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every al- ~ legation contained in paragraphs "2" through "106" inclusive ~ of this complaint, with the same force and effect as if speci- fically set forth hereat. 10&. That although the defendant PHILIP MORRIS made representations about the safety, wholesomeness and noa-ia,Iuriou effects of its cigarette products, as aforesaid, said repre- sentations were negligently made and without the exercise of due care under the circumstances then and there existing, in that said defendant was consciously aware that it did not know the true nature and propensities of its said cigarette products; that said defendant voluntarily kept itself in a state of ig- ~ norance with respect to the effect upon human health of smoking , said products and with respect to its carcinogenic propensities;', and that the statements and representations that said defen- ._ '. dant made about its said products were made recklessly and '.. without any knowledge as to whether they were true or false, and without any reasonable grounds to believe them to be true.

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAI.'iST. f3£F'EhDANP PHILIP hSfDRRIS INC. 91. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every al- legation contained in paragraphs "1" through "90" inclusive of if cally set forth hereat. 92. That by placing its aforementioned cigarette pro- ducts on the general market for sale to the eonsuming public, tnei`_SL^.e P<h=3ii:i _:c i v.._..iY iiitnni_ ~iQe . - resentation that its said products would safely perform the task and purpose for which they were manufactured and sold, to wit, and consu:apt :» by human be in3c. 93. That by placing upon the market for general con- 0 1% the sum of one Million {$I,OO0,000.00} Dollars. at by reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged in sumption by the public, including plaintiff FI27E,a product which was unreasonably dangerous when used for the purpose for which it was intended, to wit, consumption by smoking by human beings, defendant PHILIP MORRIS became strictly liable to said plaintiff, when, as a direct and proximate result of smoking and consuming defendant's brands of cigarettes, plaintiff devel- oped and became afflicted with, cancer as hereinabove alleged. AS AND FOR A FQiFRTH GiDSB OF ALR'IO14 AGAINST DEF€NDAN'f' PHILIP ilDitltIS, II1C. 94. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every a1- legation contained in paragraphs "I" through "93" inclusive of this complaint, with the same force and effect as if specifi- set forth hereat. 95. That the defendant PHILIP MORRIS, together with the defendant BURNETT, made, uttered, pubiished, distributed and disseminated false and untrue representations, by means of ad- vertising and other public statements and declarations, from 1930 through 1963, as to the nature and effect upon human con- CY~ -21- 7~3 4~ C~ C_s7 t1D -p t:d

lt.S'Y:AL, a aar~rcticn, erd i~L, a:S to Si, 1:tlua3vo, and aach cf then, e.-a z::t::^.r<zzed rt>d 23cvr3c3 to cand+aat a haagite3. IIusittca or Y.,2 cssea Sn t?:e Ltato of Ca1ifc:niA, to rrhioh haapitai or ~vy~3ts2a zsw'.acrs of t::a Yubl.o wm Sr.rit+.d, iaclud1fig the j51itS.^,t1tfa, CI:EYwb !. ZaSII.:S.L9., u.2FSi) r. LGu~.S.~, 8ad :.P.tiIS?,L'St. $s ia:•`•.", and their faahcr und ?=Dard, tFZ:Z_:. Lc.t32'T.L:, 'aaca3aad# thao *.a'' n cssct Sars ot t+nsirdaa oz7;em3x: ttcs ur:dzr rhieh 6ofar,3sats, :;t= fiP ta 33, Sr.cltsiFO, :-.3 eaa§ at thea, v-sa or.-,aniasd tsd doirw huaiaess, is nr.i:komi to PIeiatl,fla st the tics of the tiliny af thia ea r2aint, a-d plair.tiSia srY21 sa# leaao of Court to amezd tt-.tm 'acerp2air.t ahaa t:ia ssza ekA32 *aYo been ascortafnas2. M ^hat p2;.1zt3fSs are ir3`cr1a; and Dcifrvo cr.d upon such Infcr:at3on a:d Lslicf C_Sezd,:r.ts, 705AGC0 a :f.'..:1TAL Fiuti w'-'a' %n~ tSS As«, f.'.t:a'..:lSD, t.^-d $R:'!2 of t=, S1IITQ, " 1 Ka~ grc, cc.- ;: v.ors c.- rMc :3 z.d emi ctir; to do "sir.aaa Sa tht l.ste oi 4^ Z:a ia, ard at ;-.Ul ti::=:, hora3a ucr.tia«cd, bava h~,n c?a1a3 huaS.:aca in t«o Srttz o:~ ..c2itorcia, a:.d &X~2LaA2+ and :G= " to ,:L7, have their crin_ipnl €Inzaa c." t=tncaa in the Co=tp ot Los A::^palca, State of CulifiT:K'.Ias 7211 Ghat p1ALsEifts ars icfe=cd 4r,d bniSvv4 asd upon ouch izfcr-.stion and beiiat a?Ia;,e, that at a12 tlaos sroaLiaaaai, dofcadaata, tAZ5 ZS7tZ to YZXZO ineluaivs, aadd saah of thoa, srtrss trd r=t era, a r.aSe froprtotcrshtp: p=rtkore,hip, or asacciatiaa* wFd t!,.3t the tr18 x2.:OQ GUd cn7f.aCiti6a of def4ndatsts, ; 3z3 ZZTI to n;XZ, iacZusisc, aad ea.:h of thc.a, tra ar3ceaar, to p2ainttfta vLa t*3<-F!0;4 L"3i th883 tafandants by ouch fictitirsna zzmas and will antz lassa of Ccnrt to =ar.d this coxplssir.t xiaen the aaao aha11 hay¢ bcca ctssartaintd. T~s Y'1 -3-

tations and statements, of their falsity. 99. That the defendant PHILIP MORRIS actually knew, heless failed to apprise and inform the public, in- rludine plaintif€. tha: •rys Purch:sin= its cigarette products, that said products were or probably were carcinogenic. That said defendant knew that in representing said products as safe i and wholesome, it was concealing facts, data and information i ducts from the Vnited States Government, from the medical pro- fession, and from the public, including plaintiff; that in con- ' cealinfi, and striving and contriving to conceal facts and infor- mation as alleged, defendant PHILIP MORRIS was aided and abetted; by the other defendants in this complaint. 100. That, as aforesaid, the defendant PHILIP MORRIS, aided and abetted by all the other defendants in this complaint, strove to conceal the facts as to the nature of cigarette smok- ing and the effects of cigarette smoking by attempting to con- ceal from the public, including plaintiff, the various medical and scientific tests and experiments, and the reports, studies and surveys hereinabove alleged, which indicated that cancer of the respiratory tract organs and other respiratory portions of the body, including the lungs, was caused or probably caused by smoking, and by cigarette smoking in particular. That said defendants maintained and practiced an undeviating policy of contradicting, denying, diluting, minimizing, confusing and ob- fuscating said medical and scientific reports, studies and sur- veys; that such reports as reached plaintiff were thus con- fused, minimized, diluted or contradicted. 101. That the defendant PHILIP 1g7RRIS,aided and abetted by the other defendants herein, embarked intentionally on a pro-j gram to keep the cigarette purchasing and smoking public, in- . cluding plaintiff, from learning and determining the true sig- nificance of such smoking and, as aforesaid, from obtaining CO

false statements and representations and in thus oppres- sively employing said artifices, stratagems and devices in the' manufacture, supply, distribution and sale of its cigarette pro- .,_..s- , ..,r•aari cH*LIP a{}gMFc has become liable to plaintiff for fraud and deceit, for puni- tive or exemplary damages in the sum of Five Million ($5,000,000.00) Dollars. AS .i\7? FOR A TEYrH CAUSE OF +1CrIO2: AGAINST DSFE3T}A.IT PHILIP )tf7RRI5 INC. 127. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every al- legation contained in paragraphs "I" through "12fi" inclusive . of this complaint, with the same force and effect as if speci- fically set forth hereat. 128. That by virtue of defendant's conduct in thus reck- lessly, and in disregard of the circumstances as bereinabove alleged, making untrue, inaccurate statements and representa- tions, without knowing whether they were true or false, concern- ing the nature and effect of its cigarette products upon human health and involving an unreasonable risk of bodily barm to the cigarette-smoking public, including plaintiff, defendant PIiILIP as become liable to plaintiff for recklessly made rep- resentations, for punitive or exemplary damages in the sum of Five Million ($5,000,000.00) Dollars. AS ASiD FOR AN 11T& CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DSFBRDAHT LEO BURNETT C91tFA47Y, INC. 129. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every al- legation contained in paragraphs "I" through "128" inclusive of this complaint, with the same force and effect as if speci- fically set forth hereat. 130. That the defendant BURNETT, over the period of years involved herein, upon information and belief, was a party to a contract with the defendant PHILIP MORRIS for profit to BURNETT. That defendant BURNETT, upon information and belief, _'2PS_ FU5O~L

109. That the aioresaid misrepresentations and inac- curate statements, made either negligently or recklessly by saie defendant PHILIP MORRIS as d.foresaid, were relied upon by mem-- bers of the public, includ.r.e plaiatxf': that they tended to induce plaintiff to continue to smoke defendant•s brands of cigarettes; that said sawlcing involved an unreasonabSe risk of I nti£f because of the probability of incur- , rirs cancer ~= a re=utt th>r-nq: aad th2, sa:rt f t_ did not know that suc:: representations znd statements :Fere false, did not have the knowledge which it professed to have. 110. That the aforementioned representations and state- ments were made with the purpose of inducing the public, inelud-- ing plaintiff, to rely thereon; and that plaintiff did rely upon] them, and, as a direct and proximate result thereof, as herein- above alleged, was damaged and injured by incurring and devel- oping cancer from continuing to smoke defendant's brands of i cigarettes. That by reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has '.. been damaged in the sum of One Million ($1,000,006.86) Dollars. AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE oF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT PHILIP MORRIS, INC. 111. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every al- legation contained in paragraphs "1^ through "116" inclusive ot this complaint, with the same force and effect as if speci- fically set forth bereat. 112. That defendant PHILIP MORRIS' brands of cigarettes are packaged products manufactured, distributed and sold by de- fendant PHILIP MORRIS as products intended and suitable for home and household use, within the meaning and purview of the Federal ' Hazardous Substances Labeling Act (74 Stat. 732). CY3 -29- N O C)'i W _p> Co

among smokers of other forms of tobacco or among non-smokers, and that smoking impaired longevity. 39. That a statistical study of several thousand men, conducted in 1935 by Dr. RaymQnd 7ear1, in4icafe+d titac sruoiting impaired longevity of smokers. 40. That during the nlneteen-fifties, a study 01 nearly 200,000 smokers by Dr. E. Ctzyler Hammond and Dr. Daniel Sorn, of the Ame-r3csn Canrer SnRietv. inriirzt?d that cmoki~¢ -a- 're main cause of iuao carcer aad that the risk of dyine from i.::,g cancer, among smokers, was sixty-four times as great as the risk among non-smokers. 41. That during the nineteen-fifties, a study of forty thousand doctors who smoked, in the United Kingdom of Great Britain, conducted by Dr. W. Richard Doll and Dr. A. Bradford Hill, repeated and confirmed the findings and conclusions of Drs. Hammond and Horn, stated in the preceding paragraph. 42. That during the nineteen-fifties, a study of two hundred forty-nine thousand United States veterans, conducted by Dr. Harold F. Dorn, confirmed the findings and conclusions of Drs. Hammond and Horn as stated above. 43. That during the early part of the nineteen-fifties, Dr. Ernest L. Xynder and Dr. Evarts A. Graham, after studies; reported that excessive smoking of tobacco was an important fac- tor in the induction of bronchogenic carcinoma. 44. That various investigations made and conducted at the Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York, have indicated the carcinogenic effects of smoking tobacco. 45. That during the nineteen-fifties, the work of Dr. Oscar Auerbach, of Hew York Medical College, of Dr. Arthur Stout, of Columbia University, of Dr. S. ptyler Bammond, of the American Cancer Society, and of other scientific re- searchers, demonstrated that there was pathological evidence of -10-

and that it would not leave an aftertaste in the mouth. 86. That these statements and writings were made in order to induce the public to rely on them and to consume defen- dan€"s cieare€te:, and ptnintiff did, in fact, rely on these various representations and purchase, for a valuable considera- tion, defendant's products, in their original package, over a period of years, as aforesaid. ~ bution of its cigarette produc€s, the defendant PHILIP l:vt;-.:S made certain implied warranties that the product was mer- chantable, wholeeome, safe and fit for the purpose intended. which was human consumption. 88. That plaintiff was induced, persuaded and influ- enced by, and relied upon, these implied promises and upon the skill, experience and superior knowledge of the defendant PSILIP MORRIS as an experienced manufacturer of cigarettes. 89. That, in fact, defendant PHILIP MORRIS' cigarette products were not merchantable, safe, wholesome or fit for the purpose intended, and possessed no qualities related to human good health, but were, instead, toxic, deleterious, deiective, unwholesome, dangerous and unfit for the purpose intended of consumption by human beings by smeking, in that they contained substances with carcinogenic and co-carcinogenic propensities. 90. That the express and implied warranties made by defendant P4iiLIP MORRIS as aforesaid, and relied upon by plain- tiff, were breached by said defendant when the plaintiff devel- oped cancer as alleged hereinabove, as a result of smoking and consuming defendant's brands of cigarettes. That by reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars. -20- I

ette products, defendant PHILIP MORRIS has become liable to piaintiff for brPach of express and implied warranty, for puni_ tive or exemplary damages in the sum of Five Etillion AS AND FCR AN EIGII:YI CAUSE OF dCPIO\ AGAINST DEFEHDAHT PHILIP MORRIS, INC. 123. Plaintiff rece:++~ .ir,,I r~alleees each ~e+i =v=rr i3_ lega.ion contained in paragraphs "1" through "122" inclusive of this complaint, with the same force and effect as if speci- fically set forth hereat. 124. That by virtue of defendant PHILIP MORRIS' plan and design, as aforesaid, so to conceal facts and information from the public, including plaintiff, and to proceed in wilful, wan- ton or reckless disregard of plaintiff's rights, health and safety, and in thus oppressively employing said artifices, stratagems and devices in the manufacture, supply, distribu- tion and saje of its cigarette products designed for human con- sumption and for intimate contact with, and absorbtion in and by the human body, defendant PHILIP MORRIS has become liable to plaintiff for strict liability, for punitive or exemplary damages in the sum of Five Million ($5,000,000.00) Dollars. AS AND FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF AtTIOH AGAINST DEFENDANT PHILIP MORRIS INC. 125. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every a1- l Iegation contained in paragraphs °'1^ through "124" inclusive ~ I'.3 of this complaint, with the same force and effect as if sgeci-~ O fically set forth hereat. Cf 1 126. That by virtue of defendant PHILIP MORRIS' plan CO {-F"t and design, as aforesaid, so to conceal facts and informatioa -' from the public, including plaintiff, and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of, and with indifference of the cense- quences to, plaintiff's rights, health and safety, and in mak- { ~ . _2g_

I and of those of each and every other defendant in this com- plaint, resulting !n said carcinoma as aforesaid, it was neces-sary for plaintiff, as he did, to secure medica3,.hospital, .,,..I- and T- attenFion. 70. That as a direct and proximate result of said . carcinoma condition and said pneumonectomy, plaintiff has been . severely handicapped, incapacitated and prevented from fully . and 2£eeij' c':S6agii.y _.. .._a aar^ui u~t':y~fuitc3ti aY., i~tr.iv.aa, Lut- suits, and, upon information aad belief, will so be afflicted and incapacitated for the rest of his life. That also as a - direct and protimate :'esult of said carcinoma and said pneu- monectomy, plaintiff has been and, upon information and belief, '~ will continue to be for the rest of his life, hindered in, or deprived of his pursuit and enjoyment of various sports, games, hobbies, pleasures and enjoyments of life, which he previously sed, or in which he previously engaged. 71. That defendant FHILIP MORRIS was negligent in fail- ing to warn plaintiff FINE, the general public, the medical pro- fession and the United States Government that there was a risk of the development of respiratory tract cancer associated with the consumption of defendant's brands of cigarettes, even though it knew, on the basis of statistical, biological, epi- demiological and clinical studies, that its said cigarette pro- ', ducts were probably a significant factor in the development af '. cancer. i 72. That defendant PHILIP biORRIS was negligent in fail-! ing to make an affirmative disclosure to the public, including I, plaintiff FINE, of the hazards and risks to human health likely .. to be incurred from the smoking of cigarettes, including said defendant's brands thereof. 73. That defendant PHILIP MORRIS was negligent in fail- ing to give tAs attention which due care under the circumstances -16- !

119. That in the year 1963, defendant PHILIP MORRIS had, upon information and belief, total assets in excess of Three Hundred Sixty-five Million (5365,400,00fl.o0) Dollars, and had net incosie of fiuentv-tro aillion f"J2?,OOJ,v00.i~0) Poi,}ars. 120. That the defendant PHILIP MORRIS, from 1930 throughF 1963, manufactured, distributed and sold its brands of cigar- ( ettes in conscious, wilful and wanton, or reckless disregard o f}f the heatt*. plaintiff, as consuaers and su~okers of its said product, ~tnce it knew or should have known that its said products were, or - probably were, car^_ino¢enic: and vet, with indifference to its obligations as a manufacturer and supplier of products for human1" consumption and to the consequences of its acts or omissions, it made no attempt to apprise or inform the public, including plaintiff, of said carcinogenic propensities of said products, but rather, by artifices, stratagems and devices as herein- above alleged, contrived to conceal such facts and circumstances from the public, including plaintiff. 121. That as stated in the immediately preceding para- graph, defendant PHILIP MORRIS acted oppressively, with indif- ferenee to its obligations and to the consequences, and in xan- ton and wilful, or reckless, disregard of the health, safety and welfare of the public, iacluding plaintiff, in thus at- tempting to conceal facts and information, in order to preserve and enhance the sale of its cigarette products and to increase its earnings and profits with regard wholly and solely to its own economic welfare. ~ 122. That by virtue of defendant PHILIP MORRIS' plan and design, as aforesaid, so to conceal facts and information from the public, including plaintiff, and to proceed in wilful, wanton or reckless disregard of plaintiff's rights, health and safety, and in thus oppressively employing said artifices, stratagems and devices in the manufacture and sale of its ci4W- S :? -2g- ta ' ~ Cn 00 C.i CD

sumption by human beings. That by reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of One Million {S1,OQ0,4Q6.t?Q} Dollars. 0 AS A.\i1 iU2i A tiEC:UdD t:dSiJE OF dCTIt3,1' AGAINST 4EFEYDANT PHILIP SfoRRI9 INC. i 82. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every al- ~ legation contained in paragranhs "`i"" through "62" inclusive of this complaint with the sa:^e force and effect as if specl- fically set forth hereat. 83. That the defendant PHILIp MORRIS, by its brochures, written advertisements in magazines and newspapers, and radio and television announcements and commercials, and by other ~ statements and writings disseminated to the public, including plaintiff FIRE, throughout the time period from 1930 through 1963, made certain express warranties as to the safety, harm- lessness, wholesomeness and health-preserving or health-main- taining qualities of its cigarette products. 84. That as previously aileged-herein, defendant PHILIP MORRIS, in its advertisements of its brands of cigarettes, stated from time to time, the exact date or dates being pre- sently unknown to this plaintiff, but being within the knowl- edge of said defendant, that the smoke of said cigarettes was less irritating to the upper respiratory tract than that of other cigarettes and that said cigarettes did not leave an aftertaste in the mouth of the consumer. 85, That the defendant PHILIP MORRIS, by its brochures,~ advertisements, radio and television commercials and other statements and writings, made certain express warranties, in 1 that it stated that its cigarette products were mild, and that consumption thereof would result in enjoyment without damage to the respiratory tract of the user and that its products were less irritating to the throat than other brands of cigarettes {Y7 _ I9- !1.' ~ C3 i3'3 ~

t cigarette products, and made numerous claims in said advertis- ing as to the non-injurious nature of said products, which it knew were false, or which were made reckSessly in disregard of Fl;iiai:ff has been damaged in the sum of Dr.e Million (S1,440,400,44) Dollars. AS AND FOR A TSiZBTEEVTH CAUSE oF ACi'I4t' A..i.,`:FT 7EF=}-. i':T T_:6 7'.F'~Z, i COSfPrtN7. :E.'. I* 148. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and everr al- legation contained in paragraphs ••1" through "147'• inclusive of thas complaint, :ci.h the same force-and effecc as if 4peci- €ically set forth hereat. 149. That the defendant $U$HETT, over the years between 1930 and 1963, composed and prepared and placed and dissemin- ated the advertisements, advertising copy, announcements and commercials for the aforementioned brands of cigarettes in various press and telecommunications media in conscious, wilful and wanton, or reckless, disregard of the health, safety and well being of the public, including plaintiff, since it knew, or should have known, that the aforesaid products were, or probably were, carcinogenic; and yet, with indifference to its obligations as one preparing advertising for a product for human consumption and to the consequences of its acts or omis- sions, it made no attempt to apprise or inform the public, in- aluding plaintiff, of said carcinogenic propensities of said products, but rather, by artifices, stratagems and devices as previously alleged herein, contrived to conceal such facts and circumstances from the public, including plaintiff. 150. That, as stated in the immediately preceding para- graph, defendant BURNETT acted oppressively, with indifference to its obligations and to the consequences, and in wanton and wilful, or reckless, disregard of the health, safety and we2- N -36- ~ O ~ fs-s tA

samers of its cigarette products and as to the safety, whole- someness, harmlessness and healthful qualities of said pro- ducts; that such false statements and representations were made i,r.J ~tts_..a+1 tiff, would be induced to act thereon by purchasing and smoking said cigarette products; that the plaintiff, to whom said ad- vertisements, statements and representations were addressed, hereinaoove, alleged, as a pro.Nisate result of said false and fraudulent representations, plaintiff was damaged and injured . by iecurrint and dev^`aping canrer. 96. That the defendant PHILIP MORRIS falsely and in- ~ tentionally, with knowledge of falsity and intent to deceive, ~ or recklessly in disregard of the consequences, represented to the United States Government, to the American medical profes- ~ sion, and to the general public, including plaintiff, that it ls cigarette products were safe, wholesome and beneficial to use and to smoke. i 97. That the defendant PHILIP MORRIS, together with de- fendant fendant BURNETT, engaged in the active practice, over the years I of composing, uttering and disseminating advertising which falsely represented the nature of its cigarette products, and made numerous claims in said advertising as to the non-injurious, , nature of said products, which it knew were false, or which recklessly in disregard of the consequences. " 98. That, as aforesaid, such false representations by the defendant PHILIP MORRIS were made with the intent of de- ceiving members of the public, including plaintiff, and to in- duce the public, including plaintiff, to purchase and smoke de- fendant's cigarette products, and the plaintiff did rely on such representations; that plaintiff did not know, and could not have known, at the time of his said reliance on said represen- -22-

158. That in its capacity and function as a public re- lations agent and counsellor for the defendants PHILIP MORRIS and BURNET'i', defendant HILL & KNOWLTON strove_, and strives, to ~,;,;:iy ..:__. auvz._ an,: ;.zanz, ,,: a protit, on the ~::h,pec: matter of makine cigarette advertising appeal to the subcon- scions drives of smokers for virility, potency, energy and vigor as a device, stratagem, trick or artifice to divert the atten- tion of the smokFn.- public, including plaintiff, from its ar_e his proper concern for the risks to human life and health in- volved in smoking, and especially in smoking cigarettes. 159. That the defendant HILL & KNOWLTON conceived of the idea, and saw to the formation and establishment of the de- fendant CAUNCIL, in or about the year 1954. 160. That the defendant HILL & KNOWLTON lent its ef- forts to the formation and establishment of the defendant I2i5T1- E in or about the year 1958. 161. That in its capacity as public relations agent or counsellor for the defendants COUNCIL and INSTITUTE, defendant , HILL & IiNE31fLTON strove to supply them with plans and advice for counteracting, contradicting, rebutting, refuting, confus- ing and concealing the growing medical and other scientific evidence as to the carcinogenic nature of substances in cigar- ette smoke; to contrive to spread the misrepresentation that smoking was healthful, or at least was not harmful; to create desire on the part of the smoking public, including plaintiff, to smoke and to continue to smoke; and to overcome and allay any and all fears of the smoking public, including plaintiff, associated with smoking, particularly the smoking of cigarettes. 162. That much of the effort of the defendant HI1.L & f work for and with tobacco manufac- CC) N? ~ turers and tobacco products was directed toward inducing and ~ _39 (DO ~ ~

;I 113. That defendant PHILIP SXIRRIS' brands of cigarettes i contain hazardous substances, as hereinabove alleged, and taken as aa whole constitute hazardous substarces within the meaning of the aforementioned Act. - 114. That detendant PHILIP MO&RIS' cigarette products are hazardous as aforesaid, in that they are "toxic" and an °irrii:3nt" within tt`P '•31nirt•• ^£ «.n '.._' 9^« that said .igarette products contain certain suhstances whic,`h are toxins and irritants, as hereinabove alleged. 115. That the aforementioned brands of cigarettes are manufactured and sold by defendant PHILIP MORRIS; and by normal commerce said cigarettes came into plaintiff's household in violation of the Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling Act, in that as aforesaid they were hazardous and contained hazardous substances, but bore no warnings or cautionary labels so stat- ing. 116. That the violation by the defendant PHILIP MORRIS of the provisions of the aforementioned Act is evidence of lack of due care, in this action, on the part of said defendant, under the circumstances then ard there existing. 117. That plaintiff is.a consumer of said products; and that defendant PSI€.ZP MORRIS, by virtue of its violation af the provisions of said Act enacted and designed to protect con- sumers of products, is civilly liable to plaintiff. That by f the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars. AS AND FOR A SEYENTFi CAUSE OF ACrION AGAINST DEFENDANT PB€LIP YORRIS, INC. 118. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every al- legation contained in paragraphs "I" through "117" inclusive of this complaint, with the same force and effect as if speci- fically set forth hereat. {p ~.} -27- i C:3 t57 L?3 -p %10

dant BURNETT violated its obligation and duty to the public readers of and listeners to said advertisements, including ' plaintiff, to refrain from :u.king and uttering misrepresenta- tfons an.3 ;aise =t:,tc.:.er.i~, .'sna its suty not to omit available factual information and data pertinent to the safety factor or risk involved in the consumption or smoking of the product it thus was advertising. 135. That at the times, that defendant BtR\Ett composed and prepared the aforementioned advertisements and caused the:. to appear in all the aioresaid telecommunications or press media in which they were mentaoned or published, it knew, or in . the exercise of ordinary care under the circumstances then and there existing should have known, that the factual statements . therein contained were false, deceptive and misleading and con- stituted a misrepresentation of the existing and available facts relating to the safety and health of smokers of "Philip Morris" brand of cigarettes. 136. That defendant BURNETT thereby knowingly and in- tentionally, or recklessly and without regard to the coase- quences, made false, misleading and deceptive representations about said particular brands of cigarettes by expressly stating, and by implying, that said cigarette products were safe, whole- some, healthful and harmless and in some manner good for the health of the smoker thereof, whereas it knew, or should have known, that said products were not beneficial to the health of the smoker, and, in `act, that continued smoking and consump- tion thereof caused, or probably caused, cancer of the res- piratory tract organs and respiratory portions of the body, in- cluding the lungs. 137. That the defendant 8T7RHBTT thereby knowingly, in- tentionally, and fraudulently by artifices, stratagems and de- vices, omitted, concealed from and failed to declare to the public, including plaintiff, the risks to human health, includ- 32 It 0585+-F

fare of the public, including plaintiff, in thus attempting to ~ conceal facts and information, in arder to preserve and en- ~ hance the sale of the aforementioned cigarettes and to increase : its earnin,s and profits for rrepariag and disseminating sdver- tising for said cigarettes with regard wholly and solely to its . own economic welfare. 151. That by virtue of defendant BURHEfir's plan and de- ~ siqn, xs afc.esaid. s-% to ,:er.ca:±t Fa_^~ and ?r,`c.-;..t'_o^ _._.. ... public, including plaintiff, and to proceed in wilful and wanTnn disregard of, and with indifference of the consequences to, , plaintiff's rights, health and safety, and in making false statements and representations and in thus oppressively employ- : ing said artifices, stratagems and devices in the preparation and disseminating of the advertising for said cigarette products designed for human consumption, defendant BUB3iSTT has become liable to plaintiff for fraud and deceit, for punitive or exem- plary damages, in the sum of Five Million ($5,000,000.00) Dollars. of this compiaint, with the same force and effect as if speci- Iegation contained in paragraphs "1" through "151" inclusive 152. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each_and every al- AS ARD FOR A FOtSRfiEENfE CAUSE OF AGTION AGAINST BBFS2II)A}iT LEO ffiSRhETT OJlfPA27Y, INC. smoking public, including plaintiff, defendant B€fItHBTt has be- s involving an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to , the cigarette fically set forth hereat. 153. That by virtue of defendant BURNETT's conduct in thus recklessly, and in disregard of the circumstances as hereinabove alleged, making untrue, inaccurate statements and representations, without knowing whether they were true or fa concerning the nature and effect of the aforesaid brands of cigarettes for which it was preparing and disseminating the advertising, xhea smoked and consumed, upon human health and t3~ -37- (V ~ C:~ f;1 {?7 i51 XD

come liable to plaintiff for recklessly made representations, for punitive or eemplary damages, in the sum of Five Stillion . fSS,(300,ObD.bb} Dollars. _, AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTIDH AGAINST DEFENDANT HILL & KNOWLTON, IYC. 154. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every al- legation conta:no.i :r :araz.ac.`.s .'I." thrcukh "'15::" i:x.'.c3.c-u of this cor"cpla:at, ",ii:: the sa^e force and cffect as '_f fically set forth hereat. 155. That defendant ffILL & KNOWLTON. which styles it- self as a public relations firm, offered its services, for a ' profit, to all the other defendants in this complaint presently and in the past and, upon information and belief, during the time period during which plaintiff smoked and consumed the afore- mentioned brands of cigarettes. 156. That in its capacity as a public relations firm and counsellor for the defendants PHILIP MORRIS and EURNETF, defendant HILL &%HO7FLT'Ott strove, and strives, to supply them with advice and plans, for a profit, on the subject matter of concealment from the smoking public, including plaintiff, of the fact that consumption of the aforementioned brands of cigar- ettes constitutes an appreciable risk to human health and safety. 157. That the defendant HILL & SHO1lLTOH, during the de- cade of the nineteen fifties, the exact date being unknown to this plaintiff, on learning that one of the national television networks was going to present a program on the dangers to human health and life involved in smoking, took steps to pre- vent the full advance publicity of, and subsequent newspaper reports on, said program. -38-

ing cancer of the respiratory tract organs and other respira- tory portions of the body, '_nciuding the lungs, created or probably created by smoking and consumption of the particular . __. placing and disseminating the advertising, although it was, or - should have been well aware of said risks. ~ 138. That if the defendant BURNETT was not aware of the r_sks oE cancer assoc_ated aath smoking defendant PaiLtP Y.4HRiSbrands of cigarettes at the tine it began to compose, prepare and disseminate the advertising for thea, defendant BURSETT, as ! tiie ytar3 bet»eea _9:,c and ?95Z passee, acquar•ec such knoxiedge and information as to medical and other scientific reports, i ! studies and surveys as to inform it that the said cigarette pro- duct, duct, for which it was thus composing, preparing and disseminat- ing advertising for a profit, was itself carcinogenic in nature or probably so, or contained substances, which, when burned or diffused, or absorbed into the human body, as said product was smoked, were carcinogenic in nature or probably so. 139. That the purpose and motive of the defendant BUR- ?t81R, in so placing and disseminating advertising composed and prepared by it, in making false representations and statements as to the safety and health of smokers of defendant PHILIP 3iQRRIB' brands of cigarettes, and in omitting to state or to disclose facts and data well known to it about the effect of cigarette smoking or consumption upon the health of smokers thereof, was economic, in order to stay in the advertising or .. advertising agency business and to make a profit. 140. That the absresaid advertisements, statements, an- nouncements and commercials composed and prepared and placed and disseminated, by defendant BURH'ET1', have been alleged to be - false and deceptive by various branches, bodies and agencies of the United States Government, including the House of Represen- CO -33- N z CD L71 Co {n L,1

AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEfE' .l•BAfi1' HILL & iGYOYfLTON IRC 0 167. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every al- ' Iegation contained in paragraphs ^I^ through ^166" inclusive of this complaint, ra;n cne sane iorce aao e2£eet as if speci- ficaliy set forth hereat. 168. That the defendant HILL & KNOWLTON prepared state- ments and aided and abetted defendants PHILIP MORRIS and SLTA- V'ETT in pregaring statements, vhich it knew, or should have known, were false, deceptive and misleading and were a misrep- resentation of the facts relating to the health, safety and life of smokers of the aforementioned brands of cigarettes. 169. That the defendant HILL & KNOWLTON thereby know- ingly, intentionally and fraudulently, or recklessly without regard to the consequences, as aforesaid, made false, mislead- ing and deceptive statements and representations about cigar- ette tobacco products, including defendant PHILIP RORRIS' brands of cigarettes by expressly stating, and by implying, that such products were safe and healthful and in some manner good for the health of the smoker, whereas it knew, or should have known, that such products were not beneficial to the health of the smoker, and, in fact, that their continued smoking and consump- tion caused, or probably caused, cancer of the respiratory tract organs and other respiratory portions of the body, ia- cludiag the lungs. 170. That the defendant HILi. & R2iOIIE.TON thereby know- ingly, intentionally and fraudulently omitted, concealed from and failed to declare to the public, including plaintiff, the risks to health, including cancer of the respiratory tract organs and other respiratory portions of the body, including the lungs, created or probably created by smoking and consump- tion of the cigarette products, including the aforementioned brands of cigarettes for and about which it was preparing the ca -'i1- ? £S7 co CS% t-4

0 i entered into said contract with defendant PRILIP 3&)RRIS to pre- pare, and did prepare, the advertisements and advertising copy . and radio and television announcements and commercials for de- . _,-~?znr ^!:'LT.P '.OonTS' . -_.-r?s e` ==r2:•ettes, ". 131. That after preparation of the aforesaid advertise- ments, advertising copy, announcements and commercials, both ~ written and oral, defendant BIIRNETI`, for a profit as aforesaid, !!!; Piaceo, ~ai3 a._.. ments in and with various press and telecommunications outlets or media, includin_ magazines, newspapers, and radio and tele- ' vision staticns and ^et~crks. 132. That defendant BURNETT as aforesaid, placed and € disseminated said advertisements, statements and commercials in and with said press and telecommunications media with the intent and purpose of having the contents of said advertise- ments, announcements and commercials brought to the attention of the public, including plaintiff. 133. That defendant 8t7RHf:2•f, as aforesaid, placed and disseminated said advertisements, statements and commercials in and with said media for the purpose and with the intent of in- ducing the public, including plaintiff, to read or hear said advertisements or statements relating to PSILIP MQRRIB' brands of cigarettes, to rely on the contents of said advertisements, statements and commercials, and, by purchasing and smoking said cigarettes, to act upon and respond to the message of said ad- vertisements, statements and commercials which have been ai- i leged hereinabove. 134. That by writing, composing and editing, and by placing distributing and disseminating said various advertise- ments and statements about defendant PftIZIP MORRIS' brands of cigarettes for the attention and persuasion of the publc, in- cluding plaintiff, as aforesaid, but in the manner and form in which said advertisements and statements were composed, defen- CzJ -3;- YJ Y O cy-c to (_€7 GA ~

tatives of the United States Congress and the Federal Trade Commission. 141. That the misrepreseniations in said advertisements .•.^•e 1:;vrrtiPi-- ^o?c ..'t_-- i°, Sr `he ir"....'.1:.. Bt.:- HETT were made with the purpose and intent of deceiving the pub-210, including plaintiff, and to induce the public, including t plaintiff, to purchase and smoke defendant PHILIP MORRIS' ..__ ..._• ___ ._ , _.. ____ . sentations and statements and did not know, and could not nave known at that time, of their fa2sity. 142. That as a Aire~t and prcNimate result of his :•_?: ance on said representations and as a direct and proximate re- sult of the artifices, stratagems and contrivances employed by ~ defendant BURNSTT to keep him in ignorance of the risks to , health involved in continuing to smoke the aforementioned brandsi of cigarettes, plaintiff was in,jured and damaged by said adver- ~ tis€ng copy and advertisements, prepared and composed, and place and disseminated, as aforesaid, by defendant BURNSTT. That by reasAn of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged in the sum ~ of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars. AGAINST DBF8NDA2YP LEO CAUSE Or ACTION 143. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every al- legation contained in paragraphs "2^ through "Z42TM inclusive of this complaint, with the same force and effect as if spec€- fically set forth hereat. 144. That although defendant BURNERT made representa- tions in advertising composed, prepared, placed and dissem- inated by it, about the safe, harmless, wholesome and benefi- cial qualities of the aforementioned brands of cigarettes, as hereinabove alleged, it was consciously aware that it did not know the true nature and propensities of said products; and, in GJ -34- i\3 -;~ CD tJ't ~ CS7 C?'`

statements hereinbeforr- alleged, although it xas, or should have been well a:re of said risks. • 171. That the aforesaid statements prepared and dis- <.....:_ be false and deceptive by various bodies, organs and agencies of the'Dnited States Government, including the House of Repre- sentatives of the United States Congress and the Federal Trade .... ....~s.~n. 172. That the misrepresentations in said statenents by the defendant HILL & KNOWLTON were made with the purpose and ereiviRe -exbers of the eene•rat pubtir, inctudine plaintiff, and of persuading and incuding the public to smoke, and to continue to smoke, cigarettes, including the aforemen- tioned brands of cigarettes; that plaintiff did rely on said statements and did not know and could not have known of their falsity at that time. 173. That as a direct and proximate result of his reli- ance on said aforesaid statements and as a result of the arti- fices, stratagems and contrivances employed by said defendant and the other defendants herein to keep him in ignorance, plaintiff was injured and damaged as previously alleged in the sum of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars. AS AND FOR A SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACfIOR AGAINST DEFENDANT HILL & $RO1fLT0R INC. 174. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every aI- legation contained in paragraphs "I" through "173" inclusive of this complaint, with the same force and effect as if speci- fica2ly set forth hereat. 175. That the defendant HILL & KNOWLTON, over the years in its position as public relations counsellor, supplied advice and stratagems and made statements, as above alleged, in conscious, wilful and wanton, or reckless, disregard of the fo -42- tv ~ 0 rsa m ~ ~

0 undistorred ano ;;xcical and scientific reports, in the newspapers and geriodica2s which plaintiff was reading, about , medical and scientific articles and reports that were appearing on the role of smokins, and cisarette smokinj'in particular, in cancer etiology. 102, That the defendant PHILIP ".0£flIS, aided and abetted , by, and with the cooperation of, or in concert with, the othe 13)r defendants herein, made it u.^.likalc or impossible for ihQ qen- aral public purchasin, and smoking cigarettes, includine pta:n- ti€f, to obtain full knowledge and information as to the risks , to life and health inherent in continuing to smoke cigarettes. 103. That if plaintiff had, in fact, known what defen- , dant PHILIP &lOREIS knaw, or had suspected what said defendant ~ spected or should have known, about the carcinogenic qualities of its cigarette products, plaintiiF would have refrained and ~ abstained from smoking. ,'.. 104. That the defendant PHILIP MORRIS, aided and abetted e other defendants herein, sought to prevent the Honorable nik, a member of the House of Representative-sof the United States Congress, from having published in Harper's Maga- ne in 1954 an article which dealt with the bad effects of smok- n human health and with the allegedly fraudulent adver- g practices of the defendants. 105, That the defendant PHILIP MORRIS, aided and abetted other defendants herein, used their economic power herein- ve alleged, in respect of placing advertising in press and ommunications media, to obtain changes in an article published in Cosmopolitan Magazine in 1960. That said changes consisted cifically, contained therein, diluted by the addition of statements which made it appear that there was no risk of ancer associated with cigarette smaking. That said actions and ctivities on the part of defendants herein also involved a fur- -24- co N ~ F? t37 ~ Cs`. having the warnings on ill-health in general and on lung

persuading the public, including plaintiff, to continue to smoke and to consume tobacco, including the aforementioned brands of cigarettes. the efforts, piacs, schemes and advice of defendant HILL & KNOWLTON, singly and aided and abetted by the other defendantsin this complaint, in- duced and persuaded plaintiff to continue to smoke the afore- nsentionea orands of c_garettes nntFl 15os. , 164. That as to plaintiff, the acts, activities, words, efforts, plans, schemes and advice of defendant HILL & KNOWLTON constituted an intentional interference with, and an intentiona2 invasion of, p2aintiff's right to personal good health and to physical well being; that such acts and,activities of said de- fendant directly and proximately resulted in the infliction upon plaintiff of temporal damages in the form of ill health. 165. That as to plaintiff, the aforesaid acts, acti- vities, words, efforts, plans, schemes and advice of defen- dant HILL &%N9WLT4N constituted a prima facie tort, in that the said defendant intentionally did that vhich was calculated in the ordinary course of events to damage plaintiff without just cause or excuse, and which did, in fact, injure plaintiff herein; that such acts and activities constituted a violation of plaintiff's legal rightsr including, but not limited to, his onal good health and physical well being, com- mitted knowingly. 166. That by the said acts and activities, including, but not limited to, the use of false words, the plaintiff euf- fered special damages, to wit, loss of his occupation and live- lihood and the incurring of necessary and reasonable expenses for medical, nursing, hospital and drug services and supplies and that by reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars. 03 ft3 -4Q- S CD I U1 Co 0N IQ

CIL had spent over Five Million (55,000,000.00) Dollars in the name of scientific research. 191. That the funds for the operation of defendant belief, been contributions from the cigarette manufacturers who ~ are members of COUNCIL, with each cigarette organization, com- ~ pany or corporation contributing according to its sales. .:.1; .. _...a .".. ." ni~.i of defendant COUNCIL, its aforesaid directors and members, to counteract, dilute, minimize and obfuscate each and every medi- cal and other =_cie^tific; report, study and survey that has beerr released, which tends to establish a positive correlation be- tween smoking and cancer. 193. That such plan to dilute or to counteract scienti- fic publicity adverse to the harmlessness of smoking to human health has usually taken the form of a statement to the Ameri- can press immediately following the release of such an adverse scientific report or survey, in which attemptedly refuting statement oxie or more members of the COUNCIL or of its Scien- tific Advisory Board declares that the new evidence or data is inconclusive or inaccurate or that further investigation is needed. 194. That when the report of the American Cancer Society as herein previously alleged was released, defendant tUtf$CIL publicly took the position that said report pointed up the need for further research. 195. That when the scientific work of Dr. Auerbach and others, as herein previously alleged, was reported on, defen- dant C?EfNCIL publicly took the position that the time for posi- tive statements had not yet arrived. 196. That when New York Health Commissioner f€illehoe made a statement, as herein previously alleged, defendant fSDtRi- M CIL publicly took the position that the Commissioner had qID _&7_ [D ~ ~ {?l NO

fact, defendant BURHETT recklessly and voluntarily kept itself in a state of ignorance, or in as much of a state of ignorance as was possible under the existing circumstares, as to the h:1 s":O:iEd ..._G and as to its carcinogenic propensities. 145. That although defendant BURTiETT made representa- tions in said advertising, as aforesaid in the next preceding paragraph about the safe, harmiess, wholesome and L•eae;ic7,ai ities of the aforementioned brands of cigarettes, it•was consciously aware that it did not know the true nature and pro- pensities of said prod::cis; and that, specificalty, 2;aid deEea- dant did not inquire of defendant PHILIP MORRIS, manufacturer of said products for which BURNETT was preparing and dissemin- ating the advertising, and did not encourage or request defen- dant PHILIP MORRIS to undertake or pursue adequate scientific tests and experiments, and studies, as to the nature of said products and the consequences of smoking thereof. 146. That the defendant BURHET'f actually knew, but nevertheless failed to apprise and inform the public, including plaintiff, that the defendant PHILIP RORRIS' cigarette products tes Government, from the medica2 profession, and from the or probably were, carcinogenic. That said defendant knew that in representing said products as safe and wholesome, it was concealing facts, data and information as to the dangerous, or probably dangerous, nature of said products from the United v and contriving to conceal facts and information as alleged, defendant BURNETT was aided and abetted by the other defen- dants in this complaint. 147. That the defendant BURNETT, together with the de- fendant PHILIP StORRIS, engaged in the active practice over the public, including plaintiff; that in concealing, and s years of ccmposing,_ uttering and disseminating advertising which falsely represented the nature of the aforementioned

210. That by the said acts and activities, including but not limited to the use of false words, the plaintiff suf- fered special damages, to wit, loss of his occupat'.on and :.RCV. ..-. ...... .... . . _ '2i .- penses for medical, nursing, hospital and drug services and supplies and was damaged in the sum of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars. AS AND FOR A TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT THE COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH - U.S.A. 211. Plai:.:i:f rapeats asd reaSles,es each and erer}• a!- legation contained in paragraphs "1" through "21U" " inclusive .. of this complaint, with the same force and effect as if speci- fically set forth hereat. 212. That the defendant COUNCIL, its aforesaid direc- ' tors and members, prepared and had published statements, which .. as previously alleged in the preceding Cause of Action against ' , unscientifically negated, distorted and confused, in a manner, the afresaid medical and other scientific re- ports, studies and surveys that tended to establish a relation- 'ship between smoking and cancer; that said defendant further fostered and published statements which purported to be ac- counts of the results of scientific experiments indicating '. that unknown was the answer to the question as to the effect .. of smoking upon human health; that said defendant knetr or ' should have known that said statements were false, deceptive and misleading and were a misrepresentation of the facts relating to the health, life and longevity of tobacco smokers, particu- larly smokers of cigarettes, including smokers of defendant PHILIP MORRIS' brands of cigarettes. 213. That defendant COUNCIL, its aforesaid directors and members, thereby knowingly, intentionally and fraudulently, or recklessly in disregard of the consequences, made false, W1`.'3 _Z~ .. £3 iP7 04

187. That the defendant COUNCIL, its members and its directors estabi'shed, the exact date and time being unknown to this plaintiff but known to the defendants herein; a Scientific 1:1 t''? immediately preceding paragraph, to confuse, conceal, rebut and negate medical and other scientific information, data, re- ports, studies and surveys dealing with the effect of tobacco ss.o:asg ~pa: ...,..a.. ..~:..,..., . 188. That the said Scientific ,idvisory Board, for the e and with the intent as immediately hereinabove alleged, of coneealing, co.^.fus+_n„ rebutting and negating said medical and other scientific data, has publicly taken the position in the past and at present, that under the present state of knowl- edge, as a matter of scientific fact, no one knows about the effect of smoking upon human health, although said Hoard and said defendant association knew, or should have known, that the answer to such query is that smoking is injurious to health. 189. That the defendant COUNCIL, its aforesaid direc- tors, members and Advisory Board, have spent large sums of money, the exact sums being unknown to this plaintiff but known to the defendants herein, in the name of scientific research; that such research, to date, upon information and belief, has produced no significant accretion of knowledge or of scientific verification or weight on the relationship between smoking of tobacco and human bea2th; but that such research has, in fact, been directed as alleged aforesaid at the negation or rebuttal of any medical or other scientific reports, studies or surveys which do seek to establish a positive correlation hetween, and especially to attribute an etiologica2" role of, smoking and particularly smoking of cigarettes, to cancer. 190. That at the tiwe plaintiff stopped smoking cigar- ettes in 1963, upon information and belief, the defendant CQ42i- -46-

cigarette products for which it and they were preparing, or aiding in the preparation of, such statements, were carcino- genic, or probably carcinogenic, in nature. Y_S. Y.nt tr.e aoresai3 sta*ac.+n- prepareo ally prepared by the defendant COCtNC1L, its aforesaid directors . ~ and members, have been alleged to be false and deceptive by j various bodies, agencies and organs of the United States Govern-1 -eat~ __ t.- ^_ ?=___s.+c:..._._? -, -..- -_._. States Congress and the Federal Trade Commission. 217. That the misrepresentations in the aforesaid state-` ments preaared or aartially prenared by the defendant COUVCIL, its aforesaid directors and members, were made with the purpose '' and intent of deceiving the public, including plaintiff, and of ~ persuading and inducing the public to smoke, or to continue to smoke, cigarette products, including the aforesaid brands of cigarettes; and that plaintiff did rely on said statements, and I did not know and could not have known, at that time, of their i falsity. 218. "That as a direct and proximate result of his said reliance on said misrepresentations and as a direct and proxi- mate result of the artifices, stratagems, devices and contri- vances of the defendant COUNCIL, its aforesaid directors and to keep him in ignorance, plaintiff was injured and damaged as hereinabove alleged in the sum of One Million (S1t000,000.00) Dollars. AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACCIOH AGAINST DEFENDANT TBE COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH - U. S. A. 219. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allega- tion contained in paragraphs "1" through "218" inclusive of this complaint, with the same force and effect as if specifi- cally set forth hereat. 0~ _53- T C3 t.t'= tT't

skimmed off the most extreme positions os tobacco's most ex- treme critics, although defendant knew, or should have known, that said position was not an extreme one. _57. T;:a: _?tt:;_ :u . .....:...... _. ..:.e -vx-. ^^f'~r_T.~ ..^4 the public position, on behalf of defendant, that compelling doubts had been raised about statistics and their interpreta- ~ tions involving smoking and health, which statement he knew, 3 or shouLd have known. '+.a_~ not true. 18&. That the defendant COtVCIL, :ts aforesaid ±+rec- tors and members, and its Advisory Soard, have perpetrated the aforesaid plan and schewe of dilution snd negation of medical and other scientific data before there has been opportunity to review adequately the said medical and other scientific re- ports being released. 199. That the defendant tS3UHCIL, its aforesaid direc- tors and members, have been aided in obtaining a favorably dis- proportionate amount of space in newspapers for the publica- tion and dissemination of its reports and remarks by the fact that its members advertise extensively in said newspapers and possess economic power with respect to placing of advertising, as hereinabove alleged, and that the loss of advertising ac- counts would result in economic harm to said newspapers. 204. That the acts and activities of the defendant COIINCIL, its aforesaid directors and members, were designed, calculated and intended to prevent the public, including plain- tiff, from finding out and determining the true and actual ef- fect upon human life, health and safety of cigarette smoking, ~ and to prevent the public, including plaintiff, from obtaining unbiased and undistorted medical and scientific reports on ', said subject. . _ '.. 201. That, in fact, plaintiff was prevented from ob- taining full.and unbiased medical and scientific reports on CO 1\a scientific tests, experiments and studies, since the few of -;~ CD -q8_ L.YI CO Q ~ a

232. As a de*ender of the tobacco industry from critics. as stated in the immediately preceding paragraph, the defen- dant INSTITUTE has officially condemned the President of the National Association of 9roadcasters for taking the position cnat, to him, the ~:•_a•:nce aupeared conclusive on the i.<.Aue oi causation of cancer from smoking. 233. As a defender of the tobacco industry from critics, as aforesaid, defendant INSTITUTE has officially criticized one of the radio and televssson ne.works, to xit, Calumbia Broad- casting System, for presenting'a program on a study of smoking among "teenagers"; that said program was characterized by a member of the United States Senate as perceptive and objective. 234. That by undertaking to make reports to the press, by undertaking to publicize its own reports, which were biased and inaccurate, and by various other acts and activities in connection with functioning as a public relations spokesman and organ for the tobacco industry, the defendant INSTITUTE, and its members, directly and intentionally pushed itself and them into the attention of the public and attempted to become, and did become,_ a known public figure. .~ of said public efforts and said notoriety, the defendant INSTITUTE and its members violated their duty and obiigatioL to the public, including plaintiff, to investigate and report objectively on the subject of the carcinogenic nature of substances in tobacco and in the smoke of cigarettes, including the aforementioned brands of cigarettes and the duty not to prevent the public, including plaintiff, from obtaining unbiased and accurate information an that sub- ject and question, so that said public, including plaintiff, could make its, and his, own decisions in an unbiased manner about the risks associated with smoking of cigarettes. -57- S

AS A6D FOR -C3 EIGHTEEtiLii CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT HILL & RNOH•L7£7N IXC 178. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every a2- iecaeios _ontsined t`.zugh of this complaint, with the same force and effect as if speci- ficaily set forth hereat. 179. That by virtue of defendant HILL 4, 2CNDYPi.'PON•s con- duet in thus recklessty. a;,c ia disregaru oz :he ctrc~-:a*ancr- as hereinabove alleged, iz: msving false statements and couns=7- ling others to make false statements, without knowing whether they xere true or false, concerning the nature and effects of the cigarettes with which it was dealing, which cigarettes when smoked involved an unreasonable risk upon the human health of the smoking public, including plaintiff, defendant HILL & KNOWLTON has become liable to plaintiff for recklessly-made representations, for punitive or exemplary damages, in the sum of Five Million ($5,000,000.00) Dollars. AS AND FOR A NINET'EEHR`H CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT THE COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH - U.S.A. 180. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every al- legation contained in paragraphs "I° through "179" inclusive of this complaint, with the same force and effect as if speci- fically set forth hereat. 181. That, as hereinabove alleged, defendant COUttCIL is a voluntary, unincorporated association; that said defen- dant association has been created by the defendant HILL & by firms, organizations and corporations engaged in the tobacco industry in the United States, including the de- fendant PHILIP MORRIS. ._ 182. That, as hereinabove alleged, defendant COUNCIL ' 1-1 has its principal place of business in the State of New York;l,,; that its ~ principal offices are in the City of New York, and ED -44- G7 4CN f'il

were located at the time of the service of the Summons in this action, and previous thereto, in the same building and on the same floor as are the offices of defendant HILL & KNOtrLTOS. ;HS. 7hat _::e ard tta directo-? of defendant COUNCIL are Timothy Y. Hartnett, Chairman; N. T. Hoyt, Executive Director; and Clarence Cook Little, Scieutif3c. Birector; that, upon information and belief, said Clarence :raauz.o .., a.:•, r.cuz-ca; ~ctv..Z as::: a i[edical Uoctor. 184. That, upon information and belief, among the real parties in interect and :aer..bers in defendant association CQUN- CIL, are defendant HILL &%NC51YL'r4N and the defendant tobacco cturers PHILIP MORRIS, REYNOLDS, AMERICAN TOBACCO and 0 185. That defendant C4UNCIL, during the time period when plaintiff smoked defendant PHILIP MORRIS' cigarettes, as hereinabove alleged, did not comply, and has never complied, with the Iaas of the State of New York that require that an as- sociation file a certificate of doing business under an assumed name; that as a result of said omission, all the real parties in interest in COUNCIL, including those referred to in the im- mediately preceding paragraph, have assumed each and every civil liability and responsibility of defendant COUNCIL. 186. That the stated purpose of defendant COU!£CIIL is to aake impartial studiess into the relationship between smoking of tobacco and human health; but that its purpose, in fact, { is and has been to discredit, rebut, distort and confuse amassedl medical and other scientific data, evidence, reports, studies ~ and surveys that indicate that smoking is deleterious to human ~ health; and that it has also pursued the purpose of encouraging ', research, or asserted research, tending to indicate that smok- ing is good, or at least not bad, for the health of smokersD~ ~ _q5_ ~ C~ t.FY Gl3 tT+ 1-13

! f 238. That as a result of the efforts of defendant IY- STITUTE, and its ^embers, to dilute, negate, counteract, con- ceal, distort and ainimize the medical and other scientific re- »r: 0e t7., subject of the risks to human health, life and longevity asso- ciated with smoking of tobacco and of cigarettes, including the aforementioned brands of cigarettes, said defendant breached and riolated _.,. __ _ :o no'. _o __ .., conceal the facts concerning said effects of smoking. 237. That as to plaintiff, the acts and activities of defendant INSTITUTE and its members constituted an intentional interference with, and an intentional invasion of, plaintiff's right to personal good health and to physical well being; that such acts and activities of said defendant directly and proxi- mately resulted in the infliction upon plaintiff of temporal damages in the form of ill health. 238. That as to plaintiff, the aforesaid acts and acti- vities of defendant INSTITUTE and its members, constituted a prima facie tort, in that said defendant did intentionally that which was calculated in the ordinary course of events to dam- age plaintiff without Jyst cause or excuse, and which did, in fact, injure plaintiff herein; that such acts and activities ad a violation of plaintiff's legal rights, including but mot limited to his right to personal good health and physi- eo limited to the use of false words, the plaintiff suf- 11 being, committed knowingly. 239. That by the said acts and activities, including fered special damages, to wit, loss of his occupation and livelihood and the incurring of necessary and reasonable ex- peases for medical, nursing, hospital and drug services and _ supplies and was damaged in the sum of One Million 0J ($1,000,000.00) Dollars. f"D 4_ -58- CD i_3'I AM C__) CD

0 0 health, safety aid well be_^,- of the public, including plain- tiff, since it knew, or should have known, that the aforesaid products were, or probably were, carcinogenic indifference to its oblizations as one preparine for a product :or huaan consuxption and to the consequences o! its acts or omissions, it made no attempt to apprise or in-form the public, including plaintiff, of said carcinogenic pro- nengitles nf za3d nrnd:jrrc hut qther. hc ~r.•ar,p_ gems and devices as previously alleged herein, contrived to • conceal such facts and circumstances from the public, inclssd- ing plaintiff. 178. That,.as stated in the immediately preceding para- graph, defendant HILL & KNOWLTON acted oppressively, with in- difference to its obligations and to the consequences, and in wanton and wilful, or reckless, di-regard of the health, safety and welfare of the public, including plaintiff, in thus at- tempting to conceal facts and information, or to have others so conceal facts and information, in order to enhance its own economic position. 177. That by virtue of defendant HILL & KNOWLTON's plan and design, as aforesaid, so to conceal and cause others to conceal facts and informat3on from the public, including plain- tiff, and to proceed in wilfull and wanton disregard of, and with indifference of the consequences to, plaintiff's rights, and safety, and in making false statements and aiding and abetting others in making false statements relating to cigarette products designed for human consumption, defendant HILL & KNOWLTON has become liable to plaintiff for fraud and de- ceit and invasion of his personal rights, for punitive or exem- plary damages, in the sum of Five Million ($5,000,000.00) Dollars. Co ~ -43- T ' CD i3t L~ tTm Z.t"s

AS AND FOR A TWL`.iY-F(3URT$ CAUSE OF e3CTIQD( AGAINST DEFENDANT TOBACCO ZYSTITt3T'£ INC. 240. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every al- Ieeettnn ^ontained of this complaint, with the same force and effect as if speci- . FSCaIIp set forth hereat. ` 241. That the defendant SHSTZI'UTE, and its members, ~ preparei ar,d b:.:7 ~rp.3res ana _*.auemwncs. ra.ct:. a~ previously alleged, necated, distorted and confused, _.. _.. __- scientific and biased manner, the aforesaid medical and other scientific reports, studies and surveys that tended to estab- lish a relationship between smoking and cancer; that defendant i , Z#STZTUTE's said reports and statements attacked critics of the ~ tobacco industry; that said critics, thus attacked by defendant INSTITUTE, were highly qualified tv-make the statements that they made, and were motivated in making such reports, studies, surveys and statements solely with the preservation and main- tenance of the life, health, safety and welfare of inembers of the public,.including plaintiff; and that said defendant, . through its said own reports and statements, sought to dissuade ~ the public, including plaintiff, from giving credence to the aforesaid medical and other scientific reports, studies and sar- oa the causation of cancer; that a11 of said reports of . its own this defendant knew, or should have known, were false, deceptive and misleading. 242, That defendant IHSTI2'G1B and its members thereby knowingly, intentiona'-Iy and fraudulently, or recklessly in disregard of the consequences, made false, misleading and de- ceptive representations about the tobacco products, including defendant PHILIP /fORRIS' brands of cigarettes, on which it was preparing, or aiding in the preparation of, statements, by ex- pressly stating, and by implying, that such products were sMZ1, 7ti? -59- ~ ~ CIT I ~ -,_.a

with indifference to its obligations as one preparing adver- . tising for a pro-_ct for human consumption and to the coase- • quences of its acts or omissions, it made no attempt to apprise or c... ;ubl:c, .no:::.ii:.g ,Iai:iat, ofsaid csr~i::oeetxic propensities of said products, but rather, by artifices, stratagems and devices as previously alleged herein, contrived to conceal such facts and circumstances from the public, in- cluding plaintiff.. . 250. That the defendant I?tSTITifY•E, as stated in the in- mediately preceding paragraph, acted oppressively, with indif- ference to its obligations and to the consequences, and in .an- ton and wilful, or reckless, disregard of the health, safety and welfare of the public, including plaintiff, in thus attempt- ing to conceal, dilute and falsely present information on smok- ing in order to enhance the business of the tobacco industry and of its members. 251. That by virtue of defendant IHSTZTUIB's plan and . design; as aforesaid, so to mislead the smoking public, includ-;ing plaintiff, and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of,l and with indifference to the consequences upon plaintiff's . rights, health and safety, and in making false statements and in concealing iaformation of importance from the smoking public, including plaintiff, in that it related to cigarette products designed for human consumption, defendant INSTITUTE has become liable to plaintiff for fraud, deceit and invasioa af his per- sonal rights, for punitive or exemplary damages, in the sum ef Five Million ($5,000,000.00) Dollars. AS A21D FOR A T7fENTY-S1%TH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFE?iDAli'€' TOBACCO INSTIRqPCE INC. 252. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every al- legation contained in paragraphs °1" through "251" inclusive of this complaint, with the same force and effect as if speci- fically ficallp set forth hereat. ~ -fi2- n Q i.3'l

and organs of the United States Government, including the House - of Representatives ot the United States Congress and the Federal Trade Commission. .. =;6. T.`.a' ...e al3r.=p:^s.~ta*-une i:t the atar•__>i.: .-- statements prepared by defendant INSTITUTE and, and for, its members, were made with the purpose and intent of de- the public, including plaintiff, and of persuading and 0 i:Id'3__ c thc^ -lb!__ -n ~ ^tt^ rr •n ^O^t•pP r^ products, including the aforesaid brands of cigarettes; and ` that plaintiff did rely on said statements, and did not know and could not have knov:n, at that time, of their falsity. 247. That as a direct and proximate result of his said reliance on said misrepresentations in said reports and state- ments and as a result of the artifices, stratagems, devices and contrivances of the defendant INSTITUTE and its members,. to keep him in ignorance, plaintiff was injured and damaged as hereinabove alleged, in the sum of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars. AS AHD FOR A T1fENTY-FIFTB CAUSE OF A1.'i'ZOH AGAINST DEFENDANT TOBACCO IlYBTITUTB INC. 248. plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every al- legation contained in paragraphs "I° through "24?^ inclusive of this complaint, with the same force and effect as i2 speci- fically set forth hereat. 249. That the defendant ZNSPIT6T8 over the years in its position asspokesman for the tobacco industry supplied advice and furnished reports and criticized and diluted reports of others in conscious, wilful and wanton, or reckless, disregard of the health, safety and well being of the public, including plaintiff, since it knew, or should have known, that the afore- said products were, or probably were, carcinogenic; and yet, -61-

esome and harmless and in some manner good for the health of 0 the smoker, whereas it knew, or should have known, that these ' brands of cigarettes were not beneficial to the health of the smox^;, and. zn _..:2. _:.... ~cn:laue~ use and consuspticn of said cigarette products caused, or probably caused; cancer of a the respiratory tract organs and other respiratory portions of ~ the body, including the lungs. 1 243. That the dcfrrzdanl INSTL2?'TP 2.^.d i"E _-.n^*cr: thereby knowingly, intentionally and fraudulently omitted, con- cealed from and failed to disclose and declare to the public, in-cludinq plaintiff, the risks to health, includin¢ cancer of the respiratory tract organs and other respiratory portions of the body, including the lungs, created, or probably created by smok- ing and consumption of the cigarette tobacco products, includ- ing defendant PHILIP MORRIS' brands of cigarettes, for which it was preparing, or aiding in the preparation of, statements, al- though it was, or should have been, well aware of said risks. 244. That if the defendant INSTITUTE and its members were not aware of the risks of cancer associated with smoking of cigarettes, including the aforementioned brands of cigar- ettes, at the initial time Of issuance Of statements, it and they were preparing or aiding in the preparation of, concerning the effect upon human health Of smoking tobacco Products, in- cluding the said brands of cigarettes, said defendant and its aforesaid members, as the years passed, acquired such medical and other scientific knowledge and information as to inform it and them that said brands of cigarette products for which it ! and they were preparing, or aiding in the preparation af, such '.. statements, were carcinogenic, or probably carcinogenic, in ', nature. ' - ' 245. That the aforesaid statements prepared or partially prepared by the defendant INSTITUTE and its members, have been alleged to be false and deceptive by various bodies, agencies -so_ 82-405862

AS LND FOR i _nE:7e-:t3STH C3GJz t7c rit'II4\ _+"s=iaS7 -ALi, uaic'a'.in_rT5 10 264. pla:..tiff repeats and realleges each and every al- legation contained in paragraphs "i" through "263" inclusive, :)I L:Sc ~ :.a-:e, s1T.: .::e ~2:N3 t2^CO 1°i :TTect -., __ aF2Lr £ically set forth hereat. 265. That each and every defendant named in this com- plaint conspired with each of the other defendants and all of them, except that ac.enoant i.lhuzTT c9ii7P5 was nor a ae:a:er of defendant COU?lCZL, to prevent,the public, including plain- tiff, and to prevent che medical profession, particularly in the Unised States, fro.:, obtaining information and knoM2edyc about the true and actual effect upon human life, health and longevity of smoking tobacco products, especially with respect to the effect of smoking of cigarettes, including the aforemen- tioned brands thereof and, in particular, about the risk of be- coming afflicted with cancer of the respiratory tract organs or other respiratory portions of the body, including the lungs, from smoking cigarettes, of which the smoke, as hereinabove alleged, contains carcinogenic substances. 266. That each of the defendants conspired with each of the other defendants and all of them, with the exception afore- said, to engage in an intentional plan, program, plot and scheme of concealment, refutation, mgation, counteraction, dis- tortion and dilution of medical and other scientific informa- tion, knowledge, data, reports, studies aad surveys with re- spect to the effects of smoking upon human life, health and longevity; that they further conspired to substitute inaccurate, biased and distorted information for the aforesaid medical and other scientific data. 267. That in furtherance of the aforesaid conspiracy,- all the defendants met from time to time, the exact times, dates and places being unknown to this plaintiff, in varyinf-1. ~ -68- ~ i37 C3 C3 CD

groups; that, upon information and beiief, the exact sum or sums unknown to this piaintiff, said defendants spent large 0 sums of money for group projeccs for said purpose of further- ance of the corspirtc_. 268. That the elements af combination of forces and funds on the part of all of the defendants created additional pr,wers of Sn£7uPn~~; deception and concealment. which none of the defendants indiv3duaily possessed. 269. That said combination of forces made the common plans and schemes of all of the defendants themselves uniawful. 270. That if not all of the defendants individually con- mitted tortious acts as to plaintiff, as has been'above alleged, at least some of them did do se, and as to the remainder of the defendants, they, by intentio ng and encourag- ing the activities of the group of defendants engaged in a con- spiracy of action which itself constituted a tortious act as to the p2aintiff. 271.. That said conspiratorial acts, plans and schemes were directed at the public, of which plaintiff was a member. 272. That as to plaintiff, the mid conspiratorial acts and schemes of all of the defendants were successful, in that plaintiff was prevented from obtaining full and unbiased ac- counts of the medical investigations which were being made which tended to show an etiological relationship between smo8- ing and cancer of the respiratory tract organs and other res- piratory portions of the body, including the lungs. 273. That as to plaintiff, the said conspiratorial acts, plans, plots and schemes of all the defendants were suc- cessful, in that plaintiff's state of mind was such that it was filled with the aforesaid distorted, biased, inaccurate and confusing information from the reports and statements made and disseminated by all the defendants herein; that such informa- r'? I~3 -C,7_ ~ (,33 Ga {."3 110

253. That by virtue of defendant INSTITUTE's conduct in thus recklessly, and in disregard of the circumstances as here- inabove alleged, in makin¢ false statements and counselling _ __~ *u r..t4z= _... `i:se ~-~.:r "'~"'. .s~..~_. 's;o•,fh2 whe*iier ;tt•i were true or false, concerning the nature and effects of the cigarettes with which it was dealing, which cigarettes, when smoked, involved an unreasonable risk upon the human health of the ~2o/f1S:'a* pLU15:, 1P.iS:2Ui.ia ri¢.niili, ~riet:LU.ii .NZ3.T"7 become liable to plaintiff for recklessly-made representa- tions, for punitive or exemplary damages, in the sum of Five Million 155,4QC,0*IQ.90; Dollars. eiS AND FOR A TWENTY-SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS R. J. REYNOLDS, INC.; AMERICAN TOBACCO CQMPAItY; LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO.; A2&1 P. LORILLARD Co., INC. 254. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every al- legation contained in paragraphs "2^ through °253" inclusive of this complaint, with the same force and effect as if speci- fically set forth hereat. . 255. That the defendants R. J. REYNOLDS, a 27ew Jersey corporation, as hereinabove alSeged, AMERICAN TOBACCO, a New .Jeney corporation, as hereinahove alleged, LI,tYiE1T tc MYERS, a New Jersey corporation, as hereinabove alleged, and LORILLARD, a tFew Jersey corporation, as hereinabove alleged, along with de- tendant PHILIP MORRIS, are and were, during the time period hereinabove specified from 1930 through 1963 when plaintiff smoked the aforesaid brands of cigarettes, the principals of defendants SILL & ffi7O1tLT4N and INSTITUTE; that said defendants B. J. REYNOLDS, AMERICAN TOBACCO, LIGGETT & MYERS and LQRILLARD, along with defendant PHILIP MQRRI3, are, as hereinatwve alleged, members of defendant Cot7fiCZL, which is a voluntary, unincor- -63- Lk3 It? -1 C7 i3'" co C1 fs'7

($1,000,000.00) Dollars, together with the costs and dishc;rse- of this ac-~ .on. SPEISER, SiIti3Ll1£, GEOGfIdS & LAW Attorneys for Plaintiff Gecrge T. Davis, of Counsel Office & P. 0. Address Pan Am Building, 200 Park Avenue New York, N. Y. 10017 T~'.cyhGae: S'.0 t-'JDi:

porated associated, and are real parties in interest in said COUNCIL; that defendants R. J. REYNOLDS, AMERICAN TOBACCO, LIGGETT &#tYERS and LOAILL.§RD, along with defendant PHILIP ' dOftBT_5, :._ :.erbers ji I\STIT:,ZS. "#ic•*. ss a".~ea York .^emner- snip corporation, as hereinabove alleged, and are and consti- tute the real parties in interest of said INSTITUTE; and that asj a 1{nd principals of defendant HILL & SfNO]FLTON,Jas principals, members dnd real }rarEien ... v_ .__t......~. IYcTirr'rF£ nn,i ,_ bers of defendant COUNCIL, said defendant R. J. REYVOLD.,, dS;ERI- CAN TOBAC(1?, LIGGEIT a ttYERS and LORILLARD, along with defendant PHILIP `•:ORRIS, were a::d are responsible for the acts of said defendants HILL & KNOWLTON, INSTITUTE and COUNCIL, which acts were performed on their behalf, and which acts they adopted, approved and ratified. 256. That as a direct and proximate cause of the fore- going, defendants R. J. REYNOLDS, A6f&RICAN TOBACCO, LIGG81"C tc kYSRS and IARILLARIf have become jointly and severally liable to the piaintiff in the sum of One YZllion ($1,000,000.00) Dollars. AS AND FOR A TI[ENTY-&IGHTN CAUSE OF ACfION AGAINST DEFENDANTS R. J. REYNOLDS, INC.; A3iERICAIt TOBACCO fXfYPAHY; LIGOSCP & HYSR3 TOBACCO CO.; AND P. LORILLARD CO., INC. 257. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every a2- legation contained in paragraphs "i" through "258^ inclusive of this coaaplaint, with the same force and effect as it speci- fically set forth hereat. 258. That in 1962, the net income of the defendant R.J. One Hundred Nineteen Million ($119,000,000.00) Dollars, and its total assets were in excess of One Billion ($1,000,000,000.00) Dollars. ! 259. That in 1963, the net income of defendant AMERICAN 8 Sixty-eight Million (S6B,000,D00.00) Dollars, and -64-

STATE OF NEW YORK ? ) ss.: 6NTY OF NEW YORK) ng duly sworn, deposes and says: Geoghan & Law, the attorneys for the plaintiff herein, maintain- STUART M. SPEISER, ices at 200.Park Avenue, in the City and County of New York; that he has read the foregoing complaint and knows the h=~=nf >nti #hat *'•e samT is srua tn his •sxe edge, t:<cept as to matters therein stated to be alieged jpc:. information and belief, and that as to those matters, he be- lieves it to be true: that the reason why this verification eponent instead of plaintiff, is because the plain- tiff is not_now within the County of New York, which is the County where deponent has his office. Deponent further says that the grounds of his belief as to all matters in said com- plaint not stated upon his knowledge are information supplied by the plaintiff; deponent's own investigation of the facts of this case, and matters pertaining thereto which are of public record. th.dsy of d Sworn to before me this otary Public, StatY of We 41-685B65Q Qualified in Queens County Term Expires March 30, 1966

N

tion and data promulgated and disseminated by defendants tended to, and did, for a period of time until plaintiff had already SJeLurt:e +.at.. ....ia i..z i t->l:[ i4n~} aS :.. i~=.. hereinabove, allay any suspicions he may have had; and that such information and data of defendants encouraged piaintiff to on defendants` reports and statements that he read and heard. and to seek'no further to determine .he efYefts oi smo::- ing the aforesaid brands of cigarettes upon his life, tralt.'h and longevity. ' 274. That plaintiff did what could reasonably be ex- pected of his in relying, as aforesaid, on the misrepresenta- tions and false and misleading statements which the defendants conspired to present to him; and that in so doing,plaintiff did what defendants intended that he do; that plaintiff, in so relying, and in trusting the reports and statements dissem- inated by defendants, was justified in not terminating his smok- ing sooner, because of the seeming conflict in scientific evidence, as to the effect of smoking, created by all the de- fendants in furtherance of said conspiracy. 275. That as a direct and proximate result of the acts of conspiracy, as hereinabove alleged, each of the defendants in this complaint became liable to the plaintiff for the in- juries, as previously alleged, in the sua of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars. 1fREREFOR&, plaintiff demands judgment against the defen- I dant PHILZH RORRI8 on the Pirst, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action in the sum of One Nillion ($1,000,000.00) Dollars, and on the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Causes of Action in the sum of Five Million ($5,000,000.00 Dollars; and against the defendant St3RR82R on the Eleventh and Twelfth Causes of Action in the sua of One Million (31,000,00t#.00) Dollars and on the Thirteenth and Fourteenth ~

its total assets amounted to Eight Hundred Twenty-two Mi111on ($822,000,000.00) Do€Iars. 260. That in 2962, the net income af the defendant P. LO&?LF.aRD sas i'•rPncv-~•c ~1~i=1il.^. S26.~O1.OJ0.J~`: Dailat's. aai its total assets amounted to Three Hundred Forty-one Million ($3§1,000,000.00) Dollars. 261. That in 1963, the net income of the defendant L7Gf•E?'T k trygqS -~.retn~~t FifLt-nnR ultEion £iaE.t=tt?.DG:7.uU} Dollars, and its total assets exceeded Three Hundred Fi;t}' Million ($350,000,000.t10) Dollars. 262. That through their agents and representatives, HILL & ILNOALT6N, COUNCIL and INSTITUTE, said defendants R. S. REYNOLDS, AMERICAN TOBACCO, LICsGSIR` & MYERS and ZORILLARD, except that LIGGETT & MYERS was not a member of COtxNCIL, and along with defendant PHILIP MORRIS, acted in conscious, wilful and wanton, or reckless, disregard of the health, safety and well being of the public, including plaintiff, since they knew, or should have.kno.n, the aforesaid cigarette products were, or probablywere, carcinogenic; and yet, with indifference to their obiigatioas,°made no attempts to apprise or inform the public, including plaintiff, of said carcinogenic propensities of said products, andby artifices, and devices, false repre- sentations and concealments, riisinformed the smoking public, including plaintiff, and prevented the said public from ob- taining important iaformation on the nature and consequences of smoking. 263. That as a direct and proximate cause of' the con- duct of the named defendants as aforesaid, they each of them, jointly and severally, by reasons of these fraudulent and in- tentional acts, became liable to plaintiff in punitive or exem- plary damages, in the sum of Five Million ($5,000,000.00) Dollars. -6e- i

3. That defendantdid manufacture, sell, distribute - and supply for profit during the time decedent smoked cigarettes and still does so sell brands of cigarettes known as Lucky Strike and Pall HaI3. 4. That as part of such manufacturing and supplying of its products the defendant has pub2ished and dissemihated and caused to be published and diss-eminated writings and oraZ statements concerning its aforementioned cigarettes. 5. That as part of said manufacturing, supplying, selling and advertising of its said cigarette products defendant had employed or otherwise utilized, the services and skills of the defendant HILL &IcNOg2,14?N, INC. (hereinafter referred to as BILL & KNO4iLTON), COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RES&SRCH - U.S.A. (hereinafter referred to as COLNCIL), TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC. 1 (hereinafter referred to as INSTITtSTE), 6. That defendant AYIFSiICAY TOBACCO has utilized the - es of defendants BATTEN, BARTON, DURSTINE & OSBORN, INC.; e0 for advertising purposes; that defendant . S has utilized the services of the defendants d. WALTER TBOStpSON CO.; DANCER-FITZGERALD-SAMPLE, INC.; and - CtfNNINO&A3t & iPALSB, INC, for advertising purposes. _ 7. That defendant has utilized the services, skills, experience, knowledge and contacts of the defendant HILL & public relations purposes. 8. That defendant has utilized the services and the scientific and research skills, experience and resources of defendant COUNCIL for the purpose of manifesting to the public including decedent the message that ~ ~ - 2 » ~-l ~ E11

14. fls a result of defendant's negligence as aforesaid, decedent VICTOR I. 3.fANY sustained serious, severe and permanent personal injuries to his body, was rendered sick and disabled, sustained severe nervous shock, ttental anguish and great physical pain, was confined to a hospital and bed for a considerable length of time, suffered a loss of earnin,gs and income and was prevented from attdnding his usual employment and activities, all with resultant losses•to bim and his family and was compelled to and did undergo medical care, Iiospitalizat treatment and attention and did necessarily expend and become obligated to pay for hospital, medical, doctors and nursing services, expenses and care and as a result of the aforesaid injuries and illness, decedent did die, and as a result of his death funeral expenses were incurred. 15. That the decedent was free from fault on his own.part as to the injuries and,damages previously alleged. 16. That as a result of all of the aforesaid the plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of FIVE f2IFNDRID TEOLSAAD ($500,000.00) DOLL'iRS. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION ICA.Y TOBACCO, INC. 17. -Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1" through "13" inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if speci- , fically set forth hereat, 1&. That by reason of the negligence of the defendant as aforesaid VICTOR I. a€ANN died, and that by reason of said

the smoking of cigarettes including the defendant's brand of cigarettes, did not constitute a cause of ili health in human consumers and in particular, did not constitute a carcinogenic risk. risk. - 9. That defendant has utilized the services, experience ' and contacts of the defendant INSTITpTE for the purpose of manifesting to the public,including decedent.a message that '. the smoking of cigarettes, including defendant's brand of cigarettes,did not constitute a cause of iiI health in human 1 consumers, and in particular, did not constitute a carcinogenic ~ 10. Decedent smoked defendant's said products over a period of time. 11. Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that said products caused or were the . i probable causeoY cancer. 12. Defendant carelessly ignored or failed to appreciate the significance of reports in the medical literature, reports to it and the results to its study and the studies of others on the carcinogenic properties of its products. 13. That defendant otherwise failed to exercise the a, standard of care required of a manufacturer and supplier of a product in common use and especially required of a manufacturer and supplier of cigarette products, such as defendant's laands of cigarettes, created solely for intimate contact with t human body and for consumption by human beings.

Causes of Action in the sum of Five Million ($5,000 000,00) Dollars; and against the defendant HILL & K.YO§fLTON on the Fif- teenth and Sixteenth Causes of Action in the sum of One Million fti2,4<D,OOD.t~O} Dollars and on iise Seventeenth and =igntcent" Causes of Action in the sum of Five Million (g5,000,000.00) Dollars; and against defendant COUNCIL on the Nineteenth and. Twentieth Causes of Aerinn in the =vm of One Mi{l;nn ($1,000,000.00) Dollars and on the Twenty-first and Twenty- second Causes of Action in the sum of Five nillion ($5,000,000.00) Dollars: against defendant INSTITUTE on the Twenty-third and Twenty-fourth Causes of Action in the sum of One Yillion ($1,o00,000.00) Dollars and on the Twenty-fifth and Twenty-sixth Causes of Action in the sum of Five Million ($5,000,000.00) Dollars; against defendant R. J. &EYHOLDS on the Twenty-seventh Cause of Action in the sum of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars and on the Twenty-eighth Cause of Action in the sum of Five Million (S5,000,000.00) Dollars; against de- fendant AMERICAN TOBACCt7 on the Twenty-seventh Cause of Action in the sum of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars and on the Twenty-eighth Cause of Action in the sum of Five Million (i5,000,040.00} Dollars; against defendant LIGGSIT 4 MYERS on the Twenty-seventh Cause of Action in the sum of One Million (S1,000,000.00) Dollars and an the Twenty-eighth Cause of Action in the sum of Five Million (E5,000,000.00) Dollars; against de- fendant LORILLARD on the Twenty-seventh Cause of Action in the sum of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars and an the Twenty- eighth Cause of Action in the sum of Five Million (SS,000,000.00) Dollars; and against all defendants on the nty-ainth Cause of Action in the sum of One Million -89-

AS AND FOR AN EIGFITB CAUSE QF ACTION AGAINST A3E.RIC.4,Y TDBACCO INC. 39. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs °1° through °io'", "'18^, and "34" through "37••, inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 40. As a result of the aforegoing misrepresentations, the widow and daughter of the decedent were damaged in the of FIVE HU:FDREO ?HOt;BA.YD ($500,000.00) DOLLfsBS. AS A.YD FOR A;iIYT° CAUSE OF ACTION • AGAINST AMERICAN TO3ACC0 INC. 41. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every and •'18^, allegation contained in paraeraphs "I" through "10" inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as it specifically set forth hereat. 42. That although the defendaat made representations ' about the safety, wraoiesoceaess and non-injurious effects of its cancer products as aforesaid, said representations were negligently made and made without the exercise of due care under the circuastances then and there existing, in that said defendant was consciously aware that it did not know the true nature and propens_._as of its said cigarette products; that said defendant voluntarily kept'itseil in a state of ignorance with respect to the effects upon human health of smoking said products and with respect to their carcinogenic propensities:.in particular; and that the statements and representations that said defendant made about its products were made recklessly and without any knowledge as to whether 00 A.3 9 _ ' O ii•i

SGPREI:E COL'R: OF THE ST%T'z OF NEW :"Qi.K CQU:ITY OF NEW YORK SON, as Administratrix, C.T.A., of the Estate of ABRAHAM HERSON, Plaintiff, -against- . YFStIFIED BATTEN, BARTON, DURSTINE & OSBORNE, INC.; C02PLAINT F60TE. CONE & SELD€\G. .i. a?LTcR ^'H©aPSON , . _.,_-....,...:a•._. - .•3= .. . C;. _ . t$.SLS:? :\C` - ' it` '.~.3~1CC^. . I\C.; LIGGETT & MYERS TOu.kCCO•c:J., I\C.; PHILIP 1:O,2RIS, INC.; P. LORILLARD CO., INC.; : R.J. REYNOLDS, INC.: HILL & KNOWLTON, INC.; TOBACCO INSTITL7E, ItC.: and :f~T. HOYT, . ;.xecutire Director of the C4L'SCIL FQR TOSACC4 RESEARCH - II.S,A., an unincorporated ;, association, formerly known as Tobacco Industry gesearch Committee, , Defendants. Plaintiff, complaining of the defendants by her attor- aeys, SPEISER, SR0f1ATfi, GEUGBAN fC KRAUS&, respectfully alleges: AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST AMERICAN T48ACC0 INC. 1. That plaintiff is the wife and administratriz, C.T.A.; d.b.n., of the Estate of ABRAHAM H$RSON who died on October 15th, 1963 by her appointment by the Probate Court, County of Richland, State of South Carolina. 2. That defendant A1fERICA€i TOBACCO, INC., {tiereinafter referred to as AMERICAN T4BACC6}, is a corporation arganized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its principal place of doingbusiness in the &tate of Na* York. Cohen aecl. Exhibit N

they were true or false, and without any reason for grounds to believe them to be true. ., 43. That the aforesaid representations and statements were made with the purpose of inducing the public including decedent to rely thereon; and decedent did rely thereoq and as a direct and.:proximate result th,ereof was injured. 44. As a result of the foregoing, decedent was damaged while alive in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED T$Ot7SAPtD (S$00,000.00} DG AS A.YU FOR A T...=YTE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A3riy'RIGAN TOBACCO, 'INC. 45. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1" through "10^, "18°, and "42" and "43", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 46. As a result of the aforegoing negligent misrepresentations, the defendant is liable to the widow and daughter of the decedent in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS A2dR FOR A£LEP£NTH CAUSE OF ACTION AOdI?dST d`S£RICAbT Tl33ACCO, INC. 47. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "I" through "10" and "14", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat.

inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth bereat. i 34. That the defendant uttered and published and caused to be uttered and published a false and untrue representation as to the nature and effect upon human consumers of its cigarette-products and as to the safety, wholesomeness, harmlessness and helpful qualities of said products; that such faise •statements and representations were made and uttered with intention that the public,including decedent, would be induced to act thereon by smoking said cigarette products; and the plaintiff relied thereon; and that as hereinbefore alleged, as a proximate result of said false and fraudulent representations decedent was injured. 35. That de£endant knew that in representing said products as safe and wY.olesome, it was concealing facts, data and information as to the dangerous or possibly dangerous nature of said products irom the public including decedent. 36. That defenda..t contradicted, denied, diluted, minimized, and obfuscated scientific reports, studies and surveys, which reports as hereinbefore alleged, indicated that there was a relationship between smoking and cancer, especially cancer of the lungs. 37. That the decedent relied, at least in part, upon ' the diluted reports and misrepresentations of reports dealing with the harmful consequences of smoking as previously been alleged, to his detriment. 3$. As a result of the foregoing misrepresentations, decedent was damaged while alive to the extent of FIVE HTRiIIRED T$OUSA,~7D (g50Q,000-.00) BOLLAi2S.

AS A.YD FOR A€IFTH CAUSE OF ACTIQN AGAINST, AM: RICAiY TflSACCO ZNC 28. plaintiff repeats and realieges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs '3° through'^10*' and "24^, inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as it specifically set forth hereat. < ' 29. That by placing upon the market for general consumption by the pub2ic, including decedent, products which were unreasonably dangerous when used for the purpose for which intended, consumption by smoking by human beings, defendan became strictly liable to said decedent for the aforesaid injuries. 30. That as a result of all of the aforesaid the plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of FIVE At3NDRED TFi0IISe2i.'D ($500,000.00) DaLLAIis, AS ?1D FOR d SiXT7 CAUSE OF ACTION AG;,ISST A=RSC.,X TOSACC? INC. ! 31. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in p:.rao aphs "1" through "10'", "IS" and •'29", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 32. As a result of the aforevoing strict liability, the defendant is liable to the widow and daughter of the decedent in the amount of FIVE HSIXDR8D TI{QUSARIS ($500,000.00) DQ AS ~.YD FOR A SEYERTH CAUSE QF ACTION 3G"1Z\ST AMERICAN TQHACCQ INC. 33. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every ~ allegation contained in paragraphs "I- through "I0^ and "14", G ~-: 7 - ~ L

23. That by the manufacture, sale, supply and distribution of itscigarette products, tbe defendant made certain implied warranties that said products were merchantabie, wholesome, safe and fit for the purpose intended, which was human consumption. 24. That, in tact, defendant+s cigarette products were not merchantable, safe, wholesome, or fit for the purpose intended nor did they conform with the express warranties made; and that they possessed no qualities related to the preservatiorL of human good health, but were, instead, a toxic, deleterious, deYective, unwholesome, dangerous and unfit for the intended purpose of consumption by human beings. ~ 25. That as a result of the breach of the aforesaid ~ warranties decedent was injured to his damage while living in the amount of FIVE HUNDR:Si TFfQUSd27D (S500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A e^OU'Ri7I CAUSE OF ACTION AGAZ\ST ,33tERzCAN TOBACCO, INC. 26. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1`• through ^i0", ^18", aad ^21" through "24", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 27. As a result of the breach of the aforesaid warranties the widow and daughter of decedent were injured to their damage in the amount ot FIVE fitTNDREI} T&DIISANII ($500,00 - S -

^14", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and ect as it specifically set forth hereat. " iag business in the State of New York. 79. That defendant S, WALTER TI40}dp80X Ct3., is a Sirm 80. That as advertising agent " <eadant prepared and disseminated advertisements : rely, at least in part, upon the contents of said advertising, and defendant relied at least in part thereon. ' the pose of which was to induce the public including decedent to factual information and data pertinent to the safety factor or risk involved in the consumption of the cigarette products it was advertising. _ alse statement and under the duty and not to omit available 81. That defendant was under a duty to the public including decedent to refrain from making a mis-representation smoked by decedent. safety and health of smokers of the brands of cigarettes misrepresentation of the existing and available facts relating there existing the factual statements therein contained false, deceptive and misleading and constituted a 32. That defendant knew or in the exercise•of reasonable care should have known that under the factual circumstances then 83. That the defendant did conceal from, and diluted reports to the public induding,decedent on the risks to human health created or probably created by smoking of cigarettes and in particular the cigarettes made by defendanti. . CO -4~- - 17 - t7 L}-7 \f} I

AS A.PiD FOR A FIFTEEPiTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LIGGETr &. MYERS TOBACDO C4. I24C 58. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4'", "5", '"7^ through •`10'", "r14", "21" through "24'r, "53" and "54°, inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as i1 specifically set forth hereat. 59. That as a result of the breach of the aforesaid warranties decedent was injured to his damage while living in the azaount of FIVE HiTTiDRED TEOUSArYf3 {$500,000,00} DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A SI%TEEN'r:£ CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LIGG=18. 31YERS TOBACCO CO., INC. 60. Plaintiff repeats and rea:2eges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4", "5", "7" through "10", "18", "21",throuoh "24'", "53" and "54", inclusive of _ this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 61. As a result of the breach of the aforesaid warranties the widow and daughter of decedent were injured to their damage in the amount of FIVE AIA3DRED 'FEOUSAED ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A SEVStiTrE\ifi CAUSE OF ACTION AGAI\ST LZGGSTr & MY%RS TOBACCO CO., i t 62. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "I", "4"', °5", "7"" through "10", "14", "28°, "S3" and '"54"", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. t3D ~ ~ O -13- U3 •CS O ~

death, decedent's widow STEZdai A, >fAh'Y, and decedent's individuals daughter, ChARB 3SA2+'N, the , entitled to recover damages herein and for whose benefit this adtion is brought; and as a result of his death as aforesaid his widow and child were deprived of his support, maintenance and contributions from his earnings and income which they could reasonably have expected the decedent to provide had he continued to live and that the widow was further caused to suffer the Ioss of consortium of said husband, his advice, love, services, protection, guidance and other benefits, and that his daughter was further caused to suffer the loss of the adtrice, love, protection, guidance and other benefits. 19. That as a result of all of the aforesaid the plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of FZYS AU2iDRED, TIiOUSArhD ($500,000.00) D6Z.L.4RS. RD CAUSE OF ACTION GAZ\ST a17ERIC?.N TQflACCD ZNC. 20. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs ^1" through "10" and "14TM inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 21. That the defendant made certain express warranties as to the safety, harmlessness, wholesomeness and health preserving or health maintaining qualities of its eigarette products to the public including decedent. 22. That these express warranties had the natural tendancy to induce decedent to consume defendant's products and defendant relied, at least in part, on these promises (y3 and representations. ~ ~ _ S ~ tS7

63. That as a result of all Of the aforesaid the plaintiff has beet damaged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED T$OpSAlM ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. ,. AS ANt3' FOP, fr,.Y EIGjiTZEN£Ei CAUSE OF ACTION AGAI?7ST L,TGCzETT & 3{Y$PS T48ACCO CO., INC. 64. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and evezy allegation contained in paragraphs ^4{'; "5", "7" through ^10^, "18°, "29^, "53" and "54", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 65., As a result of the aforegoing strict liability, the defendant is liable to the widow and daughter of the decedent in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.90) AS AND FOR ANIt3T5&\'T3 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST L1GG:"^tt & L*YEYS TOBACCO CO., INC. 88, Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4", "5", S7" through ••10,', '*14", °34^ through "37'*, ^53" and "54" inclusive Of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 67. As a result of the foregoing misrepresentations, decedent was damaged while alive to the extent of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A i frENTIBT3 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO., INC. 68. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in parae aphs "1", "4", "5", "7" through "10", •'1$", "34" through "37'•, "53" and "54", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as it specifically ~ N - 14 - O tJ7 ~10 C-3 C33

set forth hereat. 69. As a result of the aforegoing M-isrepresentations, the widow and daughter of the decedent were damaged in the amount of FIVE HitNF}R&D THOt7SAtiD ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS A3UI FOR A TtYE~^STY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LIGGETT 3 MYERS TOBACCO CO., INC. 70. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", °4", "5^, "7'= through ^l0<', "14", '•42^, ":43••, +°53" and "54" inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 71. As a result of the foregoing, decedent was damaged while alive in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSANi) ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. , AS AND FOR ?^_:4Iw1iY-S'nCOP.D CAUSE OF ACTIOI• AGAINST LIGGnit & :4-r='aTS TOBACCO CO., IRC. 72. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each'and every allegation contained in paragraphs ^1", "4", "5", "7° through "10", "18°, „42", ^43", '"53".and "54", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 73. As a result oi the aforegoing negligent misrepresentations, the defendant is liable to the widow and daughter of the decedent in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A 4'iS*<~1"`t'Z-rHIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LIGGui .4• SiY`.''..RS TOBACCO CO., INC. 74. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4", "5", "7`• through "48`•, "53" and "54", inclusive of this CIJ - 15 7 © . . Ln \-C) O ~

complaint with the same force and effect as-if Specifically set forth hereat. i 75. That by virtue of defendant's plan and design as aforesaid to conceal facts and information from the public including decedent and to proceed in wilful, wanton or reckless or grossly negligent disregard of decedent's right, health and safety, defendant by virtue of its liability as previously alleged in Causes of Action "T3IRTEEI'TH", "FIFTEEN'rE°, „SEV~R'TEENTH", "3I3tETEE!TH" and "TWENTY-FIRST", has become liable to decedent for punitive or exemplary damages while alive in• the sum of FIVE I;ILLtOY ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AYD FOR A T.z:iTY-?OuRiH CAUSE OF ACTION ?GAI.I'ST LIGGE^^a & biY:RS TOBACCO CO. INC. 76. Plaintiff repsats and realleges each and every allegation contained in pnragraphs "1", "4", •:5^, '"7^ through , "20^, "18", „48'", "53" and "54", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. t 77. As a result of the aforegoing and by virtue of t liability as previously alleged in Causes of Action °"FOURTBENTH"i j °SIXTEENTH°, "EZGEtTEE\.H" "TiSilTZEPH`" and "TW£NTY-SECOND^. j The defendant is liable to the widow and daughter of the ~ decedent for punitive or exemplary damages in the sum of ~ FIYE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS. _- AS AND FOR A TSYEYTY_gIirrg CAUS£ OF ACTION-~ ~ AGAINST J. WALTER TEO3fPSflT{ Co. 9 78. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each'and every ""allegation contained in paragraphs "1", '•4°, "8" through ^10" W ~ C:.7 6L~ L,~

48. That the defendant manufactured, distributed and sold its brands of cigarettes in conscious, willful and wanton, or reckless disregard of the health, safety and vreil being of the public including decedent as consumers of its said products, since defendant knew or should have known that its said,products were or probably were carciaogenic;,and yet•withSdndiffereaee,to its obligations as a manufacturer and supplier of products for human consumption and to the eonsequences of its acts or omissions, it made no attempt to apprise or inform the public including decedent of said carcinogenic propensities of its product but rather concealed such facts and circumstances from the public including decedent as has been hereinbefore alleged. 49. That by virtue of defendant's plan and design as aforesaid to conceal facts and information from the public including decedent and to proceed in wilful, wanton or reckless or grossly negligent disregard of decedentb right, health and safety, defendant by virtue of its liability as previously alleged in Causes of Action "FIRST", "'fHIRD", "FIETR", '•SEFEiTA" and "$ZhTH", has become liable to decedent for punitive or exemplary damages while alive in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A TWELFPH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST AMERICAN TOSACCO INC. 50. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1^ through ^lo", "18" and "48", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 51. As a result of the aforegoing and by virtue af liability as previously alleged in Causes of Action "SECOND" L~7 7+.3

healthful, or at least was not harmful. right to personal good health and to physical well being; that such acts and activities of said defendant directly and erfereace with, and aa intentional invasion of, plaintiff's 130. That as to decedent, the acts, p7.ans aaii advice of defendant fiIL't.k KNQR'L2'OR constituted an intentional ly resulted in the infliction upon plaintiff of temporal damages in the form of ill health. 131. That as to decedent, the aforesaid acts, plans . and advice of defendant H1Id. & KNOWLTON constituted a prima facie tort, in that the said defendant intentionally did that which was calculated in the ordinary course of events to damage plaintiff without just cause of excuse, and which did, in fact, injure plaintiff herein; that such acts and activities constituteda violation, committed knowingly, of plaintiff's - legal rights, including, but not limited to,.his right to personal good health and physical well being. • 132. That as a result of all of the aforesaid the plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUS.LYD ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A FORTY-FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST HILL & IGC4WP.TOH INC. 133. Flaisftiff repeats and realleges each and every 0 allegation contained in paragraphs "1°, "2", "10°, •'I1", '•18", , "125" through "131", inclusive of this complaint with the . . same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. - 27 - Ll? 3S7 4- C:) ti}'7

"Ft}U&TS", "<SIBTH", "EIGRTfi" and "TENTH". The defendant is liable to the widow and daughter of the decedent for punitive or exemplary damages in the sum of FIVE MILLIgM ($5,000,000.00) AS AND FOR A THIRTEEHTit CAUSE OF ACTZQM AGAINST LIGGEfT & BtY£RS TOBACCO C0, INC. i 52. Plaintiff repeats and reallege`s'each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1^, "4", "$1•, "7^tkrough "15", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 53,. That defendant LIGGETT & 3dY'ERS TOBACCO Co., INC., (hereinafter referred to as LIGGBTS &MYERS), is a corporation organized under the laws of New Jersey and registered and licensed to do business in the State of New York. 54. That defendant did manufacture, sell, distribute and supply for profit during the time decedent's smoked cigarettes and still so does sell brands of cigarettes-known as Chesterfields. 55. That as a result of all of the aforesaid the plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A FGTSATI~?ITB CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LIGGEPT &~9YERS TOBACCO CO., INC. 56. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs ^1°, "4", "5", "7" through "13^, "18'•, "53" and "54", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 57. That as a result of all of the aforesaid the plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. E~? -12- p~ a O kL C? 0-1

AS AND FOR A FO.BTY-THI&dd OABSE OF ACTION AGAINST $ILL & KNOWLTON, INC. . referred to as HILL & KNOWLTON), is a New York corporation, with its principal place of doing business in the State of New York. 124. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", *'2", °10", "11^ and "14", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. , 125.' That defendant HILL &$DTO&S.TON, INC., (hereinafter 126. That defendant HILL & I{hOWLTON, which styles itself as a public relations firm, for a profit does now and did at all relevant times offer its services to all of the other defendants in this complaint. 127. That the defendant HILL & Ii~~OWL1bN conceived the idea, and saw to the formation and establishment, of the defendant COIP.iCIL in or about the year 1954. 12&. That the defendant HILL & KNOWLTON lent its efforts to the formation and establishment of the defendant INSTITUTE in or about the year 1958. 129. That in its capacity as public relations agent or counsellor for the defendants COUNCIL and INSTITUTE defendant HILL &%.YOSV2TOY strove to supply them with plans and advice for counteracting, refuting, and concealing the growing medical and other scientific evidence as to the carcinogenic nature of substances in cigarette smoking; and to contrive to spread the misrepresentatioa'.that smoking was - 26 - 0

itself in a state of ignorance, or inasmuch of a state or ignorance as was possible under the existing circumstances, as to the aature and qualities of said products when smoked and as to their carcinogenic propensities in particular; and that the defendant did not make inquiry of the defendant :... :' ' ' - nor did it encourage Ar.zequest defendant . ` to undertake adequate scientific tests and study as . to the nature of said products and the consequences of consumption thereof. 90. That by reason of the foregoing decedent was damaged in the sumof FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,040.60) DOLLARS while alive. AS AND FOR A::".:.1i°-EIGR':`H CAUSE OF ACTIf3N AGAINST 3• flALTER R54.dPSOV CO. 91. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "I", "4", "8" threugh "10",' •'18" "78•• •`84'•, ••89", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as it specifically set forth hereat. 92. That by reason of the foregoing, decedent's widow and daughter were das.aged in the sum of FIVE HUNDREBTHOi7SA,~C'i} ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A TiYE;i"t'P-NIV'P•i CAUSE OF ACTZQN (~a AGAINST J. :4AL•^.i.ii 1'd:OMP&0?I G(3. tl) -ta 93. plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every cri allegation contained in paragraphs "1", ^4", ^G'• through "I0", VD "14" and ^79", inclusive of this'complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. I 94. That the defendant in conscious, wilful and wantoa, or reckless or grossly negligent disregard of the health, safety and weLl-beit;g of the public including decedent made no attempt 19 -

c 174. That the primary function of defendant INSTI'PIIT& is, and has been, to act as a public relations spokesman, organ and outlet for the tobacco industry. the defendant IHSTITUTE and its members, directly and inten-. tionaily thrust itself and them into the attention of the public, and attempted to and did become a known public figure. - ublic relations spokesman and organ for the tobacco industry, by undertaking to publicize its own reports, and by various other acts and activities in conmmection•wAh Puactioning as a- 175. That by undertaking to ma 176. That as a result of said public efforts and said the defendant INSTITUTE andits members violated duty and obligation to the public including decedent to and the duty not to prevent the public including decedent from arettes_including the aforementioned brands of cigarettes, investigate and report objectively on the subject of the carci- nogenic nature of substances in tobacco and in the smoke of . ubiased and accurate information on that subject , 177. That as a result of the efforts of defendant INSTITUTE and its members to dilute, negate, counteract, conceal, distort,the medical reports, studies and surveys that.were being disseminated on the subject of the risks to human health, life and 2ongevity.associated with smoking of tobacco and of cigarettes, said defendant breached and violated its duty to decedent. 278. That as to decedent, the acts and activities of nt INSTITUTE and its members constituted an intentional interference with, and an intentional invasion of, decedent's. rigElt to personal good health and to physical -38-

daughter were damaged in the sum of FIYE HUNDRED 1^pUSpn ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A iBIR'."'_T-FIRST CAUSEOF ACTION AGAINST BATTEN, BARTON, DLBSTI.N-_ & OSBQRN I3IC 98. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and - every allegation contained in paragraphs,"1^, "4", "&^ through "10", "14", "SOTM through °54", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set Yorth hereat. . 98. That defer,Can. 3A' :'2,Y, BARTON, DURSTINE & OSB6R:Y, INC., is a corporation doing business in the State of New York. 100. That by reason of the foregoing decedent was damaged in the sum of FI4S MCMD3ED zHGU5ANR} ($500,000.00) while alive. - AS AND FOR A Ti:I3:`_`-SE.^.f31D CAUSE OF ACTION AGAIi ST BATTEN, BARTON, MESTINz & OSBORN, IlC.. 101. plaintif< repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in ?a_aa aphs "1", "4", "6" through ^10", and ^89" "S0" through "S4"/, inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 2t}2. That by reason of the foregoing, decedent's widow and daughter were damaged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED TROt13AH'D ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A THIt2'n-T::Ir.D CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BA7TBY, B?RTOti, DUBSTVVE tc 4SBOMT, INC. 103. Plaintiff repeats-and realleges each and every allegation contained in 2 aragraphs "1", "4", "6" through "10", "89" and "99", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as iY specifically set forth hereat. Q7 ,21 - N3 ~ C3 t3'Y ~f3

AS AND FOR A TIiIHTY-EIU"SrTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST FOOTE, CQYE & $Ei,DING 114. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every 1 allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4","8" through "10", *•I8«", *10'• through "84^, "11Z", inclusive of this complaint with e same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 115. That by reason of the foregoing, decedent's widow and daughter were damaged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED TKOUSA27D ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A THIRTY-YLXFPt CAUSE' OF ACTION AGAINST FOOTE, CONE & HELDING 116. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "I^, "4.", "6" through ^10","14", "84", "89" and inclusive of this complaint with the same dnrce and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 117.. That by reason of the foregoing decedent was damaged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) S while alive. AS AND FOR A FG STIETH CAUSE OF AC2'IO.\T AGAINST FOOTE CONE & BELDIkO 118. plaintiff repeats and Yealleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs ^6" threugh "10", ^18<', ^84", "89" and "112^, inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set fprth hereat. 1I9. That by reason of the foregoing, decedent's widow and daughter were damaged in the sum ef FIVE ATRtDBED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOIS 1RS. . -24- ' Co N ~ C3 ~ I CA- .

C 134. That as a result of all of the aforesaid the plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of FIVE gI7NDRED Tg005At3D ($500,000.00) DOI.Z.ARS. , AS AAtD FOR A F9 RTY-FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST HILL & %140£4LTOH, INC. . 135. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphi "1", "2", ^10", ^1I", ~125" through "128", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and efPect as if specifically set forth hereat, 136. That the defendant HILL & 3^IOICLTOX prepared statements and aided defendants AMERICAN TOBACCO and LIGGETT & MEYIIiS in preparing statements, which it knew, or should have known, ware false, deceptive and misleading and were a misrepresentation of the facts relating to the health, safety and life of smokers of the aforementioned brands of cigarettes. 137.That the defendant HILL & K,YOP7LLTOh thereby knowingiy, intentionally and fraudulently, or recklessly without regard to the consequences, as aforesaid, made false, misleading and deceptive statements and representations about cigarette tobacco products, including defendan5 AM£RICAN TOBACCO and LICgfETT &MEyERS by expressly stating, and by implying, that such products were safe and heaithful,and in some manner good for the health of the smoker,.whereas it knew, or should have known, that such products were not beneficial to the health of the smoker. 138. That the defendant HILL & 8.40VZ.TOH thereby knowingly, intentionally and fraudulently omitted from, concealed from, and diluted reports to the public including decedent. ' ~ ~ -2$- C) t3T ~U JN,7

AS Ah'D FOR A FORTY-FIRST CAUSE DF ACTID2i AGAINST FoOTE,C4NE & BELDING . 120. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4'; "6^ through "10", ^14°, "94^ and 'Z12^, inclusive of this complaint +xitii the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 121. That by virtue of defendant's plan as afaresaid to conceal facts and information f,rom the public including _ decedent and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of . and with indifference of the consequences to decedent's rights, health and safety and by making false statements and - representations; the defendant by virtue of its liability in the "°i'HIRTY-SEYEPiTR" and ^TFIIRTY-NI2.TfI" Causes of Action, as hereinbefore set forth became liable to the decedent for punitive damages in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) 122. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4", "6" through "10", "i$^, "84" and "112", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 123. That by virtue of defendant's plan as aforesaid to conceal facts and information from the public including decedent and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of and w}th indifference of the consequences to decedent's rights, health and safety and by taaking false statements and representations; the defendant by virtue of its liability in the "°£HI&TY-EIGH2H" and "F4RTIEPH° Causes of Action as hereinbefore set forth became liable to decedent's 4tidou and daughter who were damaged in the sum of FIVE MILLION ~ ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS. t -25- C:) CS`7 ~ ~ 'itJ

same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 184. That the defendant INSTITUTE, its aforesaid irectors and members, prepared and had published statements , as previously alleged in the preceding cause of action nst INSTITUTE, intentionally and negligently misrepresented to the public including decedent a true st e edge about deceiving decedent who relied at least in part upon these e carcinogenic properties of cigarettes for the purpose of presentations, and was deceived thereby. 185. That as a direct and proximate result of his ~ reliance on said misrepresentations in said program and statements and as a result of the acts and omissions of ~ efendant INSTITUTE and its members to keep him in ignorance,` decedent was injured and damaged as hereinbeSore alleged in the ; t CS504,440.09) DOLLARS. ( AS AND FOR A FIFTY-EIGETH CAIISE OF ACTION AGAINST TOBACCO_INSTITCPI`E, IYZC._ 186. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "2", "10", "11", "•14", "172'• through "175" and "184^, inclusive of this complaint ame force and effect as if specifically set forth 187. That as a direct and proximate result af his eliance on said misrepresentations in said program and decedent's widow and daughter were damaged in the sum of FIVE e defendant INSTITUTE and its members to lseep him in ignorance, ements and as a result of the acts and omissions 62 ED THOIiSARD ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. _40_

. although defendant was or should have been well aware of said risk. . 84. That decedent did rely at least in part on the foregoing statement and misrepresentations prepared and disseminated by defendant. 85. That by reason of the foregoing decedent was damaged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) e alive. AS ARD FOR A T4tr."Yi TY-SI7a$ CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST J. WALTER TBOMFSO# CO. " 86. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4", "6", *'10", *•1S", "79^ through "84", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 87, That by reason of the foregoing, decedent's widow and daughter wer2-"damaged in the sum of FIVE HUYDRBD T3i0USA,YD . ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A TStB1'TY-SBV; .'iTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST J, WALTER THOSIpSO?7 CQ, 88. plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs ^1",. "4", "8" through "I0", "14^, "79" and "84", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 89. That although defendant made representations in its advertising about the safe, harmiess, wholesome, and beneficial qualities of the aforesaid brands of cigarettes, it was consciously aware that it did not know the true nature and propensities of said products, C. the defendant recklessly and voluntarily kept -:~ -18- t.1 SC~ ~ ND

AS A2;D FOR A T3IRTY-SIRTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BATTEN, BARTON, DU&STIHS Fc OS80EN, INC. 109. Plaintiff repeats and reallegas each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", ti4", °8" through "°10", nI8•', "54" and "86`<, inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if' specifically set farth hereat. 0 110. That by virtue of defendant's plan as aforesaid ~ to conceal facts and information from the public includin {{{g decedent and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of ~ and with indifference of the consequences to decedent's riahts, health and safety and by making false statements and representations; the defendant by virtue of its liability in the "THI&TY-SECOND'° and "THIRTY-FOURTH" Causes of Actioa as hereinbefore set.forth became liable to decedent's widow and ' daughter who were damaged in the sum of FIVE MILLION {g5,000,00o1f _ - I DOLLABS. ~ AS AN'D FOR a^:=3TY-S: YS\t12 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAI.U^ T FOOTE, CONE 8: 3=LDING 111. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1^, "4", "6" through "10", "14", "80'* through "84^, inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 112. That defendant FOLYTE, CONE & BELDING is a firm doing business in the State of New York. • 113. That by reason of the foregoing decedent was dacaged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOtISANII ($500,000.00) DOLLA,S while alive. CA l~Q -23- 1~ LD 4Q I

to apprise the public including decedent of the carcinogenic propensities of the tobacco products which defendant was . advertising but rather tried to conceal thit facts and tances from the publie, including decedent, even though it knew or should have known that the cigarette products probabi were carcinogenic. 95. That by virtue of defendant's pian as aforesaid " to conceal facts and information from the'public including decedent and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of and with indifference of the consequences to decedent's rights, ~ health and safetyaad by making false statements and ~ representations, the defendant by virtue of its liability in ~ the "TWEh'2'Y-FIFTE" and "i'Sff"'aaYTY-SEV~-\Tfi" Causes of Action, as 3 hereinbefore set forth, became liable to the.decedent for ij punitive damages in the sum of FIVF.' MILLION ($5,000,000.00) i~ . $ DOLLARS. AS AND F03 A T..$'P:-a CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST J. Yi~?:.T?3 T::Oa:?SO\ CO. 96. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "I", '4•', "6" through 'R0', "18", "79" and "44", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 97. That by virtue of defendant's plan as aforesaid to conceal facts and information from the public including decedent and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of and with indifference of the consequences to decedent's rights, health and safety and by making false statements and representations; the defendant by viPtue of its liability in the '•TtYZNTY-5IXTA" and "TtYE1tY-EIGHTH" Causes of Action as co hereinbefore setforth became liable to decedent's widow and jo ~ -20- i3 [o-i to 4:~

manufacturers PHILIP MORRIS, INC., (hereinafter referred to as P3ILIP MORRIS, R.J. REINOLBS, INC., (hereinafter referred to as referred to as LORILLARD. •• EY;iOLDS, ANERICXN TOEdCCO and P. LORILLARD CO., INC., (hereinaft who are members of COII\CIL with each cigarette organization, company or corporation contributing according to its sales, and belief, been contributions from the cigarette manufacturers 151. That the funds for the operation of defendant OUNCIL, and its scientific grants, have, upon information 152. That defendant COUNCIL did not comply, and has never complied, with the laws of the State of New York that require that an association to file a certificate of doing business under an assumed name; that as a result of said omission, all the real parties in interest in COUNCIL, including those referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph, have assumed each and every civil liability and responsibility of ant COUNCIL. scientific reports, studies and surveys that have been released which tended or tends to establish a positive correlation between smoking and cancer. embers has been to counteract and dilute medical and other 153. That the stated purpose of defendant COUNCIL is to make impartial studies into the relationshi3 between smoking of tobacco and human health; but that its purpose, in fact, is and has been to rebut and distort amassed medical and other scientific data, evidence, reports, studies that indicate that smoking is deleterious to human health; and that the plan and conscious endeavor of defendant COUNCIL, its directors and 154. That the acts and activities of the defendant COUNCIL, its aforesaid directors and members, were calculated and - 32 r

139. That as a direct and proximate result of his reliance on aforesaid statements and amissions and dilutions, decedent was injured in the sum of FIVE EC1'DREp Tgtti7SpND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS A3iD FttE A FO"ETY-SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST HILL & KNOWLTON, INC. 140. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "2", ^1Q", "22", "18", "125^ through "128", and "136" through "138°, inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specificaZZy set forth hereat. . 141. That as a direct and proximate result of decedent's reliance on aforesaid statements and omissions, decedent's widow and daughter were injured in the sum of FIVE Ht11DRED ($5Q0,000.04) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A ?0 3TY-SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST HILL & If.`iO:YLTON, INC. _ -- 142. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "2", •'10'•, <•11", ,•14^, and "125" through "128", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 143. That the defendant HILL & RNOHLTON, over the years in its position as public relations counsellor, supplied advice and made statements, as above alleged, in conscious, wilful and wanton, or'reckiess, disregard of the health, safety and well being of the public including plaintiff, since it knew, or should have known, that the aforesaid cigarette products were, or probably were, carcinogenic; and yet, with indif`.erenc to its obligations as one preparing public relations statements -29-

others in making a false and diluted statement relating to cigarette products designed for human consumption, and by virtue of its liability in the '^ORTY-FflL'RTH" and *°FORTY-SIXTfi" Causes of Action defendant HILL & IC#OS"LTON has become liable to decedent's widow and daughter who were injured in the sum of FIVE MILLZO:i ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A FOs'.:Y-s\Til'TH Cd.iSSE OP :.CTIOX AGAINST THE COLTCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH - II.S.A. 147. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", °2", "10", "IS'* and "14", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if speeitically set forth hereat. 148. That defendant TR.? COUNCIL FOR TOSACCO RESEeL~RCH- ~ U.S.A: (hereinafter referred to as COUNCIL), known as Tobacco Snstitute Research Committee during the time periods during ~ which plaintiff was smoker of cigarettes, is a voluntary ~ }s unincorporated association with its principal place of busines J he State of New York. That, upon information and belief, its I cutive Director, tf.T. rOYT, is in the position of president of said defeadant . 149. That the principal officers, and the directors of defendant COSRSCIL are Timothy V. Hartnett, Chairman; W;T. Hoyt, Executive Director; and Clarence Cook Little, Scientific Director; that upon information and belief, said Clarence Cook Little is not a graduate of any medical school and is not a Medical Doctor. 150. That, upon information and belief, among the real parties in interest and members in defendant as,sociation COIIb'CIL are defendant HILL & X1OT.ZTOH and the defendant tobacco [3a -P.2- iV S=3 CTI S`J {l'3

atended to prevent the public, including decedent from determining the true effect upon human life, health and safety ette smoking and to prevent the public including decedent reports on said subject. . - rom obtaining unbiased and undistorted medical and scientific 155. That as a result of the foregoing acts and omissions, the defendant CODTZCIL its aforesaid directors and violated their duty and obligation to the pubZic ing decedent to report objectively on the subject whether e contained substances carcinogenic in nature, . 0 and their duty not to prevent the public from obtaining unbiased and accurate information about the carcinogenic, or probably carcinogenic nature of substances contained in cigarette smoke. 156. That as to decedent, the acts and activities of defendant COUNCIL, and of its aforesaid directors and members, constituted an intentional interference with, and an intentional invasion of, decedent's right to personal good health and to physical well being; that such acts and activities of said defendant directly and proximately resulted in the infliction upon plaintiff of temporal .ia.rages in the form of ill-health. 157. That as to decedent, the aforesaid acts and es of defendant COLaCIi., its aforesaid directors and members, constituted a prima facie tort, in that said defendant did intentionally that which was ca°sculated in the ordinary course of events to damage decedent without just cause or excuse and which did, in fact, injure decedent herein; that such acts and activities constituted a violation of decedent's legal rights, including but net limited tohis right to personal good health and physical well being, committed knowingly. Go - 33 - N:) 4~ fl {Tt tiL3 3J V

194. That defendant P. LORILLARD CO,,, IHC., (hereinafter referred to as LORILLARD), is a corporation organized under the laws-oi New Jersey and registered and licensed to do business in the State of New York. 195. That defendant R.J. REYNOLDS, INC., (hereinafter referred to as REYNOLDS), is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, and doing business in the State of New York. 298. That defendant PHILIP MORRIS INC., (hereinafter referred to as PHILIP MORRIS), is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and has its principal place of doing business in the State of New York. 197. That the defendants R,J. REYNOLDS, a New Jersey ~ i corporation, AMERICAN TOBACCO, LIGGETT & MYERS, PHILIP 3fORRIS, ~ and LORILLARD, a New Jersey corporation, during the time period hereinabove specified from the 1930's through 1962 when decedent~ smoked the aforesaid brands of cigarettes, are and were the ~ principals of defendants HILL & MNOWLTOH and INSTITUTE; that j among said defendants, R.J. REYNOLDS, AMERICAN TOBACCO, LORI jLL2.RD and PHILIP MORRIS, are, as hereinabove alleged in paragraph "1S6'(_ members of defendant COUNCIL, a voluntary, unincorporated association, and are real parties in interest in said COUNCIL; that defendants R.J. REYNOLDS, AYBRICAZt TOBACCO, LIGGEIT & PHILIP MORRIS, are members of INSTITUTE, 0 a New York membership corporation as in paragraph "173" alleged, and are and constitute the real parties in interest of said INSTITUTE; and that as principals; members and real parties in interest of defendant INSTITUTE, and as members of defendant _ 43 _ fX= N ~ C3 (XI ~10 tJ14 V

0 E has become liable to decedent while alive for unitive damages in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DO AS AND FOR A SIXTIETR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC. 191. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every on contained in paragraphs "1^, "2", TM10", "IS^, "1T2^ through "1T5" and "189", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set'forth here 192. That by virtue of defendant INSTITUTE's plan and esign, as aforesaid, so to mislead the smokiag public including decedent, and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of, and with indifference to the consequences, upon decedent's health and safety, and in the makiag of false statements and the concealing of information of importance from the smoking public ihcluding decedent that related to cigarette products designed for human consumption, and by virtue of its.Iiability r Causes of Action "FIFTY=SIXTR" and "FZFTY-EIGISTFI", decedent's ow and daughter were damaged in the sum of FIVE MILLION $5,000,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A SIXTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS PHILIP 3£ORRIS,IHC.i E,d. REYNOLDS, INC.; AMERICAN TOBACCO, INC.; LIGGfi2"f & MYERS TOBACCO CO., INC.; and P. LORILLARD C0. INC. 193. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every Ilegatioa contained in paragraphs "1", "2", "10", ft11", ^1A" inclusive of this complaint with the same force and as if specifically set forth hereat. - 42 -

AS AND FOR A SIXTF-P1FTK CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DANCER-FIIZGERALD-SAMPL&, INC. 206. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs ^1", "4", "6*r through "10^, "14°1, '•81" through "84", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 207. That defendant DANCER- is a corporation doing business in the State of New York. 208. That as advertising agent for LIGGETT & MYERS . „ INC., defendant prepared and disseminated advertisements the purpose of which was to induce the public including decedent to rely, at least in part, upon the contents of said advertising, and defendant relied at least in part thereon. 209. That by reason of the foregoing decedent was damaged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS while alive. AS AND FOR A SIXTY-SIXTB CAUSE OF AC1Z4Pt AGAINST DA.YCAi-FITZGERALD-SAMPLE, INC. 210. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4", "6" through ^14", "18", "81^ through "84", "207", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set torth hereat. t?o - 47 - 3a: . ~ a i3'3 ~10

c AS AND FOR A FZFTY-HINTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC. 188. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1•', "2*', "'10^, '^_1", "lg'•, and `•172" through "175", iuclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 189. That the defendant INSTITUTE, over the years, in s position as spokesman for the tobacco industry, supplied, advice, furnished reports and criticized and diluted reports of othes in conscious, wilful and wanton, or reckless, disregard e health, safety and well being of the public including decedent, since it knew, or should have known, that the aforesaid cigarette products were, or probably were, carcinogenic; and yet, with indifference to its obligations as one preparing public statements about products for human consumption and to the nsequences of its acts or omissions, it made no attempt to apprise or inform the public including plaintiff of said carcinogenic propensities of said products, but rather, by concealing such facts and circumstances from the public decedent. 190. That by virtue of defendant INSTITUTE's plan and design, as aforesaid, so to mislead the smoking public including decedent, and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of, and with indifference to the consequences, upon decedent's ts, health and safety, and in the making of false statements ' the concealing of information of importance from the smoking public including decedent that related to cigarette products designed for human consumption, and by virtue of its liability uses of Action "FIFTY-FiFT1I" and "FIFTY-SS4SNTti", defendant - 41 - 09 N ~ ~ t3"t Cn

"53^, "I94" through "196" and "202", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as it specif;cially set forth hereat. 205. That as a direct and proximate cause of the con- duct of the named defendants as aforesaid, they and each of them, jointly and severally, by reason of'£hese fraudulent and intentional acts became liable to decedent's wife and daughter in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS. i 00 PO -46- ~ NO C)

170. That by virtue of defendant COUNCIL's plan and gn, as aforesaid, so to mislead the smokiag public including and to proceed in wilful and zvanton disregard of, fereace to the consequences upon, decedent's rights, health and safety, and in the making of false statements and the concealing of informatioa of imporia.nce to the smoking ublic including decedent that related to cigarette products designed for human consumption, and by virtue of liability for uses of Action °FIFTIEYH" and "FIFi'Y-BECOND", decedent's idow and daughter were damaged in the sum of FIY& YILI.ION $5,000,0100.00) DOLLARS. N . AS AND FOR A FIF`PY-FIFSII CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC. 171. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every liegation contained in paragraphs "1^, "2", "10", "11'• and "14^, lusive of this complaint with the same force and e£fect as eciSically set forth bereat. . 172. That defendant TOBACCO INSTI4RSTE, INC., eferred to as INSTITUTE), is a membership and existing under the laws of the 173. Upon information and belief, that defendant is wholly financed by payments secured from its member tobacco companies, firms and corporations; again upon information and belief, that each of said tobacco corporations or organizations annually pays large amounts, said amounts being unknown to decedent but known to the.defendants herein, toward . work and functions of said INSTITUTE. t33 -37- #~3 ~ t7 ~ ~

such acts and activities of said defendant directly and proxi- mateiy resulted in the infliction upon decedent of temporal damages in the form of i1I health. " 179. That as to decedent, the aforesaid acts and activities of defendant INSTITFPTE and its members, coastituted a facie tort, in that said defendant did intentionally that which was calculated in the ordinary,course of.eveats td dam- age decedent without just cause or excuse, and which did, in " fact, injure decedent herein; thatsuch acts and activities constituted a violation of decedent's Iegal:~rights, including . but not limited to his right to personal good health and physi- al well being, committed knowingly. ited to the use of false words, the decedent was amaged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) 180. That by the said acts and activities, including AS AND FOR A FIFTY-5Ik'TH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC. 181. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each an allegation contained in paragraphs nd ^172" through "179", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 182. That by the said acts and activities,-including not limited to the use of false words, the decedent's widow daughter were damaged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND 0,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A FIFTY-SEVEh°TR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST TOEACCO INSTITUTE INC. 183. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and ever egation contained in paragraphs "1", °f2", "10", ^ll", ^1 ' through "175", inclusive of this complaint with -39-

AS AND FOR A SEYENTY-BIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL 2'HB DBFENZYYANTS 241. Plaintiff repeats and realleges••each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "I", "2", "i0", °1I", ^1S,', ^59". "79'° 1991, n1I24t. °I25.. rr148.. ..172^, S°794", n2Q7", '*221", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat.~ 242. That as a direct and proximate result of the acts. of conspiracy, as hereinabove alleged, each of the defendants daughter in this complaint became liable to the,decedent's widow and! in the snm of FZPE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOS.LARS. - - 54 _ t3D tN3 ~ O tS7 iC3 -~ 0D

f! COUNCIL, said defendants, R.J. REYNOLDS, AMERICAZ,* TOBACCO, LIGGETT & MYERS, LORILLABB, and PHILIP 34OitRIS, wero and are - responsible for the acts of said defendants„HILL &xNOtYZTON, INSTITUTE and COUNCIL which lvere performed on their behalf and which they adopted, approved and ratified, except that LIGOEIT & MYSRS is not a member of COUNCIL. 198. That as a direct and proximate cause of the foregoing, defendants, R.J. REYNOLDS, AESERICAN TOBACCO, PHILIP MORRIS, LIGGETT & MYERS and LORILLARD have become jointly and severally liable to the decedent in the sum of FIVE HSLYDRED TBOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS AS AHD FOR A SIXTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFF~YDA*rTS PHILIP MORRIS, IVC. ; R.S:l REYNOLDS, Ih°C.; AbiERICAH TOBACCO, INC.; LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO., INC.; and P. LORILLARD CO., INC. 199. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "2", ^10•', "53" and "194^ through "197", inclusive of this complaint with the same force.aad effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 200. That as a direct and proximate cause of the foregoing, defendants, R.J. REYNOLDS, PaSSERICAN TOBACCO, PHILIP MORRIS, LIGGETT & MYERS and LORILLARD have become jointly and severally liable to decedent's widow and daughter in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS, GAINSTFDEFaDA,TS-Ff£iLIP #dORSI3, INCiOH &. J. REYNOLDS, INC. ; AMERICAN TOBACCO, INC. ; LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO., INC.; and P; LORILLARD CO., INC. 201. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", `•2", "10", "11", ^14•', , "53", and "194" through "196", inclusive of this complaint -,44 - C

with the same force ande€feet as if specifically set forth hereat. " 202. That through their agents and representatives, HILL & I4y0WLTON, COUNCIL and INSTITUTE, said defendants A.S, RfiY2.OLDS, AMERICAN TOBACCO, LIGGETT ~C.15YERS, PHILIP MORRIS and LORILLARD, except that LZGGETi` &@4YIIi8 was not a member of COUNCIL, acted in consciou„ wilful and wanton, or reckless, disregard of the health, safety and well being o€the public including decedent, since they knew, or should have. known, that the aforesaid cigarette products were, or probably were, carcinogenic; and yet, with indifference to their obligations, they made no attempts to apprise or inform the public including decedent of said carcinogenic propensities of said products, and by artifices, and devices, false representations and concealments, misinformed the smoking , public including decedent, and prevented the said public from obtaining important information on the nature and consequences of smoking. 203. That as a direct and proximate cause of the con- duct of the named defendants as aforesaid, they and each o£ them, jointly and severally, by reason of these fraudulent and intentional acts becacoj liable to decedent in punitive or exemplary damages, in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS. AS .LA'D FOR A SI%TY-FObRTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEF'E.FDAHTS PHILIP MORRIS, IA'C. ; R.3. REOLDS, INC.; AMERICAN TOBACCO, INC.; LIOGif'i' & MYERS TOBACCO CO., Z?iC.; and P. LORILLARD CO., INC. 204. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "2", "IO", "1S" "IS<: t3o 45 - 1Q -~ Q t.€3 ~ ~ (

235. That each and every defendant named in this complaint conspired with each of the other defendants and aS2 of them to prevent the public including decedent from obtaining information and knowledge about the true and actual etfect upon human life, health and longevity of smoking cigarettes. 236. That each of the defendants conspired withteaeh of the other defendants and all of them, aith the exception aforesaid, to e ngage in an intentional plan of concealment, refutation, and dilution of medical information, knowledge, data s, studies and surveys vith respect to the effects of . smoking upon human life, health and longevity; that they . , further conspired to substitute inaccurate, biased and distorted information for the aforesaid medical and other scientific 237. That said combination of forces made the common plans and,schemes of all of the defendants themselves unlawful. 238. That if not all of the defendants individually committed tortious acts as to decedent as has been above alleged at least some of them did do so, and, as to the remainder of the defendants, they, by intentionally promoting and encouraging the activities of the group of defendants, engaged in a, conspiracy of action which.itse2f constituted a tortious act as to the decedent. 239. That said conspiratorial aots, plans and schemes were directed at the public, of which decedent was a member. 240. That as a direct and proximate result of the acts of conspiracy, as hereinabove alleged, each of the defendants in this complaint became liable to the decedent for the Co N induries, as previously alleged, in the sum of FIVE HITAPD&EB -P, O $500,000.00) DOLLtIHS.- Ul ~ -¢~ ~

, health and safety and by making false statements and the ^SBYENTY-FIRST"' and ^SEYF.NTY-TRIRD" Causes of Action, as hereinbefore set forth became liable to the decedent for punitive damages in the sum of FI4E MILLION ($5,000,000.00) epresentations; the defendant by virtue of its liability in AS AND FOR A SEYEY'TY-SIXTR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CDNNINGNAM & WALSH, INC. aree and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 232. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "•4'", •"B'" through ^10TM, ^18", "84", '"281", inclusive of this complaint with the same " 233. That by virtue of defendant's plan as aforesaid . to conceal facts and information from the public including decedent and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of and with indifference of the consequences to decedent's ri t health and safety and by making false statements and represen- tations; the defendant by virtue of its_liabi2ity in the "'SEYENTY-SECQND'" and "SEYF3iTY-F4URT&" Causes of Action as and daughter bereinbefore set forth became liable to decedent's widowJwho was damaged in the sum of FZVS MILLION ($S,0ST0,000.Q0) DOLLARS. AS -AND FOR A SEPENTY-SEVEtiTR CAUSE OF ALTION AGAINST ALL THE DEFENDANTS 234. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "2°, '"10", "11, ,"14", s53x"t ..7g.e ..gg.+, **112°, "125n, "148n, m112'", "1$4" through "19H*^, '"207^, "221TM, inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. tx7 -~ ~ - 52- L.3~3 tiC3

! First Causes of Action in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS and on the Fifty-Third Cause of Action in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00)'UOLLARS; and against the defendant, TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC., on the Fifty- Fifth and Fifty-Seventh Causes of Action in the sum of FIVE IRINDR£D 'PHOIISAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS and on the Fiftp-Ninth Cause of Action in the sum of FIt'E-idILLIO$'($5,000,000.00). DOLLARS; and against the defendants, AMERICAN TOBACCO, INC., LIGGEPY & MYERS TOBACCO CO., I3iC., PHILIP MORRIS, INC., P. LORILLARD CO., INC., R.J. REYNOLDS, INC., on the Sixty-First Catse of Action in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED TBOIISAND ($500,000.b DOLLARS and on the Sixty-Third Cause of Actioa in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS; and against the defendant, DANCER-FITLGERALD-SAMPLE, INC., on the Sixty-Fifth and Sixty- Seventh Causes of Action in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED TfLOBSA.YD ($500,000.00) DOLLARS and on the Sixty-Ninth Cause of Action in the sum.of FIVE 3tILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS;'and against the defendant, CUNkEING8A3I & WALSH, INC., on the Sevehty-First and Seventy-Third Causes of Action in the sum of FIVE BII2<'DR£D- 00,000.00) DOLLARS and on the Seventy-Fifth Cause of Action in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS. and against all the defendants in the Seventy-Seventh Cause of S. and daughter In addition decedent's widow kemaad judgment against the defendant, AMERICAN TOBACCO, INC., on the Second, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth and Tenth Causes of Action in the sum of FIVE HIINDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS aad on the Twelfth Cause of Action in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) and against the defendant-LIGGEiT &}dYAiS TOBACCO CO., INC., on the Fourteenth, Sixteenth, Eighteenth, Twentieth and CD ion in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00)

! ~ c No. Defendant Nature of Action i .. t 4tII/Sur. 33 Negligent misrepresentation S 34 WD 35 Punitive damages S 36 WD 37 Foote, Cons 3~ Belding .34isrepresentation S 38 pC 39 Negligent 7€.isrepresentatioa S WD 41 Punitive damages g 42 WD 43 Hiii & Snowlton,Inc. Prima iacie; Intentional , Tort S 44 WD ~56 . Misrepresentation . S WD 47 Punitive damages - S 48 WD 49 Tobacco Council Prima Yacie; Intentional Tort S 50 WD 51 Misrepresentation S 52 WD 53 Punitive damages S 54 WD 55 Tobacco Institute Prima facie; Intentional Tort S 56 WD 57 Misrepresentation S 58 WD 59 Punitive damages • 8 60 WD. 61 A11 Tohacco Companies Respondeat Superior S •62 WD 63 Punitive damages S 64 WD 65 Dancer-Fitzgerald- Sample, Inc. 66 67 68 69 70 71 Cunningham & Walsh, Inc. 72 73 74 75 76 77 All Defendants 78 .• Misrepresentation S WD Negligent misrepresentation S WD Punitive damages , S WD J Misrepresentation S WD Negligent misrepresentation S WD Punitive damages S . WD Conspiracy S .~ WD

217. That by virtue of defendant's plan as aforesaid to conceal facts and information from the p•yblic including decedent and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of and with indifference of the consequences to decedent's rights, health and safety and by making false statements and represen- tations; the defendant by virtue of its liability in the "SIRTY-FIFFHTM and ^SIXTF-SEFERTB" Causes of Action, as • punitive damages in the sum of FIVE kIhLIDH ($5,000,000.00) ereinbe#ore set forth became liable to the decedent for ' • AS AND FGB A SEFEHTIEtH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DANCER-F242GERALD-SA3EFLE INC. 218 Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "I^, r "6" through "10", "18", "4$", "20?°, inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if sgecifically set forth hereat. decedent and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of 219. That by virtue of defendant's plan as aforesaid onceal facts and information from the public including h indifference of the consequences to decedent's s, health and safety and by making false statements and hereinbefore set forth became liable to decedent's widow and/ who was damaged in the sum of FI9E 34ILhID2i ($5,0O0,OO0.00) e^SI%TY-SIRTH" and "SIXTY-EIGHTH" Causes of Action as daughter epresentations; the defendant by virtue of its liability in

i TOHACCO CO., INC., on the Sizty-Second Cause of Action in the '. sum of FIVE fiii2iDRED 2'HOIISAND ($500,fl00.00) DOLLARS and on the '. Sixty-Fourth Cause of Action.in the sum of gI4E MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS; and against the defeadant, DAHCER- . FI2ZGERALD-SA3SPI.E INC., on the Sixty-Sixth and Sixty-Eighth - Causes of Action in the snm of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.0 S; and on the Seventieth Cause of Ac,tioa in the sum of . C.+I2tGHAN i, WALSH, INC., on the Seventy-Second and Seventy- Fourth Causes of Action in the snm of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND {$500,000.80} DOLLARS; and on the Seventy-Siath Cause of ActioTi in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS; and against all defendants on the Seventy-Eighth Cause of Action in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS, together the custs and disbursements of this action. f}[1l TStkT.T.EDC. ~nA ~un#nc4~-t.fem'.#n4n..A....t ; SPEISER, SiitIbSATE, GEOGHAN & KRAIISE Attorney for Plaintiff Office and P.O. Address 200 Mrk Avenue Nesa York, New York . C_1 G:

j; SL"PR'-,dtS COURT (' THE ST,1TE OF NEW YORK C0:,1TY DF NEW YORK -. ---------------- --------------------- ---x ~ STEZ.LA AGNES MA3IA, as Executrix ~ of the Estate ofYICTOR I. MANN, Deceased, Plaintiff -against- SULLIVAN, STAUFFER, COid:`i:.L ^e: &tYL-'.S, INC.; BATTEN, BARTON, DURSTINE 5: OS$OR2i, INC.; FOOTE, CONE & BELDING; AMERICAN TOBACCO, IEC-; LIGGETP & k'YEs..S TOBACCO CO., INC.; PHILIP NORRIS, INC.; P. LORILLaED CO., INC.; R.J. RM4d,DS, I\C.; HILL S: A.1'OUZTOH, I\'C., TOBACCO INSTITUTE, I?iC.; and W,T. HOYT, Executive Director of the COUNCIL 7OR TOBACCO RESEARCH - U.S.A., an unincorporated association, formerly known as Tobacco Industry Research Committee, Defendants. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST AMERICAN TO8ACC0 I30C- 1. That plaintiff, is the vridow and co-executrix, a Easton National Ban&,of Eastca, Pa., of the estate of . MANN who died November 14th, 1963, by their appoint- ment by the'Surrogate's Court of &estchester County, January 20, 2. 'That defendant AMERICA2F TOBACCO, IHC., (hereinafter referred to as AMERICAN T4BACCO), is a eorporation.organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its principal place of doing business in the State of New York. ~~ Cohen Dacl: Exhibit 0 N ~ O Lrt 110 CI-t V YERIFIED COkPLAI\'T Plaintiff, complaining of the defendants by her attar- . SPEISER. SFiII3V.T8. GEOGRAt3 & RRAIISE, respectfully alleges:

0 3. That defendant did manufacture, se11, distribute ~ and supply for profit during the time decedent smoked cigarettes~ and still does so sell brands of cigarettes known as Lucky strike and Pall Hai1. ': i 4. That as part of such manufacturing and supplying of its products the defendant has published and disseminated and caused to be published and disseminated writings and oral statemeats•concerning its aforementioned cigarettes. 5. That as part of said manufacturing, supplying, selling and advertising of its said cigarette products defendant' had employed or otherwise utilized, the services and skills ~ of the defendant HILL & ii.\O#LTON, INC. (hereinafter referred ~ to as HILL & XNOTLTCN), COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH - U.S.A. ! (hereinafter referred to as COUNCIL), TOBACC© INSTITUTE, INC. ', (hereinafter referred to as INSTITUTE). ; IS COLt4ELL & SAYLES, INC.; FOOTE, CONE & BELDING for advertising 7. That defendant has utilized the services, skills, experience, knowledge and contacts of the defendant HILL & 0 6. That defendant has utilized the services of defendant5 0 relations purposes. &.- That defendant has utilized the services and the scientific and research skills, experience and resources of defendant COUNCIL for the purpose of manifesting to the public including decedent the message that _ 2 _

nty-Second Causes of Action in the sum o£ FIDE gfThDRED ITSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS and on the Twenty-Fourth Cause on in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000,00) DOLLARS; and against the defendant, d. WALTER THOMPSON CO., on the nty-Sixth and Twenty-Eighth Causes of Action in the sum of TBOUSA$I} ($500,000.00) DOLLARS and on the Thirtieth Cause of Action in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000,00) DOLLARS; and against the defendant, BATrBAt, BARTON, DLfRSTIHE & OSBORH, I:TC., on the Thirty-Second and Thirty-Fourth Causes of Action in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOOLARS and on the Thirty-Sixth Cause of Action in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS; and against the defendants, FOOTE, CONE & BELDING on the Thirty-Eighth and Fortieth Causes of Action in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS and on the Forty-Second Cause of Action in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS; and against the defendant HILL & KKOHIi.TO2i, INC., on the Forty-Fourth and Forty-Sixth Causes of Action in the sum of FIYE'Hi7RDRED THOUSAND ($500,00 DOLLARS and on the Forty-Eighth Cause of Action in the snm of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS; and against the defendant, COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH - U.S.A., on the Fiftieth and Fi£ty Second Causes of Action in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED TROPISAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS and on the Fifty-Fourth Cause of Action ~ in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS; and against the defendant, TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC., on the Fifty-Sixth and Fifty-Eighth Causes of Action in the sum of FIVE RI7NDRID TfiOTFSA2. ($500,000.00) DOLLARS and on the Sixtieth'Cause of Action in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS; and against the defendants, PHILIP MORRIS, P. LORILLARD CO.,,IHC., R.J. REYNOLDS, INC., AMERICAN TOBACCO, INC., and LIGOETS & 2tYERS ! -5?-

211. That by reason of the foregoing, decedentn*a widohwt% ~ vas damaged in the sum of FIVE titJ~iDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) , AS AND FOR A SIXTY-SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DANCER-FITZGERALD-SANpLE, INC. 212. Plaintiff repeats and ;ealleges each and every _ on contained in paragraphs H1", ^4'*, "8^ through ^10",... "14", "84rc 1e89„ +<207•', inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifical2y set forth hereat. 213. That by reason of the foregoing decedent was damaged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000,00) alive. AS AND FOR A SIXTY-EIGRTR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DANCER-FITGGERALD-SAMFLE, INC. 214. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4", '<6" through "10'<, "18", r'84^, ^89", "247", inclusive of this complaint with the ad effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 215. That by reason of the foregoing, decedent's and daughter damaged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND {$500,000.t AS AND FOP. A SIXTY-NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DANCER-FITZGERALD-SAMPF,E, INC. 216. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every ion contained in paragraphs "1", "4", "5" through "10", "14", "04^, "20?^, inclusive of this complaint with the same orce and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. co -o-'~ CD - 48 ~f3 N

AS A74D FOR A SEVENTY-THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CUNNINGHAM & WALSH, INC. 226. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4", "'6" through "10", e.14a re84>', °89", "221^, inclusive of this complaint With the effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 227. That by reason of the'foregoing decedent was damaged in the sum of FIVE HULiDRSD THOUSAND ($500,oQO.oO) le alive. A 5£V&N2'Y-FOVBTPI CAUSE OF ACTION ASRGHAt{ & WALSH, INC. ! 228. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4", K8" through ^10° "18R4, a84", n89^, ••221", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and sffect as if specifically set forth hereat. 229. That by reason of the foregoing, decedent's and daughter widov/xas damaged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND AS AND FOR A SEYEt7€7-FIFPH CAUSE 08 ACTION AGAINST CUNNINGHAM & WALSH, IHC. 9 230. Plaintiff repeats and realieges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4", "6" through "10", 1•14`r, ^84^, "221", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 231. That by virtue of defendant's plan as aforesaid to conceal facts and information from the public including decedent and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of and with indifference of the consequences to decedent'stp

AS AND FOR A SBYEtirY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CFJHHINGfIAM & WALSH, IHC. 220. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4", "6" through "i0", "14", "81" through "84", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set Yorth hereat. 221. That defendant CUNNINGHAM k WALSH, INC., is a• corporation doing bu5iness in the State of New York. 222. That as advertising agent for LIGGEIT & MYIIiS TOBACCO CO., INC., defendant prepared and disseminated advertisements the purpose of which was to induce the public including decedent to rely, at least in part, upon the contents of said advertising,.and defendant relied atZeast in part thereon. 223. That by reason of the foregoing decedent was damaged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) AS AND FOR A SBYEPiTY-SECOHD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CUNNINGHAM & WALSB, INC. 224. Plaintiff repeats and reaileges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4", "6" through "10", "18", "81" through "84", "221", inclusive of this camplaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth bereat. and daughter 225. That by reason of the foregoing, decedent's widowj was damaged in the sum at FIVE HUNDRED TROUSANI}'C$500,fl00.00? 7*.3 -SO- -`? O lL3 ~ -i>

the benefit of the Court and the defendants, plaintiff sisbes to ezplain the relativsly aiaple organization of this coaplaiat. Of the ?9 causes of action, 39 (the odd- ored ones) are in the nature oZ survival actions for the re particularly, the causes of actipn art as fol2oxs: porsoaal injuries sustained by the decadent .rbile alive, and 39 (the even numbered ones) are the actions by the vidoe and her daughter for wrongful death. The last cause of action against each named defendant is one for puaitive dsmagoa. Defendant . Naturo nf Aetion WD/Sur. I Ameriaan Tobacco Yanufacturer•s negligence 2 3 Warranty liability 4 5 Strict liability 8 ? . iSisre,resentation a 9 Hegligent misrepresentatioa 13 11 Punitive damagas 12 13 Liggett L- Myers banufactvrer's negligence 14 I5 Warranty liability Z9 17 Strict liability 13 19 Misrepresentation 20 21 Negligent misrepresentation 22 ?? Punitive damages 24 25 J. Yalter fihoapsoa Co. 6tisreprosoatatioa 26 ~7 Negligent misrepresentation wa 23 Punitive damages 30 31 Batten, Sorton, Azrstino S Osbora,ine. kisrepresentation 32 S CD \f3 L1rI -~-

That he is a member of the firm.of SPBZSE&, S$DMATE, GEOGHAN & BRRiiSS, the attorneys for the plaintiff herein, maintaining offioea at 200 Park Avenue, in the City and County - of New York; that he has read the foregoing Complaint and kaowsthe contents thereof and that the same is true of his own 3caowiedge.except as to matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters, he believes it to be true; that the reasons why this verification deponeat instead of by the plaintiff is because the plaintiff is not now within the County of New York, which is the County where deponent has his office. - IsI Charles F.,Krause CHARL Sworn to before me this ZY day of September, 1965 BUZ&Mqz tmrar Owuzlq R. C.eae.a a ~6° . Sv EcJ... vmad x 4

14. As a result of defendant's negligence as aforesaidj decedent VICTOR 1. StANY sustained serious, severe and permanent~ personal injuries to his body, was rendered sick and disabled, ~ sustained severe nervous shock, mental a.aguish and great ' . ~ physical pain, was confined to a hospital and bed for a ~ considerable length of time, suffered a loss of earnings and ~ income and was prevented from atte7sdinghis usual employment } and activities, all with resultant losses to him and his ;arilyl; and aas compelled to and did u¢dergo medical care, hospitalizatic { treatment and attention and did necessarily expend and become ~ i obligated to pay for hospital, medical, doctors and nursing ` services, expenses and care and as a result of the aforesaid ~ injuries and illness, decedent did die, and as a result of 1 his death funeral expenses were incurred. iIF 13. That the decedent was free from fault on his owa part as to the injuries and damages previously alleged. 16. That as a result of all of the aforesaid the plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED 'I'HQUSAND ($500,00o.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST :i3IERSCAIi T48ACC0, INC. 11. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every ailegation contained in paragraphs "2" through "13" inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if speci- fically set forth hereat. 18. That by reason of the negligence of the defendant as aforesaid VICTOR I. MANN died, and that by reason of said

,.,,e swoking of cigarettes including the defendant's brand of cigarettes, did not constitute a cause of ill health in human consumers and in particular, did not constitute a carcinogenic risk. 9. That defendant has utilized the services, er:perience. and contacts of the defendant ZNSTSTI3TE.for the purpose of c,including decedent.a message that the smoking of cigarettes, including defendant's brand of ; ettes,did not constitute a cause of ill health in human ~ consumers, and in particular, did not constitute a carcinogenic.~ ris"a. 10. Decedent smoked defendant's said goduets over 11. Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have knorin, that said products caused or were the . b .12. Defendant carelessly ignored or failed to appreciate the significance of reports in the medical literature, reports to it and the results to its study and the studies of others on the carcinogenic properties of its products. 13. That defendant otherwise failed to exercise the standard oYcare required of a manufacturer and supplier of a product in common use and especially required of a manufacturer and supplier of cigarette products, such as defeadant's brands of cigarettes, created solely for intimate contact ..` with t human body and for consumption by humaa beings. - 3 -

i YINEREFORE, decedent demands judgment against the defendant, AMERICAN TOBACCO, INC., oa the First, Third, Fi2th, Seventh and Ninth Causes of Action in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS and on the Eleventh Cause of Action in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS; and against the defendant, LIGGETT & MYERS 'rOBACCO CO., INC.,' on the Thirteenth, Fifteenth, Seventeenth, Nineteenth and Tventy-First Causes of Action in the sum of FIVE IiDNDRED . THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS and on the Twenty-Third Cause of Action in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS; and agaitist the defendant, . S. WALTER TROidFSO4G, " CO. , in the Twenty-Fifth and Ttrenty-Seveath Causes of Action in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS and on the Twenty-Ninth Cause of Action in the sum of FIVE StILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLL!iRS; and against the defendant, BATTEN, BARTON, DURSTINE & OSBORN, INC., on the Thirty-First and Thirty-Third Causes of Action in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS and on the Thirty-Fifth Cause of Action in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS; .. and against the defendant, FOOTE, CONE & BELDING, in the ', Thirty-Seventh and Thirty-Ninth Causes of Action in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS and on the Forty- First Cause of Action in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00 DOLLARS; and against the defendant, HILL & 1CNOY7LTON, INC., in the Forty-Third and Forty-Fifth Causes of Action inthe sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS and on the Forty-Seventh Cause of Action in the,sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS; and against the defendant COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH - U.S.A., on the Forty-Ninth and Fifty- M R3 . 1 ' . - 55- O ~ LfI -€y \0

death, decedent's widow STELLA A, MA.YDi, and decedent's individuals daughter, CI. :B NANr,, the _ entitled to recover damages herein and for whose benefit this action is brought; a..d as a result of his death as aforesaid fiis widow and child were deprived of his support, maintenance and contributions from his earnings and income which they could reasonably have expected the decedent to frovide had he edzitiaued to live and that the widow was further caused to suffer the loss of consortium of said husband, his advice, love, services, protection, guidance and other benefits, and that his daughter was further caused to suffer the loss of the advice, love, protection, a idance and other benefits. 19. That as a result of all of the aforesaid the (S500,000.00) DOLLARS. ~ plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of FIVE 8tR{CRED TH4L13AHD AS ATtO FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTIOH AGAINST AA4ERICdN TOBACCO, INC. ! 20. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each aad every allegation contained in paragraphs "I^ through "10'• and "14" ` inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as i2 specifically set forth hereat. 21. That the defendant made certain express warranties as to the safety, harmlessness, wholesomeness and health preserving or health maintaining qualities of its cigarette products to the public including decedent. . 22. That these express warranties had the natural tendancy to induce decedent to consume defendant's products and defendant relied, at least in part, oa these promises and representations. - 5 - Co t\? 41 Q (JI A10

AS AND FOR A FZi rE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAZXST, ib3ERICA.Y TOBACCO, INC. ! if specifically set forth hereat. '. ` 28. PlaintilF repeats and realleges,each and every allegation contained in paragraphs '3" through '•1o" and `34^, inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect 29. That by placing upon the market for general consumption by the public, including decedent, products which were unreasonably dangerous when used for the purpose for which intended, consumption by smoking by human beings, defenda became strictly liable to said decedent for the aforesaid injuries. 30. That as a result o£ all of the aforesaid the plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of FIVE RIJNDRED TROt7SA.l9 ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF AGTIOtt Ai}AIFST AdSERICAN TOBACCO, INC. 31. Piaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs ^1" through "10", "18" and "29^, inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth bereat. 32. As a result of the aforegoing strict liability, the defendant is liable to the widow and daughter cf the decedeat.in the amount of FIVE HUNDBED TNOLf.9AND {$5b0,0fl6•00} AS AND FOR A 9EY8N1H CAUSE OF ACTION AGAIh'Sr AESERICAX TOBACCO, I1iC.__ 33. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1" through "20^ and "14", - ? -

AS AND FOR AN EIGNTX CAUSE OP ACTION - 'lINST .U;ERICAa TOBACCO INC. 39. 2laintiff repeats and realleges eaeh and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1" through ^20", "28", and "34" through "37", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereit. I 40. As a result of the aforeaoing misrepresentations, the widow and daughter of the decedent were damaged in the aaount of FIVE HL,i"BRED THOi3SA.l'4 ($S00,000.00) IIOLLARS. AS AND FOR A NINT: C.1t.'SE OF ACTION AGAINST Ab:`eB.ICa:: YOSACOO, INC. 0 41. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1" through "10" and "14", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 42. That although the defendant made representations about the safety, wholesomeness and non-injurious effects of its cancer products as aforesaid, said representations were negligently made and made without the exercise oi due care under the circumstances then and there existing, in that said defendant was consciously aware that it did not know the true nature and propensities of its said cigarette products; that said defendant voluntarily kept-itselS in a state of ignorance with respect to the effects upon human health of smoking said products and with respect to'their carciaogenid propensities.in particular; and that the statements and representations that said defendant made about its products were made recklessly and without any knowledge as to whether C-D {_~3 'tLz ~ (~"i

they were true or false, and without any reason for grounds to believe them to be true. 43. :rat the aforesaid rep.resentatidas and statements were made with the purpose of inducing the public including decedent to rely thereon, and decedent did,rely thereory and as a direct and;proximate result th,ereoL'aas injured. 44. As a result of the foregoing, decedent was damaged_ while alive in the sum of FITIS HUNBRED THOpSA3iD ($5i?p,D46.60) DOLLARS. AS A.tD Fb& A T$\TH CAIISE OF ACTIp.C dlSAITST AVE3ICd..fi YGBACCD ZCC 45. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs •*1*• through "10", "18^, and "42° and "43", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 46. As a result of the aforegoing negligent misrepresentations, the defendant- is liable to the widow and daughter of the decedent in the ac.ount of FIVE AW:DRED DIISAtiD ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A EhEVSRTEI CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST AgEHICA3€ TOBACCO, INC. 47. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1" through "10" and "14", inclusive=of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat.

inclusive Of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 34, That the defendant uttered and'pubZished and caused to be uttered and published a false and untrue representation as to the nature and effect upon human consumers of its cigarette 'products and as to the safety,,,wholesomeness, harmlessness and helpful qualities Of said products; that Such ,alse statements and representations were made and uttered with intention that the public,including decedent,~would be induced to act thereon by smo'aing sazd cigarette products; and the p.aintiff relied thereon; and that as hereinbefore alleged, _ as a proximate result of said false and fraudulent representations decedent was injured. 35. That defendant knew that in representing said products as safe and wholesome, it was concealing facts, data and information as to the dangerous or possibly dangerous of said products from the public including decedent. 36. That defendant contradicted, denied, diluted, minimized, and obfuscated scientific reports, studies and surveys, which reports as hereinbefore alleged, indicated that there was a relationship between smoking and cancer, especially cancer of the lungs. 37. That the decedent relied, at least in part, upon the diluted reports and misrepresentations of reports dealing ' with the=harmful consequences Of smoking as previously been alleged, to his detriment. 38. As a result Of the ioregoing misrepresentaticns, decedent was damaged while alive to the extent Of FIVE fit7ND8ED TH6i3SFYD (S560,Q00.00) M}}y7,,,qgS. _a_

48, That the defendant manufactured, distributed and sold its brands of cigarettes in consciouS, willful and wanton, or reckless disregard of the health, safety and well being of the public including decedent as consumers of its said products, since defendant knew or should have known that its said,products were or probably were carcinogenic,-andyet-with:¢ndiffereace to its obligations as a manufacsurer and supplier of products .`or human consumption and to the consequences of its acts or omissions, it made no attempt to apprise or inform the public including decedent of said carcinogenic propensities of its product but rather concealed such facts and circumstances from the public including decedent as has been hereinbefore alleged. 49. That by virtue of defendant's plan and design as aforesaid to conceal facts and information from the public including decedent and to proceed in wilful, wanton or reckless or grossly negligent disregard of decedent5 right, health and safety, defendant by virtue of its liability as previously alleged in Causes of Aciion "FIRST", "THIED^, "FIFTB'", "SEV&!T8" and "NINTE", has become liable to decedent for punitive or exemplary damages while alive in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($$,000,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AfiD FOR A TWE.'LFrH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST AMERICAN TOBACCO, INC. and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "J" through "10", "18" and "4&^, inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as it specifically set forth bereat. 51. As a result of the aforegoing and by virtue of - liability as previously alleged in Causes of Action "SECOND", - 11 -

AS AND FOR A FIFTEEh"f3 CAUSE OF ACTION AC ~i\ST LIGGE2"f & MYERS TOBACCO CO., I::C SS. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4", "5", "7" through "10", "14", "21" through "24", "53" and "54", inclusive of ~ ~ this complaint vith the same force and ef.tect-as if specifically - F set forth hereat. ! 59. That as a result of the breach of the aforesaid warranties decedent was injured to his damage while living in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED R3Ot;S<18'D ($500,000.00) DOLLIRS. AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF .1CSIOA* AGAINST LIGGETT & :S.L'RS TOBACCO CO., INC. 60. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "Z", "4", "5", "7" through "10", "18^ "21",through "24", "53" and "54", inclusive of . this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. _ 61. As a result of the breach of the aforesaid warranties the midow and daughter of decedent were injured to their damage in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A SEVENTEE:vIA CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LIGOE2T & StYERS TOBACCO CO., INC. 62, Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4", "5", "7" through "10", "14", "29", "53" and "54", inclusive of this camplaint same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 1

23. That by the manufacture, sale, supply and distribution of its cigarette products, the defendant made ~ certain implied warranties that said Frodupts were merehaatable,~ wholesome, safe and fit for the purpose intended, which was ~ ~ human consumption. 24. That, in fact, defendant's cigarette products were ~ not merchantable, safe, wholesome, or fit for the purpose intended nor did they conform with the express warranties made; j and that they possessed no qualities related to the preservationj of human good health, but were, instead, a toxic, deleterious, defective, unwholesome, dangerous and unfit for the intended purpose of consumption by human beings. 25. That as a result of the breach of the aforesaid warranties decedent was injured to his damage while living in the amount of FIVE BUNDI2fiD THOUSAND {g500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST AMERICAN TOBACCO, INC. 26. plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1^ through ^10^, "I8^, and "21" through ^24", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and offect as it specifically set forth hereat. i { 27. As a result of the breach of the aforesaid the widaw and daughter of decedent were injured to their damage in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND C550o,00o1 C DOLLARS. _ 6 _ !

^FOG31"d", ^SIXTE", •BIGidT'd^ and "TEFTf;"". The defendant is liable to the widov and daughter of the decedent for punitive or ese:.plary damages in the sum of ;iS'E ;;ILLI0.1' (S5,000,000.DO) DCiId SF . •• AS AND FOR A THIRT4EATH CAUSE OF ACTION -AGAI2tST LIGGc1T & MYERS TOBACCO CO INC. 52. Plaintiff repeats and reallege's'eaeh and every al.ee tion contained in paraa aphs "1", "4", "5", '7"through "15", inclusive of this complaint vith the same force and effect as if speciSicaliy set forth hereat. 53; That de.endan: LIGG23T & 3tY"a.RS TOBACCO CO., ISC., (hereinafter referred to as ZZGGETT & 3IYE85), is a corporatio organized under the laws of Nem Jersey and registered and licensed to do business in the State of New York. ~ ~ 54. That defendant did manufacture, sell, distribute and ~ supply for profit during the time decedent's smoked cigarettes and still so does sell brands of cigarettes known as ~ Chesterfields. 55. That as a result ot all of the aforesaid the plaintif€ has been damaged in the sum of FIVS HUNO&E4 TSSOL'SAND ($5Q0,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION .1GAINST LIGGEIT dc MYERS TOBACCO CO., INC. 56. Plaintia repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained ia paragraphs "1^, ^4", "5^, ""7" through "13^, "18", "53" and '54", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as i€ specifically set forth hereat. 57. That as a result of all of the aforesaid the plaintiff has been damaged in the sum 01 FIVE HUNDRED THOUSA14I5 ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. - 12 -

63. That as a result of all of the aforesaid the p2aintiff has been damaged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED 1gopSAD ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND :G3 AN :.iGn:S3\Tii CAUSE Qi .1CTIOV AGAINST LIGG'cTT & ,,:iRS TOBACCO.CO. IrC 64. Plaintiff repeats and reaileges each and eveny allegation contained in paragraphs „5,', "7'•-through TM10", ^16", "29", ^53^ and "54", inclusive of this complaint the widow and daughter of the decedent in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOIISA,YD (S500,000.00) DOLLARS. set forth hereat. omplaint with the same force and effect as if specifically e same force and effect as if specifically set forth AS AND FOR A PsI:TETZE.YTH CAUSE OF ACTIO:7 AGAINST LIfiCETT & 13YERS TOBACCO CO., INC. 66. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "i", "A:, .«5„„7.r through "70^, "14^, ^34" througb ^37^, ^53" and "54" inclusive of this 67. As a result of the foregoing misrepresentations, decedent was damaged while alive to the extent of FIVE HUNDRED T%OUSAND (5500,000.00) DOLLARS. FOR A TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LIGG.~.'2T & 31YE&S TOBACCO CO., IXC.- 6S. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1°, "4", "5", `^7" through "10", `ZB", "34" through ^37", "53° and ^54", inclusive af this complaint with the saae force and effect as €f specifically - 14 - of the aforegoing strict liability, F 1

AS A:iB FOR A THI°:t-S'RT3 CAUSE O? ACTION AGAIxsT EAT-=N, HA.°.TOl. .*.i~EST?SE L• OSHOB\ INC. 109. Plaintif'' repeats and realleges each and every allegation con{ained in paragraphs "I", "4", through "10'•, "28", "94" and ^99'", inclusive of this compiaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set`forth hereat. 110. That by virtue of defendant's plan as aforesaid to conceal facts and information from the public including decedent and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of and with indifference of the consequences to decedent's rights, health and safety and by making false statements and - representations; the defendant by virtue of its liability in the ""THIATY-SECOSII" and "TFiIRTY-FOURTH" Causes of Action as ~ hereinbefere set forth became liable to decedent's widow and daughter who were damaged in the svm of FIVE MILLION {g5,660,fl001 AS AND FOR A T'dI4TY-SEV£i1'TH CAUSE OF ACTION AOAI\S T FOOTE, CO2€E & $ELDING 111. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs ^1^, "4", `"B" through "18", "i4", "80'< through "84'", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 112. That defendant FOOTE, CONE & SEGBIi4G is, a firm doing business in the State of New York. . 113. That by reason of the foregoing decedent was damaged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS while alive, ' -23-

^_03.tCCO, altLough defendant was or should have been well 84. That decedent did rely at Ieas.,:n part on the foregoing statement and uisrepresentations prepared and ;j disseminated by defendant. ;i S5. That by reason of the foregoiag,decedeat was i Cn-aged in t'^.e sva of s'.Va :L.17i nSD '^t.TOCSA.1D ($500,000.00) g DOLLARS while alive. dS 3\D ?O3 1."~ CkUSF. OF .ICY`i0g AGAINST SLLLIVd_1, STi~ai3. CGi~.":LL S. &1YLES, ZSC. so. plain`.i,`f razaats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragrayhs "1", "4", ^fi", "10", "18", "7B" through "34", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 87. That by reason of .ne foregoing, decedent's widow and daughter were damaged in the sum of FIVE HSSitD8E4 TEOUSA,YII (P,SO0,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A TSY"ti.'TY-SSVE?fFI CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST Sb'LLZVAIT STAt3?z::Ii Z.'OLWnLL & &AYLES, I\C. 88. Plaintif: repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4", "8" through "l0", "14", "79" and "84", inclusive of this complaint with the saae force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 89. That although defendant made representations in its advertising about the safe, harmless, wholesome, and beneficial qualities of tbe aforesaid ALiER1CA2i TOBACCO brands of cigarettes, it was consci,ously aware that it did not know the true nature and propensities of said products; that in fact the defendant recklessly and voluntarily :cept -IS-

and "Z4", inc€ '-ive of this comp€aint uith the same force and effect as if specifically set forth aereat. ,ry 79. That defendant SL'S.LIYA.i, SSAG"FiEe2,'COLWELL ic BAYZ.ES, ~ ~ INC., is a corporation doing business in the State of New York. ~ 80. That as advertising agent for A3SERIC92t TO&1CCO, en:.ant prepared and disseminated advertiseaents :he rpose of which was to induce the public including decedent t , rely, at least in part, upon the contents of said advertising, i defendant relied at .east in part thereon. 8:. That defendaat :ras uader a duty to the public cludiao decedent to rel_«in from making a mis-representation se statement and under the duty and not to omit available factual information and data pertinent to the safety factor or risk involved in the consumption of the cigarette products was advertising. 82. That defendant knew or in the esercise~af reasonable care should have known that under the factual circumstances then and there existing the factual statements therein contained ere false, deceptive and misleading and constituted a srepresentation of the existing and available facts relating safety and health of smokers of the brands of cigarettes moked by decedent. endant did conceal from, and diluted ' reports to the public incliding,decedent ea the risks to human health created or probably created by smokiag of cigarettes and in particular the cigarettes made by defendant A)!E&ZCA€£ Go N3 CD i33 ~ V W

co7piaint with the same force and effect as if Specifically set forth hereat, 75. TLac by virtue o. defendant's plan and design as aforesaid to conceal facts and information from the public ~ including decedent and to proceed in wilful, wanton or,reckiess i or grossly negligent disregard of deoedent's right, health and 11 saPe^.y, de.endant by virtue of its liability as previously ' alleged in Causes of Action "THIBTEE,PrfI^, ^F1FTB~TH", ,•SiYSa'T°RTiI", "tiIA":1'Eil°Ei" and 'T:E,l"PY-FIRST", has become liable to decedent :or pcaeive or exemplary damges while s , alive inthe su: of F:D"Z W:iL:O\ ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS. '~ AS AND FOR A 2W£1RY-a"'}. tiAT"ii CAUSE OF ACTIO.`i AGAINST LIGGti'r 9NYE,n.S TOBACCO CO., INC. -FIF'rS CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST SUf,Z.IVdti, STAUeF`R, COL18}:LL & EAYLBS, IqC. 78. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every 76. Plainti~ff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4", ^5", °7" through °•10", "18^, "48", "53" and ^54", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 77. .i.s a result of the aforegoing and by virtue of liability as previously alleged in Causes of Action ^FOE38TE°..`u TH "SI%TEE:tTH^, "EIf-EPfEE.\~'N", °'TtPENTIEftt^ and "TWEETY-SECOND^. The defendant is liable to the widow and daughter of the decedent for punitive or exemplary damages in the sun of FIVE 1tIZ.LIOY ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS. , allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4", "8" through "10" 1fi - f}~ 1~} -~ CD V N

AS AND FOR A'Ct1ItZ1".`-EICiATA CAUSE,OF ACTION ACrA1NST FOOTEs_ CONE & 8EI„7IY.G 114. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every alleo tion conta3:ned in paragraphs "1", "4",' ^b" through "10", "1&" "80" through "84", "1aZ", inclusive af this ccmplaiat with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth bereat. 115. That by reason of the foregoing, decedent's widow and daughter were damaged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED TFIOLSAA'D ($500,00f.00) DOLLARS. AS AND :Oa A T:{IRTI-\7\'T3 CAGSE OF ACTION AGAINST FOOTE, CONE & 3ELDIyd 116. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4", ^fi" through ^10"; "14" "84"', "89^ and "112", inclusive of this complaint witn the same 4.orce and effect as if speeifically set forth hereat. 117. That by reason of the foregoing decedent was damaged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THODSAfiD ($500,0OO.0D) while alive. • AS A1FD FOR A FG RTIz-°i9I CAUSE OF ACTIO.Y AGAINST FOOTE CONE & SELDI2IG ' 118. Plaintiff repeats and tealleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4", "6" through ^10", "18", "84", "89" and `•112", iaclvsive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 119. That by reason of the foregoing, decedent's widow and daughter were damaged in the sum aF FIVE Fiti1DRED TH0233Ah`D - ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. - 24 -

i:se1: in a s.ate o~ ie..orcnce, or ir.asaucY of a state of ignorance as was possibie under The existing circumstances, as :o the aature and qualities of said products whea smoked and as .o carci:.ogea:c y.caa:si~ies in particu:ar; and tsat the defendant did not make inquiry of the defendant AbIERICA4i TbBdCCO nor did it encourage ozrequest defendant 1S€figyCAtQ <O3ACC0 to undertake adequate scientifid tests and study as to t::a nature of said a.o::ucrs and the consequences oP consumption ti.ereof. 90. :cat by reason o: the foregoing decedent was in :G2 SL'.~..e: '-aV- .a4Xa«.-'.57 ::~`iii$e1.\~D ($500,000.00) while alive. AS AND FOR A i't°'w\-Y-'aIG:T3 CAUSE OF dCTZOii AGAZHST SULLIVAN, STaLr::2R, CO:.REi.L L. BAYLES, INC. 0 91. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "4", "6" through "1fl",- ^79", "84•`, `"89^, inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. of the foregoing, decedent's widow and daughter were damaged in the sum of FIVE f1UiiDR£D TBOIISAND ~ ($500,0QQ.QQ) DOLLARS. AS AHD FOR A TSrMiY-.CI.FTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST StRZZVASi STAUF£ERT, COLWELL & HAI'LES. INC. 93. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4", "6" through "I0", ^14" and "76", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 94. ?hat the defendant in consaious, wilful and wanton, or reckless or grossly negligent disregard of the health, safety and well-being of the public including decedent made no attempt - 19 -

0 • 139. That as a direct and praximate result of his reliance on aforesaid statements and omissiohs and dilutions decedent was za,jured in the sum of FIVE E;UNOggp `rgOUSAA•D (S3G0,000.4~7} DOLLARS. AS AND F08 A FO fi;'Y-SIXTt[ CAIISE'OF ACTION AGAINST HILL $ S.'CGaLTOA I?3C. ' 140. Plaintiff repeats and realleges.eacb and every ai2egation contained ir; parag aphs "1", "2" "10", "126" through and "136" through "138", inclusive of this coapiaint with the sase force and effect as if specific set forth hereat. That as a direct and proximate result of deeedent's j 3 reliance on aforesaid statements and omissions, decedeat's 1 widow and daughter were injured in the sun of FIVE }1iRi0BFD i~ T'dOF:SAND (SS0o,000.00) 130LLA.IS j. AS AND F4R A sQ 3T7-SEYS;€TH CAUSE OF ACTION aCAINST HILL &- KNOWLTON, INC._ _ 142. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each, and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "2", "10", °11", "•lq", and "125" through "128", inclusive of this compliint with the saae force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 143. That the defendant HILL & SC3SOYtLTOl6, over the years in its position as public relations counsellor, supplied advice and made statements, as above alleged, in conscious, wiiful and wanton, or reckless, disregard of the health, safety and well being of the public including plaintiff, since it knew, or should have known, that the aforesaid cigarette products were, or probably were, carcinogenic; and yet, with indifEerenc to its obligatiens as one preparing public relations statemeats -29-

set forth hereat. &9. As a result of the aforegoing misreyresentations, tae widow and daughter of tse decedent were damaged in the amount of FIVE SGti"ORv"43 iriOJSAFO (5500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A T{YE,h'Tq-FiRST CAUSE OF AL'TION AGAINST LIGGETP Fs MYERS TO&ACCO CO. IHC 70. Plaintiff repe^_ts and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs '"1^, ^4", "5", °'7^ through "10", "14", ^42'•, ^43", "53" and "54" inclusive~ o£ this conplainn with the sace force aad effect as if specifically set forth f:ereat. - 71, As a result of the foregoing, decedent was damaged while alive in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) Z)C1IS.AR3. .. AS AND FOR ATWEi."IY-SECOA`D CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LIGvEPT & MYERS TOBACCO CO., INC. 72. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each'and every allegation contained in paragraphs "3^, •'4", "7.°tnrough ^1fl" "18^ "42", "43"• "53" and "54°, inclusive of this complaint with the same force and ef£eet.as iE specifically set forth hereat. 73. As a resultaf the aforegoing negligent misrepresentations, the defendant is liable to the aidow and daughter of the decedent in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED' ($500,000.00) pOLLARS, - AS AND FOR A TNE,\"i'Y-TSIIAD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LIfiOEYT & BSY£RS TOBACCO CO., INC. 74. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "'4", "5", '•7" through `R0'",'"14", "48", "53" and "54", inclusive of this - 15 -

to aprise the public iacluding decedent of the carcinogenic ~ propensities of the tobacco products which defendant was advertising but rather tried to conceal the facts and ca'cuastances froa the y::bac, including decedent, even thoueh it knew or should have known that the cigarette products probahiy were carcinogenic. - I 95. That by virtue of defendant's plan as aforesaid to conceal facts and infoi:ation froa the public including decedent and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of ~ and with indi:`areaca o= t`c cor.seGnences to decedent's rights, health and safe.y and S:y false statements and representations, the de.endta: hy virtue of its liability in the "i~&tTY-FZFTfi" and `:'Causes of Action, as bere:nhefore set forth, became liable to'the decedent for , punitive damages in the s= of FIVE MILLION {$5,000,000.00} . M ::IRTIETH CAUSE OF ACTIOfF AGAINST =R. COLWELL & BAYLES, INC. 96. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every aliegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4" "6° through *'l0^, "18", "78" and "94", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 97. That by virtue of detendant!s plan as aforesaid to conceal facts and information from the public including decedent and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard e: and wit: indiiference of the consequences to decedent's rishts, health and sa.`ety and by making false statements and representations; the defendant by viftue of its liability in the ^T't£\'fY-SIfiTH^ and 'i'SMTY-£IGA'i2i" Causes of Action as hereinbefore set Zorth became liable to decedent's widow and - 20 - CD ~ ~ ~ ~

health£ul, or at least was not Sar;a£ul. 130. That as to Gcceder.t, the acts,-Plans and advice of defendant HILL & i£.tiO;TLTOY constitutedia intentional interference with, and an iatentional invasion of, plaintif€'s right to personal good health and to physical mell being'; that such acts and activities of said defendant~directly and proximately resulted in the inflictlon upon plaintiff of temporal da.ages in the form of ill health. 131. iaat as to decedeat, the aforesaid acts, plans aa2, advice of defendant n<O uTOY constituted a prima facie tort, ia that the said defendant intentionally did that h was calculated in the ordinary course of events to daaase plaintiff without just cause of excuse, and which did, in fact, injure plaiatif: herein; that such acts and activities constituteda violation, committed knowingly, of plaintiff's legal rights, including, but not limited to,.his right to personal good health and physical well being. 132. That as a result of all of the aforesaid the plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of FIVE HUNItB&D THOtSSe1.YD ($5Q0,000.OQ) DOLLARS. AS AND F02 A FCBTY-FOII8'PH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST HILL & K.tOtYL7Y7Y, INC. 133, Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", ^2", ^10", "11", "18", "125" through "131", inclusive of this camplaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. - 27 _ M ND O (.fI fJ L„~y

AS AND POR A.0 8T`I-T:2IRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST HILL & ayO;YLTOY, INC. 124. Plaintiff repeats and realleges e allegation contained in pa:aeraphs '. ,••2", and ^14^, inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth .hereat. 125. That defendant HILL &xNOTtLTOa, INC., (hereinafter referred to as HILL & ILWWLTO\), is a New York corporation, with its principal place vt doing business in the State of Sew York. 126. That defendav: HILL & tCOS4LTOti, which styles itself as a public relat:oa.s £irm, for a profit does now and did at all relevant times offer its services to all of the other defendants in this complaint. 127. That the defendant HILL & R,YO%LTOF conceived the idea, and saw to the foraation and establishment, of the defendant COUNCIL in or about the year 1954. 128, That the defendant HILL & KNOWLTON lent its efforts to the foraatioa and establishment of the defendant TZTOTE in or about the year 1958. 129, That in its capacity as public relations agent or counsellor for the defendants COUNCIL and INSTITUTE defendant HILL & KNOWLTON strove to supply them with plans and advice for counteracting, refuting, and concealing the growine medical and other scientific evidence as.to the carcinogenic natctre of substances in cigarette smoking; and to contrive to spread the misrepresentation'.that smoking was - 28-

134. That as a result oS all of the aforesaid the i i plaintiff has been damaged in the sun of FIVE HU„'D8£p Tyr4L5,1= ; ($500,000.00) nOLr.ass ; AS :LYB FOR d?O: nTY-FxFT^n c.lBSE OF ACTION AGAINST HILL & %xOhZTON INC.- . i AML IMW 135. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every y allegation contained in paragraghs""I,`, °21, "10", ^ii^, ^14",-4 r "125" through ^123", inclusive of this complaint with the € ! same force and effect as ii` specifically set forth hereat. i 136. That the defendant Ha.L & KNOWLTON prepared i stateaents and aided deYe:da:~s d1MIGlX TOSatCO and LIGGET'i ~ L l:£YE.YS in preparing sta.eaents, which it kaem, or should have; known, ware false, deceptive and misleading and were a ' misrepresentation of the facts relating to the health, safety ; and life of smokers of the aforementioned brands of cigarettes.j 237.That the defendant 3ILL & KNOWLTON thereby knowingly, intentionally and fraudulently, or recklessly without regard to the consequences, as aforesaid, made false, misleading and deceptive statements and representations about cigarette tobacco products, ineluding defendantsAltE&ICAPZ TOSACCO and LIGG£PP & 57EY£itS by expressly stating, and by implying, that such products were safe a.d healthful,and in some manner good for the health of the sawLer, whereas it knew, or should have knoan, that such products were not beneficial to the health of the smoker. 138. That the defendant HILL & KNOWLTON thereby knowingly, intentionally and fraudulently omitted from, concealed from, and diluted reports.to the public ineluding ' decedent.

174. That the priaary function of defendant IgSTITLfiE has been, to act as a public relations spokesman, organ :nd outlet fo; the tobacco industry. •• i75. That by undertaking to make reports to the press, by undertaking to publicize its own reports, and by various other acts and activities in connection wi£fi functioning as a public relatior.s s7o:cesaan and organ for the tobacco industry, the defendant 2SSTZTL'r5 and its members, directly and inten- tionally thrust itself aad them into the attention of the public and attempted to and did becowe a known public figure. 176. That as a result of said public efforts and said notoriety, the defendant '.\'ST:TL'TS andits members violated their duty and obligation to the public including decedent to investigate and report ob„ectively on the subject of the carci- nooenic nature of substances in tobacco and in the smoke of . cigarettes including the aforementioned brands of cigarettes, the duty not to prevent the public iacluding decedent from obtaining unbiased and accurate information on that subject and question. .. 177. That as a result of the efforts of defeudaat sZ and its members.to dilute, negate, counteract, conceal, medical reports, studies and surveys that were being inated oa the subject o1 the risks to human health, life . associated with smoking of tobacco and of said defendant breached and violated its duty to 178. That as to decedent, the act;s and activities of defendant I\STITLI'& and its members constituted an intentional interference with, and an intentional invasion of, decedent's to personal good health and to physical well being; that -3g-

158. That as a result of all of the aforesaid the aiatifY has been damaged in the sum of FIVE HI~'DgEO TgOiiSA,\'D ($306.OO0.D0) -uOLLA.3S. , AS AND FOR A FIiTIi.TH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST TSiE COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH - U.S.A. . 159. PZaintiff repeats and realleges each and every, I allegation contained in paragraphs "1•", •'2^, ^10,• „il", % and ^143" through "157", inclusive of this complaint with the sane force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. ISO. That as a result of all of the aforesaid the atiff has been *lamaged in the sum of FIVE gU2iF7RED 21{OGSAND 500,000.00) pOLLARS. AS AND FO3 A FIFaY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE COUNCIL FOR Tt53ACCO RESEA$CH - U.S.A. 161. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "I", "2`•, "10^, "Iln, "24", and ^148" through "152", inclusive of this complaint with the aae force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 162. That the defendant COUNCIL, its aforesaid directors ers, prepared aad had published statements which, as previously alleged in the "FO`-RTY-RIItTH" Cause of Action against COL'N'CIL, intentionally and negligently misrepresented the to the public including decedentJ true state of knowledge about the carcinogenic properties of cigarettes for the purpose of eiving plaintif: who relied at least in part upon these misrepresentations, and was deceived thereby. - 34-

~ intended to prevent the public, including decedent from j ~ determining the true effect upon human life, health and safety i o.' cinaretse saoking and to prevent the public including decedent. from obtaining unbiased and undistorted medical and scientific j reports on said subject. j 155. That as a result of the forefoing acts and o:issions, the defendant COOCC:L its aforesaid directors and members, violated their duty and obligation to the public iacl~ding decedent to report objectively on the subject whether igarette smoke contained substances carcinogenic in nature, eat the public from obtaining unbiased and accurate information about the carcinogenic, or probably carcinogenic nature of substances contained in cigarette smoke. 156_ That as to decedent, the acts and activities of defendant COUNCIL, and of its aforesaid directors and members, constituted an intentional interference with, and an intentional invasion of, decedent's right to personal good health and to physical well being; that such acts and activities of said defendant directly and proximately resulted in the infliction upon plaintiff of temporal damages in the form of i1lhealth. 157. 'fhat-as to decedent, the aforesaid acts and ', activities of defendant COUNCIL, its aforesaid directors and members, constituted a prima facie tort, in that said defendant did intentionally that which was calculated in the ordinary course of events to damage decedent without just cause or excuse and which did, in fact, injure decedent herein; that such acts and activities constituted a violation of decedent's legal rights, including but not limited to-his right to personal good health and physical well being, committed knowingly. -33-

P

170. 'That by virtue of defendant COM;CIL's plan and ~ as aforesaid, so to mislead the smoking puhlic incl::dina ' public including decedent .hat related to cigarette prodcczs i designed for human consumption, and by virtue of liability for a ° Causes of Action ^FIFfIn,y" and "FIFlY-SECONI}", decedent's widow and dauanter were d;.maved in the sua of F27E 'ZLLZd,!' [Sd,00s~,4Q0.00) DOLLARS. aecedent, and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of, ~ and with indifference to the consequences itpon, decedent's ~ ~ rights, health and safety, and in the making of false statements ( . ~ ~ and the concealing of information of impor'tance to the smoking i AS A'B FOR A :Ir.Y-FIE1R CAUSE OF ACTION AGsII\ST TO3nCC0 f15TITDPS,. INC. 0 work and functions of said INSTITUTE. -37- 0 171. Plaintiff re:eats and realleges each and every egation contained in paragraphs "1^, "2", "1{t^, "11" and inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. , 172. That defendant TO3,ICCO IISTITPCE, INC., (hereinafter referred to as INSTITUTE), is a membership corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. 173. Upon information and belief, that defendant IASTITI3TE is wholly financed by payments secured from its member tobacco companies, firms and corporations; again upon information and belief, that each of said tobacco corporations or organizations annually pays large amounts, said amounts being unknown todecedent but known to the defendants herein, toward

ted reports of others in conscious, wilful and wanton, or :ncl::dina decedent, s::ce it rnew, or should have :csown, , reckless, disregard of health, safety aad well being of the the aforesaid cigarette products were, or probably were, carcinogenic; and yet, with indifference to its obligations as but rather, by artifices, stra:aoems and devices as previeusly alleged herein, contrived to conceal such facts and cireumstances~ from the public including decedent. , ecedent of said carcinogenic propensities of said products, D co.^.s::.-..ptio:, and to the consequences of its aets or omissions, it made no attempt to apprise or inform the public including one preparing public statements about products 168. That by virtue of defendant COUNCIL's plan and design, as aforesaid, so to mislead the smoking public including decedent, and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of, consequences upon, decedent's ts, health and safety, and in the making of false statements mages in the sum of FIVE 3tILLIOH ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS. Causes of Action "FO R'FY-EI37TR" and "FZFTY-FIRST", defendant COtIYCILhas become liable to decedent while alive for punitive ublic including decedent that related to cigarette products esigned for huzaan consumption, and by virtue of liability for and the concealing of information of..importance to the smoking AS AND FOR A FZri7-FOURT& CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST 1",iE COUNCIL F03 TOBACCO 8fi8EA&GTi - U.S.A. 169. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every i ~ allegation contained in paragraphs "I", gh "252" and "16T", inclusive of this complaint with j7 e same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. f 36 0

others in making a false and diluted statement relating to cigarette products designed for human eonsumption, and by virtue ~ oi its liability in the •'FORTY-FOURTit" and "FORT[ SIXrR" Causes i o: rction de°endan'i HILL S ii.tiO::LTON has become liable to decedent's widow and daughter who were injured in the sum of ~ FIVE MILLIOH (5S,000,000.00) DouLARS. 1 AS AND FOR A FORTY-XIT.'TH CAUSE tJP'ACTIOH AGAINST THE COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH - U,S.A.' 147. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "•1", ^2", "IO", "11" and "14", inclusive of this coaplaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 148. That defendant THE COUNCIL FOR TOHACCO RESEARCH- U.S.A; (hereinafter referred to as COUNCIL), known as Tobacco Institute Research Committee during the time periods during which plaintiff was smoker of cigarettes, is a voluntary unincorporated association with its principal place of business in the State of New York. That, upon information and belief, i Executive Director, W,T, HOYT, is in the position of President of said defendant. 149. That the principal officers, and the directors of defendant COUNCIL are Timothy v. Hartnett, Chairman; H;T: Hoyt, Executive Director; and Clarence Cook Little, Scientific Director; that upon information and belief, said Clarence Cook Little is aot a graduate of any medical school and is not a Sdedical Doctor. 150. That, upon information and belief, among the real parties in interest and members in defendant association COUNCIL '. are defendant HILL & KNOWLTON and the defendant tobacco •

INSTITUTE has becone liable to decedent while alive for punitive damages in the sum of FIVE HILLIOlY ($5,00Q,000.00) DO AS .L}D FOR .l SiXii'£:^:i CAUSE 4F'ACTIO# AGAINST TCEACCO INSTITUTE, INC. 191. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and egery allegation contained in paragraphs i'2°; "10*', ^11" ••1g" "172" through "i75" and "iS9", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. i 192. That by virtue of defendant I\STITZ'TE's plan and design, as aforesaid, so to mislead the smoking public including decedent, and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of, idow and daughter were damaged in the snm of FIVE MILLION $5,000,000.00) DOLLARS. ndifference to the consequences, upon decedent's s, health and safety, and in the making of false statements and the concealing of information of importance from the smoking public including decedent that related to cigarette products designed for human consumption, and by virtue of its liability for Causes Of Action "FIFTY-SIXTH^ and "FIFTY-EIGHTH", decedent's 11 ffect as if specifically set forth hereat. AS AND FOR A SSXPi-FIHST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS PHILIP }SORRIS, IRC. ; R.J. REYNOLDS, INC.; AMERICAN TOBACCO, INC.; LIGGE2"E & SIYF.3ZS TOBACCO CO., IHC.: and P. LORILLARD CO.,._I1C. 193. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every gation contained in paragraphs "1", "2", "10", "21^, "14" and "53", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and -42_

facturers -PHILIP MORRIS, I2ZC., {bereinafter referred to as I 0 ~ c'LSPSOLDS, ,tYERICnS TOSdCCO aad P. LORILLARD CO,., INC., (hereinafte , r - referred to as LORILLARD. ! P3ILI? ::ORRIS, R,J. REY. oLDS, INC., (hereinafter referred to as i company or corporation contributing according to its sales, are members of COLNCIL with each cigarette organization, 151. That the funds for the operation of defendant COUNCIL, and its scientific grants, have, upon information . and belief, been contributions fram the cigarette manufacturers business under an assumed name; that as a result of said ire that an association to file a certificate of doing 152. That defendant COUNCIL did not comply, and has never compiied, with the laws of the State of New York that omission, all the real parties in interest in COUNCIL, including those referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph, have assumed each and every civil SiabiSity and responsibility of defendant COUNCIL. 153. That the stated purpose of defendant COUNCIL is to make impartial studies into-the relationship between smoking of tobacco and human health; but that its purpose, in fact, is and has been to rebut and distort amassed medical and other scientific :ata, evidence, reports, studies that indicate ag is deleterious to human health; and that the plaa endeavor of defendant COUNCIL, its directors and members has been to counteract and dilute medical and other scientific reports, studies and surveys that have been released which tended or te..ds to establish a positive correlation mokin¢ and cancer. 154. That the acts and activities of the defendant 'CIL, its aforesaid directors and members,.were calculated and -32-

same force and effect as i. specifically set forth hereat. 18{. µa: the c~_cacc:.~ LlS^:.'iGTc'F its afo,-esaid directors ar.d neabers, Preaared aad had puaiished statements which, as previously at_cged i.. the preeediny cause of actior. ~ against INSTITLiE, iatentionally and negligently misrepresented t ~ to the public including decedent a true state of knowledge about ~ ::e carciaogenic properties of cioarettes for the purpose of deceiving decedent who rel:ed az ieast in part upon these wisrepresentations, and was deceived tkereby. , 1a'a. .Sat as a dirzct and praximate result of his said reliance on said misrepresentations in said program and e svaterents and as a result of the acts and .amissions of e£endant INSTITUTE and its members to keep him in i decedent was injured and damaged as hereinbefore alleged in Lhe sua of FIVE HLTiJ&ED 'S:iOGS~1"J ($500,000,00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A?IFT:-EIGST'zi CADSS OF ACTIO\' .iGAINST„T6SdCC0 I,1`STIfid3TE, INC. . 18&, Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in ,oaragraphs 'R^, "Z", "10", "11°", "14", ^172'° through "1?5" and "1S4", inclusive of this complaint same force and effect as if specifically set forth 187. That as a direct and proximate result of his reliance on said misrepresentations in said program and satemenzs and as a result of the acts and omissions of LY'STITUTE and its members to keep bim in ignorance, s widow and daughter were damaged in the sum of FIVE :iIISDcTE DTED T"kOII<^SJ ($500,000.46) DOLLARS. -40-

163. That as a direct and proximate result of his - said reliance on said misrepresentations and as a direct aad y.•Gx.~a:2 resal: oza.e acts and omissions'of the defendant COT.7\CiL, its aforesaid directors and members, to keep him in ignorance, decedent was injured and damaged as hereinabove alleged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAliD"-,{$SQO,OO0.60) DO:.LiRS. AS AND FOR A FIE`x~Y-SECOYD CAUSE OF ACTIOY AGAINST ,°.3E COUNCIL rCR TOBACCO RES£ARCB - U.S.A. 164. Plaintiff :e-oats and -realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "2TM ""2TM, TM14"", ^111", "'18'", ~"148'" through "152" and "152", inclusive of this complaint with ~ the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 165. That as a direct and proximate result of his said reliance on said misrepresentations and as a direct and proximate of the acts and omissions of the defendant COIINCIL, its foresaid directors and aembers, to keep him in ignorance, decedent's widow and daughter were damaged in the sum of IYE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS A.YD FOR A FIFTY-T33IRD CAUSE OF ACTIOH AOAINST T.iE COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARC$ - U.S.A. 166. Piaintiff repeats and reaileges each and everY allegation contained in paragraphs `"1^, "2", "10", `"11°, ^14^, nd ^148^ through "152", inclusive,-of this ccmpiaiat veith the same force'and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 167. That the defendant COUNCIL, over the years, in its a as research arm of and spokesman for the tobacco in- supplied advice, furnished reports, and eritic3zed and -35-

0 about products for human consumption and to the cansequences of its acts or omissions, it aade no attempt to apprise or inforr the public including plaintiff of said carcinogenic p:apesitiES of said ;rodec`>s, but rather, contrived to conceal such facts and circumstances from the public including plainti:.. 144.' That by virtue of defendant HIZ,L &$TtpiPLTO.Y's as aforesaid, to conceal and cause others1to conceal facts and information from the public including decedent, and to proceed in milful and rvantoa disregard of, and with indifference of . the consequences to, decedent's rights, health and safety, in ' making a false statement and diluted statement and aiding and abetting others in making a false and diluted statement relating to cigarette products designed for human consumption, and by virtue of its liability in the '*FdBTY-THIBB" and "FQ&TY-FIFTEi" . Causes of Action defendant HILL & I4vO#L1Y1'i has become liable to ~ decedent for fraud and deceit and for invasion of his personal . rights while living for punitive damages in the sum rF FIVE X.IF.LION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS. HILL & I41QtP1.TO?t, INC. 145. Plaintiff repeats and realiq;es each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", ^2", „lE7", °11", "14", ^125" through "128^ and "143^, inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 146. That by virtue of defendant HILL &%HO%Z.Ti3Y's plaa - as aforesaid, to conceal and cause others to conceal facts and information from the public including decedent, and to proceed in wilful and vanton disregard of, and with indifference of the consequences,to, decedent's rights, health and safety, in maKic a false statement and diluted statement and aiding and abetting -30- \'D FOR A FOAT4-EIGSTTB CAUSE OF ACTION

e..a..h acSS cately resulted ia the infiiction upon decedent of temporal ' damages in the form of ill health. 179. Taac as to deceCant, the aforesaid acts and activities of defendant ZSSTZTUTE and its aembers, constituted i a facie tort, in that said defendant did intentionally that: ~ which was calculated in the ordinary course of.events tc' dam- - ~j age decedent without just cause or excuse,~and which did, in i' fact, injure decedent herein, tha:such acts and activities ' constituted a violation of decedent's legal rights, including o::t not l.mited Ta his riayt 2c personal good health and paysi- cal •.<e3i beinn, coc=ittad k.o~ingiy. 180. That by t..e said acts and activities, including but not limited to che use of false words, the decedent was damaged in the sum of FIVE fdASi9e2ED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) ! AS AND FOR A FIF?Y-SIXrH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAZ\ST TOBACCO INSTITL"I`E, INC. 81. Plaintiff repeats and reaileges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "2", "10", "11", "18" and "272° through "179", inclusive of this complaint with the force and.efYect as if specifically set forth hereat. 182. That by the said acts and activities, including not limited to the use of false words, the decedent's widow and daughter were damaged in the sum of FIV£ HUNDRED THOBSA2.2} ~ J (g5oo,000.40) DOLLARS. d: AS A:71 FOR A FIF'T°-S£V£YT% CAUSE OF ACTION +~ AGAINST TLkB.LCCO I2€STITiIT£ INC, 183. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paraa aphs "•1", and "172" throuah °I?5^, inclusive of this complaint with the - gy-

AS A\'C e0$ A CAUSE OF ACTIOI nCu1ISST TD^o.-.CCO INSTITUTE, INC. 188. Plaintiff reneats and realleges each and every a_Legation contained in paraeraphs "1^ ••2", -.p•• and "172" through "17S", ihclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 8 n 188. That the deiendant I£STZTUTE, over the years, in its position as spokesman :or the tobacco industry, supplied, advice, furr.ished reports and criticized and diluted reports af o4hen;in conscious, wii_u2 and wanton, or reckless, disregard . o: zhe ;ealth, safety and i:eil being of the public including decedent, since it knew, or should have known, that the aforesaid; ezoarette products were, or probably were, carcinogenic; and yet, with indifference to its obligations as one preparing about products for human consumption and to the nces of its acts or omissions, it made no attempt to concealinfr such facts and circumstances from the apprise or inform the public including plaintiff of said carcinogenic propensities of said products, but rather, by ecedent. 190, That by virtue of defendant INSTITUTE's plan and design, as aforesaid, so to mislead the smo8ing public including decedent, and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of, indifference to the consequences, upon decedent's s, health and safety, and in the making of false statements and the concealing of information of importance from the smoking public including decedent that related to cigarette products designed for human consumption, and by virtue of its liability uses of Action •`FIFTY-i'IFTE" and ^FZFTY-SEYEh'TE", defendaa

with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 202. That through their agents and representatives, HILL & iC:Ot4LTON, COUNCIL and INSTITUTE, said defendants R.3. REYifOLDS, ,i3tERICA,Y TOBACCO, LIGGEPf •$-}tYERS, PHILIP ::ORRIS and LORILLARD, except that LIGGE4#' & I4YSRS was not a member of COUNCIL, acted in conscious, wilful and wanton, or reckless, disregard of the health, safety and well being of the public including decedent, since they knew, or should have known, that the aforesaid cigarette products were, or probably - were, carcinogenic; and yet, with indifference to their obligations, they made no attempts to apprise or inform the public including decedent of said carcinogenic propensities of said products, and by artifices, and devices, false representations and concealments, misinformed the smoking - public including decedent, and prevented the said public from obtaining important information on the nature and consequences of smoking. i 203. That as a direct and proximate cause of the con- duct of the named defendants as aforesaid, they and each of them, jointly and severally, by reason of these fraudulent and intentional acts became) liable to decedent in punitive or exemplary damages, in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,o00,000.00), DOLLARB. - AS AND FOR A SIXTY-FOURTR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DE2E\'QANi$ PHILIP NORRIS, INC-; R.3. REYYOLDS, INC.: ALiERICAN TOBACCO, INC.: LIGGEIT tc „YERS TOBACCO CO„ INC.; and , P. LORILLARD CO. INC. 204. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "I^, ^2^, "10';, ^l1", "IS",

"53", "194" through "196" and "202^, inclusive of this complaint.i with the same force and effect as if specificiaily set forth hereat. 205. That as a direct and proximate cause of the con- duct of the named defendants as aforesaid, they and eac,h of them, jointly and severally, by reason of•these fraudulent and intentional acts became liable to decedent's wife and daughter iu the sum of FIVE 71ILLIDN ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AtD FOR A SIXi.'-FIYTS CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL ':':iE DEFENDANTS 206. Plaintiff'repeats and realleges each and every allegation eontained in paragraphs "i'", ^2" ^10^, °iP•, ^14*", "'53", ^79°, "99", "112*"^125** "148", •*172^, and "194^ through "1961", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat, 207. That each and every defendant named in this complaint conspired with each of the other defendants and all of them to prevent the public inoluding decedent from obtaining information and knowledge about the true and actual effect upon humaa life, health and longevity of smoking cigarettes. 208. That each of the defendants conspired with each ~ of the other defendants and all of them, with the eaceptio In aforesaid, to engage in an intentional plaa of cancealment, ' refutation, and dilution of medical information, knowledge, data reports, studies and surveys with respect to the effects of smoking upon human life, health and longevity; that they further conspired to substitute inaccurate, biased and distorted information for the aforesaid medical and other scientific data. -46-

R

~ 5:AiZ 0: .3EW YOxZ ) ) ss.. . CCS.'Tl OP k.a7 ROtT$ ) STSi.LA A{`yS E4ti,23, as ::cecutriz of tho Estate of VICTOR I. ESA.V4r, Deceased, heiag duly sworn, deposes and sags: ^.hat she s tha glaintiSt horoia; that she h_s read the toregoin,^, Coaplaiat and knows tho contents thereol, th : the snae is true to h6r ova :naaledLe, except as to the sattors thoroia ctated to ho alloued on inSoraation and beliei, And that as to those aatters, aho~helleaes to be 4 =o. (sl STELLA AGNES ItANH Sworn to before Ee this 2'F day of September, 1965

Yo, Defendant Nature of Action 3S 39 40 44 45 46 47 9 52 53 54 55 WD/Sur. WD Negligent misrepresentations S WD , Punitive damages , S WD Hi21 & Snava€ton,Inc. Prima Sacie; Intentional Tort S WD Misrepresentation . S`HD punitive damages S YD Tobacco Council Prima facie; Intentional Tort Misrepresentation punitive damages Tobacco Institute Prima £acie; Intentional Tort Misrepresentation Punitive damages All Tobacco &espondeat Superior Companies Funitive damages All Defendants Conspiracy S WD S WD 5 WD S WD S &R1 S WD S WD S WD S WD i C?

! W 8Z & L F 0 x L, tks stt adainst tk+ss dsfsndants tn tk sf 2 L R S H O II S A M D D O L L A x! ifio, - 000.da3. tajstksr with his costs fisrsin aigsidsd. (SANE 8. CO 405 Dtdsr Eaiidtnd 7 Iisrtk E.r.atk Strsai St. Lanis, idissoart GArtisi[ i-SSL} sy for Y+laintiff

209. That said combination of forces made the common ?:aas and schenes of aIS of t5e defendants themselves unlawful. 210. That if not all of the defendants individually committed tortious acts as to decedent as has been above alleged at least some of them did do so, and, as to the remainder of the defendants, they, by intentionally promoting and encouraging the activities of the group of defendants, engaged in a conspiracy of action which itself constituted a tortious act as to the decedent. 211. That said conspiratorial acts, plans and schemes were directed at the public, of which decedent was a member. 212. That as a direct and proximate result oi the acts of conspiracy, as hereinabove aklleged, each of the defendants in this complaint became liable to the decedent for the ies, as previously alleged, ia the sum of FZYE HVND&€B ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS A.!'D FOR A SZXTY-SIXTK CAUSE OF ACTION AGAZ:VST ALL THE DEFEh-DANTS 213. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "2", "10", ^11,', "18", "53« ..7g„t ,.gg.. '•112^ "125", "14&" "172" and "194" through inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as, if specifically set forth hereat. 214. That as a direct and proximate result of the acts of conspiracy, as hereinabove alleged, each of the defendants in this complaint became liable to the decedent's widow and daughter in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED TSOU$ARD ($500,000.00). _ ~ DOLLARS. - 47 !

Defendants, The American Tobacco Company, and Brown & Williasnsoo Tobacco Corporation, and the breach of implied warranty aforesaid are ed'fhousaad Dollars ($2pp, 000. Qp), for which Defendants, and each of them, are Jointly and severally liable. . WHEREFORE, premises eonsidered, the Plaintiff, as legal representative of the Estate of 4vpatt Lq;gins Graham, Lleceased, prays that the Defendants,and each of them, be cited to appear and answer this petition and that upon final hearihg hereof he have }Wgttent against Defecdant rally for the damages aforesaid in the amount of Two Hu ousand Dollars 0200, 006. t34j and for such other and further relief, both atitied. Independent Executor of the tate of Wyatt Loggins Graham, Deceased EVANS & NARSHALL Suite 805 Tower Life Building San Antonio, Tesas 78205 Attorneys for.PiaintfS 0

, ~ 194. That defendant P. LORILLaRD CO., INC., (hereinafter' reierred to as LOFILLdRO), is a coraoration organized under the ~ laws of New Jersey and registered and licensed to do business ~ in the State of :7ew York. ~ 195. That defendant R.J. REYNOLDS, INC., (hereinafter referred to as REYCOLDS), is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, and doing business in the State of New York. 196. That defendant 23ILI2 MORRIS INC., (hereinafter . referred to as PHILIP 3YSRRIS), is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and has its principal place of doing business in the State of New York. i I 197. That the defendants H.J. RBYNOLAS, a New Jersey corporation, AMERICAN TOBACCO, LIGGETT & MYERS, PHILIP 3fO8RIS,and LORILLARD, a New Jersey corporation, during the time period hereinabove specified from the I930's through 1962 when decedent smoked the aforesaid brands of cigarettes, are and were the principals of defendants HILL & ICtTOWLTON and INSTITUTE; that among said defendants, R.J, REYNOLDS, AMERICAN TOBACCO, LORILLAet and PHILIP MORRIS, are, as hereinabove alleged in paragraph "150 members of defendant COUNCIL, a voluntary, unincorporated association, and are real parties in interest in said COIISTCIL; that defendants R,J. REYNOLDS, AMERICAN TOBACCO, LI4GEIT &;,YT_S5, LORILLARD, and PHILIP ;t4gRIS, are members of INSTIT[TfE, a?:ew York membership corporation as in paragraph "i73" alleged, and are and constitute the real parties in interest of said INSTITUTE; and that as principals, members and real parties in interest of defendant INSTITUTE, and as members of defendant -43-

benefit of the Court and the defendants, . , laintifP wishes to explain the relatively simple organization ' oP this complaint. Of the 66 causes of aetion, 33 (the add- numbered ones) are in the nature of survival actions for the personal injuries sustained by the decedent while alive, and 33 (the even numbered ones) are the actiorsby the widow and .: her daughter for wrongful death. The last cause of action named defendant is one for punitive damages, e particularly, the causes of action .re as follows: Defendant 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Nature of Action fiTi/Sur, American Tobacco liannfacturer's negligence S 4R} Warranty liability S WD Strict liability S WD . Misrepresentation S WD Negligent misrepresentation S WD Punitive damages S WD Liggett & Myers Hanufacturer's negligence_ S WD Warranty liability S 17 Stric Sulliv Colvel Misrepresentation S S5II Negligent misrepresentation S WD Punitive damages S WD fer, Misrepresentation S WD Negligent misrepresentations WD punitive damages S WD Durstine & Qsborn,lne. Misrepresentation S 32 WD 33 Negligent aisrepresenta'ri ons S 34 WD 35 Punitive damages S ~ WD 26 27 28 29 30 31 Batten Barton Boote, Cone 4 Belding Misrepresentation S O ~ ~ fl ~

p BARTON, DURSTI:VE & OSBORN, INC., on the Thirty-Secaad and ihirty-iourth Causes of Action in the sunt.of FIVE.HGjyRED iHOUS.LIT# ($504,000.00) DOLLARS and on the Thirty-flixth Cause of Action ia the sun o£ FIVE StILLION (35,000,000.00) DOLI,ARS; and against the defendants, FOOTE, CONE & BELDINO on the Thirty-Eighth and Fortieth Causes of Action in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED PdOUSd,\D ($500,000.00) DOLLARS and on the Forty- Second Cause of Action in the sum of FIVE EtILLION ($5,000,000.40) DOLLARS; and against the defendant HILL &EyO.VLTOC, I1C., on = the Forty-FOurth and Forty-Sixth Causes of Action in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED TfiOUSA,\`D ($500,000.00) DOLLARS and on the ~ ~ Forty-Eighth Cause of Action in the sum of FIVE HILLION jj ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS; and against the defendant, COUNCIL § FOR TOSACCO RESEARCH - U.S.A., on the Fiftieth and Fifty-Second '~ Causes of Action 3a the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00_ the FiYty-Fourth Cause of Action in the sum of ($5,000,000.00) DOL'LARS; and against the defendant, TO$ACCO INSTITUTE, INC., on the Fifty-Sixth and Fifty-Eighth, t Causes o£ Action in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.0d: DOLLARS and on the Sixtieth Cause of Action in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00); and against the defendants, PHILIP SIORRIS, P. LORILLARD CO., INC., R.J. REYNOLDS,INC., A3tERICA.Y TOBACCO, INC., and LIGGETT & 9tYEAS TOBACCO CO., INC., on the Sixty-Second Cause ofAction in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS and on the Sixty-Fourth Cause of Action ia the snm of FIVE XILLION ($5,000,000.00) R.?LLARS; and against 3, Sixth ~ all defendants on the Sixty-' ". Cause of Action in the sum of FIVE EtT\•DRED THOUSAND (,5500,000.00) DOLLARS, together with ~ -50- L=3 f3' fl g C.1

~gd'eREFOiiE, decedent denands jcdgment against the defendant, AMEEICAN TOBACCO, i1C., on the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh and Nintti Causes of Action in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED 'I£iOiiS,LND ($500,00fl.00) DOLLARS and on the Eleventh Cause of Action in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS; and against the defendant, LIGGETT s MYEA$TO&1CCO CO., INC., on the Thirteenth, Fifteenth, Seventeenth, Nineteenth and irst Causes of Action in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED TEOUSx.'iD ($500,000.00) DOLLARS and on the Twen£y-Third Cause of Action in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000,00) DOLLARS; and against the defendant, SULLIVAN, STAUFFER, COLWELL & BAYLES,~ INC., in the Twenty-Fifth and Twenty-Seventh Causes of Action y in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS and on the Twenty-Ninth Cause of Action in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS; and against the defendant, BATTEN, BARTON, DURSTINE & OSSORN, INC., on the Thirty-First and Thirty-Third Causes of Action in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS and on the Thirty-Fifth Cause of Action in the som of FIYE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS; and against the defendant, FOOTE, CONE & BELDING, in the Thirty-Seventh and Thirty-Ninth Causes of Action in the sum of FZYE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS and on the Forty- First Cause of Action in the sum o: FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00 DOLLARS; and against the defendant, HILL & KNO4ILTON, INC., in the Forty-Third and Forty-Fifth Causes of Action inthe sum of FIVE HL'.FDRED 'I'HOUS.Ll'B ($500,000.00) DOLLARS and on the Forty-Seventh Cause of Action in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS; and against the defendant COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH - U.S.A., on the Forty-Ninth and Fifty- -48-

1JNPI'EL! STATES DISTRICT COURT WESfEAN DISTRICT QF TEXA$ DEL RIO DIVISI4N Deceased WYATT iAGCiINS GRAHAM, Independent Executor of the Esate ERT NORVELL GRAHAM, jii. I NO. (I it3- tn L-1;._- 0 2 PANY ! GQMPisAf}Sl' Now comes Robert Norvell Graham, In, Independent executor of the Estate of Wyatt Loggins Graham, deceased, hereinafter called Plaintiff, Company and Brown and Williamson ToYecco Corporation are foreign corporations having their principal place of business In a State other than the State of Texas. The tiiatter In controversy exceeds, exclusive of inoer- ests ia coats, the sum of Ten Tnousasd ($10,000) Dollars. rt of Val Verde Cuunty, Texis, and the Defendants, American Tobacco~ Loggins Graham, deceased, Is presently in probate in the County Court of Val Verde County, Texas, and your petitioner has been duly appointed and qua3ified as independent executor of said Estate by order of the Probate ows as follows: . I Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Texas and the Estate of Wyatt II Defendants are, and were on and prior to the Sdt day of December, 1464, engaged in the business of manufacturing tobacco products for the purpose of sale to retail dealers, knowing that said tobacco products would co be ultimately sold to persona for consumption in their original pacRage. N3 C3 Cohen Becl. Exhibit P ON CD I N

COUNCIL, said defendants, R.J. REYNOLDS, A}7ERICAN TOBACCO, LIGGfiTT & MYERS, LORILLARD, and PHILIP MORRIS, were and are responsible for the,acts of said defendants HILL &%PiONLTOa, ZSS:::CTE and COUI."CIL w:icS were gerforaed on their behalf and which they adopted, approved and ratified, except that LIGGEIT & MYERS is not a member of COtASCIL. 198. That as a direct and proxiraate',cause of the foregoing, defendants, R.J. REYNOLDS, AMERICAN TOBACCO, PHILIP MORRIS, LIGGETT & MYERS and LORILLARD have become jointly and i severally liable to the decedent in the stim of FIVE $Dh"DRED r~ inOT`S.tlZ! ($500,000.00) DOLLARS / AS AND FOR A SIl."CY-S.':COND CAUSE OF aCTION AGAINST D€r"END.1N'TS PHILIP MORRIS, INC:; R.J:` REYNOLDS, INC.; ,L12ERICAN TOBACCO, INC.; LIGOETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO., INC.; and P. LORILLARD CO.,_ItC. • 199. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "I", "53^ aad "194" throvgb "197", inclusive of this complaint with the saae force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 200. That as a direct and proximate cause of the foregoing, defendants, R.J. RSY3iOLDS,AStRRICAN TOBACCO, PHILIP MORRIS, LIGGETT & MYERS and LORILLARD have become jointly and severally liable to decedent's widow and daughter in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. AGAIRST'FIIr4-.FBiDAhT5-PH~C,LP 3dOR8I5F Z&CZQN R.J. REYNOLDS, INC.; AMERICAN TOBACCO, INC.; . LIGGEFT & MYERS TOBACCO CO., INC.; and P; LORILLaRD C0, INC. 201. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "I", TM2", "10", "11", "14", ^53", and "I94" through "195", inclusive of this comglaint -44 - W •

s

0 5. That the plaintiff bersia, haa.attsmtEel a heieia m ate said sifarottas a.iilakIe,to tki }SilaLitL ia .ialatiaaa of the Ruios tad Statutes of the ftate af jfit. soart, therein made aad provided and ssore particularly ta violation of V.A.M.f $63.880. that in soidoing the of the dafeadants' cigarettes. defeadants herain and both of them committed a crime afainst the paopla of the ftats of Missorri and that the plaintiff hsrein was directly inJur.ad and damages as a result of the ciriminal acts of the defendaats and. both of them. . .. . 4. That the plaintiff. while ke was a8o ii, 14 and 15 began to smake wth an ever increastaf fraqaenc7. and that cigarettes became habit formiaf and addicting and that the plaintiff hereia became an addieted sm eksr plaintiff ca-anet diecoatiaaies fer miaf aad addicting taality a a said eifarettes. the okiaf~ i. That the defeadants aad"hoth st-thsmar• ~ . ,. . ~ ,....:a jointly and eoacnrreatlT faiity af sao sr mors o toliawiaf acts of mistondaet to caass the inJarY aad damafts.toths.}7 . diroet and prozimate, easss f,ttha' lald to•~itt at Si ~.~. aarerttsea Camel and talsizh Ctaar&ttit.far,tal. illl fle'. CC;:i~}tis jiSi~'~ete:t

First Causes of Action in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSA.viD (5500,000.00) DOL:....'iS and on the F.fty-Third Cause of Actioa in the sum of FIVE d[ILLIO.Y (55,000,000.00) DOLLARS; and against the defendant, TOBACCO INSTZTOTE, INC.,^on the Fifty- Fifth and Fifty-Seventh Causes of Action.in the sum of £IYE HUNDRED THOUSA.YD ($500,000.00) DOLhARS and on the Fi1ty-Yinth Cause of Action in the sun of FIVE XILLI4X ($5,000,000.00) and againat the defendants, ASIERICA.Y TOBACCO, INC., LIGOETT &;.`YERS TOBACCO CO., INC., PHILIP MORRIS, INC., P. LORILLARD CO., INC. R-J, REYNOLDS, INC., on the Sixty-First Cause of Action in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED 7q€OOSA?iD ($500,000. DOLLARS and on the Sixty-Third Cause of Actioa in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS; and against all the defendants in the Sixty-Fifth Cause of Action in the sum of HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. In addition decedent's widow and child demand judgment against the defendant, AMERICAN TOBACCO, INC., oh the Second, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth and Tenth Causes of Action in the sura of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000,00) DOLLARS and on the Twelfth Cause of Action in the sum of FIVE YILLIOH ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS; and against the defendant LIGGE2T & itYERS TOBACCO CO „ C., on the Fourteenth, Sixteenth, Eighteenth, Twentieth and Twenty-Second Catses of Action in the sva of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS and on the Twenty-FOUrth Cause of Action-i.n the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLIARS; and against the defendant, SULLIVAN, STAUFFER, COL4ELL & BAYLES, INC., on the Twenty-Sixth and Twenty-Eighth Causes of Action in the sun of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND:($500,000.00) DOLLARS and 0 the Thirtieth Cause of Action in-the sum of FIVE MILLION ,000.00);DOLLiRS and against the defendant, SATTEN, _ 49 - IX) rQ 4y tSl

it altiafs a) - That the drisati ir a;aats, •sr.aats, aii`~strfiatrer irltlt slsar- attas.aad directly and ladiraatlr participated ia-tha profits from said sala sf said cisarsttas to the plata- *. tiff at a time when the piaiatlff was aadar the a;s sf si;htasa yoars aad !a dota; so violated the Prs.isisas of Y.A.Il.E. 543.880 aad that ths easea af taid ria- lattoas. specific lajarr oeearrsd to the platatiff for x. .. which hs seeks recovery. 7. That as a dlract aad proaimate resalt af the .roa;fal miscoadatt rf the iafaadaat as, k.rsia= a dascrihed. the platatiU 4rsa caasad aat hs- eams addicted to ci;arettes sad ts smaklStt: '' i: That hscaa.e'ot tits said,ad2lettlis"aad lalit lsrmia; quality at tis'sa,id sissrettss.':'ElM platatiff ts asaasd to sapead apper=faa .. R:`.-a+Xtl- Doilar aad iivs Coats (Fi.OSI pir daT, aa1 t plaiatiff has hao: aysadial"appra:imataj Oae D.1.; iar sad Five Caats {=IOt} par tay itaret#ar.,tad..staaf ths time ha was ftftasa years af a;sat ta matall atas rsars. reslmatal7 fsrt~-sa~.a.aa !. That the platatiff has a 1 i!. That iasa`ais,a tadaats, aa atoaa' set t.rth; the plaiitt

COMPANY ]te2ietered Aseati C. T. Corpowtioa Systam 314 North Broadway SL Louis, Missouri LDS TOBACCO COMPANY Defendants } Division No. 1 FIRST AMENIIEIS FETITION'* Comos aow the plaintiff and for his claim and cause af action against the defendants states and al- lejes a. fnlSowsi 1. That at aTl times herein mentioned the American 7abacco CompanY aad the R. I. Reyacida Tabaeee Company are corperatiohs daty arfamimel " aad stistisi persaant te the taw aadare aathorlsed to easafs fa business within the Stata of Missouri. 2. Tkat in the year 1455, tke plaintiff aaw ads.rtts.msas ia newspapers, masitiaaa, and tele- .isiea aad heard ad.artiaemants aa the rat@i prodaeed by the defeadants herein and enticing people to am oke ci`arettee, At the tim e, said plaintiff was oatY thirteen years efareF that raid ad.erttseA eats in .. . . . -.__},,. .. the year ef ifti a[ falla.riaE w.ra dsats:f' ,#a ite ' aareaast:e. la.ittar aat eattetaa Lat (Y u .~ A M L-` ~ 1~.T

3 ges and incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein Parapraphs 5 YIZZ and ZX of the E'irst Count herein. " 6 ZZ pr3.or to July 11, 1966, defe I, IZ~ ZZZ~ IV, Vh YII~ negligently and carelessly process, manufacture, distribute fzctured, distributed and sold'by defenctants, and each of the; lung and did die on or about July II, i956. direct and proXiu:atc result of which he did contract carcino: .£IDP.E, plaintiff prays judgmcnt: Special damages; General damages c~~.- .. Asf.c., G£.E.°.I & cr.r,pS",_ ~ dt=-fsrn..z,5 D. -s- sel2 certain cigarettes which contained carcinogenic properties. By reason of the premises and as a direct and proxima ult thereoi, 4ta12ace Trau, Deceased, did use z.nd consnH:e by smoking certain cigarettes negligently and carelessly processed, Plainti`.. hereby demands trial by jury.

Loggin Graham, deceased, was for severaiyears immediately preceeding his death a consumer of Pall hfa11 Cigareties and Kool aigaremes, that the Defendants, attd eachof them, impliedlp warrattted their tobacco products fit for human consumption and not inJttrivns to healttt. 11I That c0ntrary to the implicatiaa of fitness for human consumption, tt LoEgins Graham, deceased, as a direct result of.smokisg Defendant's products as hereinabove alleged; contracted a fatal disease, to-svit: Lnng caacer was the uitimate and sole cause of death of tt i.oggins Graham, Deceased. IV In the alternative Plaintiff would show that Defendants, and each ars consumers generally and Wyatt l.oagina Graham, be iejurioea to health. V That the Defendants' failure to warn consumers generally and a igeace was the sole proximate cause of the virongful death of Wyatt- l.oggias Graham, Deceased, from ha g cancer. ' YI That prior to becomeing afflicted with lung cancer, Wyall Loggins Graham, Deceased, was emplvyed by the Texas Highway Departmeat at a in excess of Six Thousand {$b, OpO. 00) Dollars per year and he was 36 years of age and in good health and had a life expectancy of 32. 59 years, according to the Commissioners 1941 Standard Ordinary AAorsatity'Table (58CjS 1211-12) and, but for the lung cancer caused by smoking said tobacco ta, and each of them would reasonably be expected d products resulted in his wrongful ~ . ~ death. That PiainUff's damages herein as a reault.ei the negligence of the

Defendznts, and each of 2c, adeertisina and d'str£bution Deceased, contracted carcinoma of lung due to the use of cigarettes of defendants, and each of tSe, contain certain carcinogenic properties. IV -By ieason,of the presises, and as a direct and proxima Prior to July egligently and careless or the life and limb of COU\'r FIVE - ges and incorporates by reference as ereia Paragraphs 1, IZi,IIZi IV, VZ, VII rein. ZI 5, defendants, and each o er and reckless disregarc , e public, fail to warn the general public of the har--ful, deleteriaus and danaerous propensities of did die on or about July 11, 1906. ir cigarettes which they knew to contain carcieogenic propert. lII By reason, o>` 'he prenises, and.as a direct and pvosi-a res;ilt the.eo` Wal2acc 1'rau, Dacc:sed, did use and consw-~z- s-:o:ina certain cigara.fes of dafendants, and each of the,r as a direct and pro.i.^.ztc~:'r>u2t of which he did die an or about Jul}- Co 1£05 after deca2aPing eareinc::.a of the luna. ... .N13 - 5 - i arrant that said cigarettes were of m - lz2 Defendanta, and each of themf pr3or to July 11, 1965, ched said earranties as aforesaid by°reason of the fact that aid cigarettes c:ere harmful, deleterious and dangerous and that 2d result thereof, P--llace

which is not presently ascertained and plaintiff prays 1£ave to insert herein by amendnent same when finally dete Sy reason of the prenises, and as a direct and proxicut . -; : % ' ... . . and naxt-af-kin of Ratlace z 1511' Sy reason of the preaises and as a direct o = ! 5U resu2t, thereof, plaintiff became obligated to and did incur bills ~ . . , n a reasonable amount for the services of'aaGulances, morticians I i•aI and interment expenses and reiatec[,items in a nascertained amount, and plaintiff prays leave tQ'insert herei by amendment same when finally determined. esult thereof. olaintiff has hren denriveri nf tha rarn rn.-ef~ . , QYei su(lnorti protection, soCiEty and affection of her husband, III and IX of the First Count herein. ace Trau, Deceased all to her general damage in the sum of f{t;4VRED FIFTY TH4GSIYD ($75fl,Q0Q,QQ) A"iLL4R5, Plaintiff realleges and incorporat-s by reference as bough fuTiy set forth herein paragraphs I, II, IZIi IV, YI, VI certisinZ and distrib~tion of these cigarettes did esprazs carract that. said ci-are2t_- t.e_z safe for h_..,_.. -_,c aa« ca.-.s..-.M..~ acitedi _.a?d t:: _. antie5 as 2fOP£SCid by r£.^.gJi, Of Lhn f: Ct Vl'J.4 I Ot~ Defer,ez;;;sy and each of thea, prior to July II, I9JC~ .~i 32 _, s, id ei_,-:r^t°£s -.~-: „u2, de7eterioxs and dz.-sarotns Lnc ..._..

f cot in CCYE1in CarOinogeIIlC prOpertiOs. g- By reason of the premises and as a direct and proximate q result thereof, lYallace Trnu, Deceased, contracted carcinoma of th 5 lung due to the use of cigarettes of defendants, and each of them . . = 6 and did die on or about 3uty 11, 1966. ~ - COCNT THk:EE ., ., _ $ . : . . T .. . . _. . . 9 : Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference as 10 though fully set forth herein Paragraphs I, Ii, III, IY, Y1, Yil, 11 VIII and ZX of the First Count herein. _' 1 c e 52 Defendants, and each of thext, in the processing, mar.ufac ale, advertising and distribution of these cigarettes did i-.aie: arrant that said cigarettes were safe for hu~~an use and consu-:pti y smoking . . . .. Defendants, and each of them, prior to July 11, 1956, hed said ¢•arranties as aforesaid by reason of the fact that said cigarettes s€"ere harmful, deleterious and dangerous and that ey did contain certain carcinogenic properties. By reason of the preaises, and as a direct and result thereof, g`allace Trau, Deceased, contrac due to the use of cigarettes of defendants, d did die on or about July 11, iL'u'S. - CO'J ,S ?CL.. I PYain:i;f realleges _nd incor:orates by ._~--ancc as ou;h fully set forth herein paragraahs I, 114 Zi2, Iti, 1"i, tIZ, . I and IX of the Ffrst Cour.t herein. _ q _

i 0 I!f Ef:LLZ, AS3:S•, GF:RI:Y & Y:E.LISOa .. . . Thc Dclli Euildin~, ~ 2 T22 «'ontsonc:g Stredt - A San Francisco, California . .. 3 Teiephone: Y[TSon.I-IS49 0 .,C . _ 6.. . iS37 4 Attorneys for P2aintifi 11)t b1ARJOfiIE TRi L 5 O .3 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ORTf/ElL( DISI&ICf OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, ) tiS^ " ) CO7.lPL'nIhT FO.^. D:JIAG: S & :5'fER3 TOBACCO COkP?.eYY, } rk Corpora*_ior,!=t.i:oi:"X S } JURY TRIAL DEa_IS~ED O:? CO'd?}.<t}', a f:entucty }. •Corporation, and F..J. nFTt:OLDS ) : . . TOBACCO COMPR:7, a New Jersey } . . -) . .. , Corporation, ) • .. Dafendants. ) 22 2 ceationed herein, defendant LICGETT & ::5_'.S OaaCCO CO'dP;ST :-xs and is a::csr York Corporation doing husiness 251: &£t4in the St:te of California this D=_tr=ct, d~€sr::-a= CO?'2.;ti t:s and is a 2Centuc+y Coraotzti•>c Zoiag husinesa t-_t'_; the St.,te o€ Ca?itornia athin this District; zid do,endz... R,.;. REi"':Dt2~5 T_O:.dCCO CO?iP3`.:i _as and +_s .._,. Jc.--_ Co~gorztion dai-.' b:ts_a>;s =it;.3.n the State n: Cziito.::ia, j~ii this Iti=tw~ict• . ~- ' . CO:`.ES NOW n`_.FJOfiiE TP.At7, and complains and alleges as Cohen DeC1. Exhibit R

oc~ NJ .~ CD oll 0 ~ 0

4. rQS Ci':i:: U. Gi::~C_=? _:.::.zzrCd) TL-1 . $%3 AS32:L:65. f 2 g: cr~a t: L-o :.o c_ .. =7 a_aa3 r, oT-r:_I, s.=vr & c1 ::w. ..° -5-

aiSMFtCNSfMAGiVfLAGTiON f-. 3tAR.SORIE TRAII, i fiOHRCCO COY4PANY, a New Jersey CCr]}Qratipn.• a Neu York Corporat3on, BI24 Ai aE °rZr.LI:,:35023 COP?PANY, a Kentucky Corporation, and R. J. REYNOLDS LIGGE.IT & I•IYERS TOSACC,Q COMPAHYl .. P3alc#1€ $efendsat To the above named Defendsntx • . ~ . . .~.., ,...1. .t ,zn. 5. - nes~•.v You sre hereby eo&g;ASd a€t&>'FBqafC~EiYedtc$-(t~S08 . ~ gi rP: . _- .._..-__...... s .I} is -~ rfaktr siaif> . <~uig e•CtaaMrtµyu.py,~ Thtiteb -!~itttfrs +lisfrid Tuurr FOR THE I7ORTSERG DISTRICP OF C]SLIPORI7IA DIVIS10N 47861 ' CIYIL ACTiOH FtLE No.__ 722 DSontqomery Street _ Sap Francisco, California (tltt 20 an amwer to the compkint which is fiexewitL aened apos 7ou, within days after eervice of thia summons upon pou, ezclueire of the day of sezdc0. 7f tcs fsR to do sn, judgment by default witt be taken aqaiast 7% for the reIief demanded In the tomgta{nt . tiQMFG P CLri f Gnmt. Dq.tr Ctnh Jt1N 3tt1867f vml ee..r.r•I 't fv:.vr}int mIt3' tFe ear [Srat of Caart; " Sa CoIlnv.nt /is eja}, oj Hatr~-Thw .nnsau u k.ued Rans.at f. R.M 4 .1 tiu Paiwal Beka t R.tt Pneat.,a I:i:.7dllPrt Ult Z4ihAICB OF. lAtfAL iJ

ac -'M s_:r.:, 5=ft^ s32s „e-s. '.s, Ce'S'zxrn!- 53Ct57 :E92- z'?~ ~?s . B'J'.Cada"-:i4Y S3'OLL and DAYII7 ~' LAP 5-qG S'FOLL, 2E£.iors; by - thN.z v'r1r3z.:a Ad LIi.3z1, A4A3(Y Sb1TE.isOLL: azd M1tZiY .5AN= STOLL, . SU'?r.ti's« CGi :rt G.'- F'r•'.'c Sa`.TF, O.' C Aii:-C2:L'tA _ FOR Sa::'C£9J:ds^I L`:=G'.Ai3CiE_,` Ys. Ai4X:i: CA:d 50.7l:CCO CCaSPA A^d, a st. J. : £7A&SLDS TOuACCO CO:.SPh.7Y, a casgart:.t»; DO.T.S 3 to ?D:. iacarsivc, . Of FfNOAX T (S) PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALtFO3K:A to the above named Defendazt(s); You are hereby directed to file a written pleading in response to the _ complaint of the above named plaintiff(s) with the clerk of the above entitlid court in the above ea:itlec action brought against you in said court, within TEN days after the service on you of this sumaons, if setved within the above named county, or within TFtIFTY days'tf served elsewhete. )(tn are hereby notified that unless you so file a written responsive pleading, said plaintiff(s) will take yudgment for any money or damages demanded in the compkaint as atising upon contract, or will apply to the court for any other relief demanded in the tompFaint. . ' You asaY seek the advice of an sitornes on :.ny ntattei connected xith the camgla:nt or this d be consulted oittdn the tfine Simft ataied in this summons :ar filinC a xrit.fea pleading to the comp2aint. . . . Dated .F; -O-3-L" `~ (SFAL) W. I's. SI' SOBN. Clerk ;a) b..~- F-: e (L .'4 11cy f+rF.rrCter! (S9a;'r brlnv./or+nn'rr vhm rc.pbed 6ySre. tA, 474 L C. P.) ~ A Ptrodi y ~ nq ts a#orm¢t aFtc atien oF o daim w defmse fSccxim 62d Code nf Civil Pracedvxc}, It muzx bc typc• «ritacn o. vtnted o.. }e9d zlz< e T~ Po4va ..A:rc Paprr »4xfr m.mba+ad iinrz, bzvnd m th. tap, u..mEmd consccvrirrFy a thc 8otte.., (Rc,(r IJ}E R..(es Ie, ttm S..PCr;or Caarrst, ACCOMPANIED WITH THE NECESSARY FEE, and#itcd~ v.M, tl... Cfrri~ of tt.F. Cuoet, w.d d-,t.t (.- .« ...nv...t«t Ly pw.wf .1 ..xtcn of «nY~Y rfm.-.f.w. rt..InrtF{..r la• O\ ..:r....~. . , , . C~ C+f Cohen Decl. Exhibit S C3 -

dsngerous when put to the use for which they were intended, xhich ," proximately cauaed by the aforesaid negiigenae of the defendant, " Browit & Wi22iamson 7obacco Corporation, in negligently manufacturing, selling and distributing said Ricefop .cigarettes when the same were " imminently or inherently dangerous to the human body when put to the " use for xhZCh they were intended for all of whiah the p2aintiff ~ ' claims damages as aforesaid. facts,the defendant,knew, or in the exercise af reasonable care . should have known. Plhinpiff alleges that as a proximate consequence . ~ . ~ of the said negligence or the defendant in men4acturing, sel2ing and distributing said cigarettes aa aforesaid, the plaintiff's teatator was caused to receive a cancer of his lung fram which be died oa, ' to-wit, Harch 28, 196}. 5. Plaintiff alleges plaintiff's testator's death was or the trial ot the above atyled postage prepaid on this the/;7 day of Cctober,196g~ above and foregoing ry'.unded Complaint has been served upon :3erbert •W. Peterson, 2121 Building, Blrmingham: Alabama 35203, attorney of record for defendant in the abave atyled cause, by mailing a copy af same to the offices of sald attorney properly addressed and CERTZPZCAY'E O SER~*ZCE • . .. QQQttt Counsel`for`PLaintiff . ~ . F; John T. Roach, Jr., hereby certify that a copy of the 82406039

.. 5 ,entioned herein defendants, LSGGETr rL- 3[y 28'.oa or ^I;c"_t S'.:?y 11, ale and distribution of cigarettes, designed and . That the amount in controversy herein exceeds the sun TEN THJUSAID DDLL:SP.S ($T4,ODO.QO)~. exclusive of interest and cos ersey Corporation, were and are companies engaged in the proces tCentucCy Corporation, and E,J. &EYKOLDS TOBACCO COISPAIDY, a tie•a OEACCD CO;iP1NY, a Ytew York Corporation, -880itiY k'ffILLZAidSO`; COaP ,tended and advertised for use and consumption by individuals b Flaintiff is informed and believes and the to July 11, 1°SG, in reliance upon the advertisements dants, and each of them, Wallace Trau, Deceased, did d consu..e by smoking, certain cigarettes manufactured, solc by defendants, and each of them, from day to, dzy a presently unascartained qua Said cioarottes processed, manufactured, sold and ac,;e, ' rC2sJn O: the prE*:iso5, and 25 a direct and GrJ-~i"- sarettes contained certain carcinogeriia properties which c rous to individuals such as S-a2lace Trau, Deceased, in that defendants, and each of thesi, si•ore harmful,~de2eterious and ' ants f:nea o: or in the exercisc of due care, should have nn~::c and -:,tich Wa;Lz.cz Trau, D=ceased, did not know and could not 26~!}_no:: of by reaso:. o: which defendants, and-each o€ them, are ab- i! ~~ so2tttelj n n4 atPiCity liable for thC d-=a tI3 of lialincL Trau, D2ci•f I r 52~rrleteL c::;,c:;_-s ir. ren=3[:::aie -ts, all to hor 311~result ta-^:•eo`, plaiutiff has :acurrsd ho=?it+liz.ation, rc?ie^1 : - 9 - ~ ~'

ntwows~. oe.a:Er. Lerc o c,.--::,,.zr Wits 130 GNiw4T WT WaeuG CaM1VF CRv ,ua Avww. w s.« sracs /m .wcctcx uuro~ns. swc~ ewnu. ~as.z im COUNTY 67 LOS-fibTr-MM 0.4.? ~_~ . STOLL ._ 3k": V:v I»i3s5I-N3 STOLL, L7 :::r.:= d :.'°,.xa, :=:ET :rA= ST OL2.; azd 34A: : $Ai.:: . vs. =. S. : G.__:CCO Cb},f}1A 3y L, Dv-$ --- :O :i.{. 3 25 26 2 28 29 3[3 CCy-~Lfi:i ZO_2 y9_LSG::S S03 l.a 0.::.:'c?v ~. P`a+^.inaaiia cC` rL~II G: II.'id C^-CR G: .^.-.. Ael_~o a.. ~6l}Oda: . _ .a C ;I?6' Q?AC:M_1' •^.,c j all~ -: tha t: ao ::.....a eo^,a..-._. enaoc3x.Z. a^ oSsar:.as;:. c: .^..C= I to %.w 's^.clc:atcro. Yzc s:: te rf.m, t1e_ c5. _a. a.... _..t3 d-_a=t.nta Vj =neT% iiet.:ioL. u:: _ck bavc to axsca:; •.::i- Cvm: ~:_: to c]c:v t_:a's tcc t~aaa: a_d cc,.:,:3- :I: . ~ For 6:a pu.pu~cv oi iL2n . cilan. :41iaY TAWM. STOLL maa daly L( !ua aLrrra-i~a::?t<: Cou'rt.•.c,i a.ow Sa itII ~uaTe:an ad titC:.a ei is::2tiZ-IidiY LTOLL an.2 iSV3l mtaa.-s. . ~e~i~ i e Iw:<~ :•} SUPE&EQ3 COURT CT9 T5M S'SAT~.T oF CALLtM.'1'!A

0 P::Qfa, F O: S.=.'a`.YCF i#F 51ar`«,?!SQt'VS ll%7 CiJa??M(t17 ' CiJ. iw. att, lib.; ft4 itt. IIS mtaa a + A 0.G S.u. MtSi, ffYa,~.ec I.Pas at the ttme a£ tlti.artm - tLa w£tfsla emStled acdoa. NOTE: Ot.i af st.te Pteo£ .£ serrtc< swal b. sdas<ri'wd a*d awom f. S.I.r. . ewfur, ~ e~ e ~ ~L ~rQi~.~ .n::.NIsE jaf hn.n OXierAe. S6.fi(F, Cs.dsbk ae ManWI S=,,[ theStteSolr; svmmau aada mpyof ~wm.da'sttriaasd to tfiadn lg delLc£c5 a tep; of tf?L avmmons .dth a cr,t} o£ seid tot¢p3:§nt 8> tact hasinelta azed d±trsdaatpc~zaIl7,Int~ i:mtT oL Snua£ C.eifbxa£a, at tfie'addteu .ad ea the date arz furfh FeeLsv_-vkc 5- I decara unsa £:~c:ed orr.--.. - PSt£ea,^e $_.., TouIS od pcsjury thst the £o:cgo-stS Ss tt¢t and oszaet- 14.n • See CC.r.~W.= iryrsaai nMC 4 N Ta tv{crKe.. ..r!YN ettdx.ya( ln9a %• HM. ae Maea M fe UK.//W Y 3a4N N a'[xpnaf:w..r a.,RU:s awiMirq anieeY MNr. qmmen f CZ?a'`o:3ST. V: J4aY3CC Ifir Sksif4. Ce.raa:d. w t{xn1..j t, I hercap xrtir7r tivt I racrei the £a-ego':n; cc~ au M+ .._.-. #nd tfut I scns: the .°eccgo:n$ xummam end a<epy eF txx eoctpSiat se:ared to tkada by dd"rvcm& a copF r[ ss9e szammvrs e>th a m?y a° sxid pmplainx w erch kc-'.:na£ax n=a{ dcfcndsnt gersaaall7. £s th~___ Csra7 0£- -----. State of CeHFnrnfa, at thr ac'2ress and m the dcca z% forth oppacte car.h auaq w a;= _ ' Nan-e aI De£mct.*st Savoia Stcet Aflscs a:,d C~e} \i'hce Serred Dite of Ser.icc 'sc $._ S:iFengc 5 .__.... To'ri 5- - B_tcd~.__ ttaa.. N oF KOTL.- Csst o: ststo pfao! oI errice ..rsat Se I r%a tuLv<rlSed aat sre<m fa bekre a ewtary. tt ( 1 _----G.ef .r J.u'1d P.fi4~ ^~~ liptittT I ~ _~_~ , >jte d' Cali ST---- He G4t. '.me. iiC Yi.e. ,~m a h se. _ <+M<C.~ DoCam e+!.~ a x.5.n [a n.[.. Y<. a a.emx a. af .~i.'he/ a, .+t .~ s•~S+Yi/ a .ryata:~; em avM:aM Wfa'1,aa.fuu .M.~/ /.a~w+wv ~

--y_--czzaze c4:::ju:r - __ --.-~ ! j.. iEQ Czc:l L'G :-=3.`. 4 i° zcccdca: axo;cfl cir7.-c;.•-ca ==-cc':,=c1, ce,ci a:.z c}c:-••aaLSB ? E:c #' . . . i-4 at aaS:!-ar tP.c tl=, af ihe z¢.!a of caid e€ ;crats3s. !La faiea_•7:: . 8 t! czd cacS a LScn, ca~rcaay a_•~e iaK; ISraay s.T•..x:antod t~ 3 catd cf•,_:o:Cva " h::-: nI to tcawa a_d crcra Yt cad -..`c ( to uaa. -...x co---a--y :a c:ci.3 s_.^c;s aau icsryT'od srw°_`.:2:ec: a?d 14 ~t 11 ~ ci;;_rc„_c sr=ra, LZ fact, n-: e: qs::L=:y cze rrr_s =a. f_z 12 _`.a :az i::.: aad r.c: .i- t:c:, x=:_Y.::3 tn c a:e, ¢~'cty -.3 c. 13i::o a:,rsr:..^u?a; su:.a . _ v, ....- cs•cLcu:c+ ~e~_-:'~uc"' t ::~r~:.tianc fa f::c !c=;, ..~» _ to G~~^a0`.:J3LVJ=~:'v~::C:_~~___:.~C:L:10. " `L: :L L">_z ]::C rJ3==3:.::Q0 L:i.a::. Sit Ga:I=+"!Rta, :.IIti fwL~ Gi 13 it Y.s t 20 T.:3C a3 a G?._CC: a:al : r3C'l-- oi f:33 uZ:'.c.1 Of Sc 21 22 1 ci uC::r Gf J3 Ivmaz~. c'.ic: :a.s:wd :.-s 4::c c''_: :`ra ce p:=~-'':' . 23 ~ tcaad.a: an or abac: Lc L_!h 2xy a?~ay, 1967. 24 25 ~ TaaL ac ad3:•cct aar? rocct: of tec eca3ee_ O. Ca0 - 28 %-ad cac% of 4~ t-c p_=isca, .c.coG 29 i' a 9acx C..^.~:L03 for ~"..^. Ltt i: -C93 CZ VJCCa.'•`Y.{ TJR~:S-rXCi ALFaY.B :"i :ZO:.:, 28 mu'_n an csaowa: i. s.c='n:r IL•^.Y p3{ n1::n vfill pray Icava io 20~~ +-4a.L;aa c•^_.moacrc;"o er." :.Jcc=tain*d. . 31 32 I x= ` Th>k a0 1 fIIri:+Ow Yd•JllII Of IJO cG7(SBCL of I60 dut-.^..+-c:: • ,:.icb a Lcvo buan f~rcas! to :::<ur

of said defendant induaeaents) snd by way of warninqand enanplee harmful and carcinogenic productss' . companies and advertisers not to`adrert£sa false _ ~ *-f i:e'~ . defendant in the snapf DHE flILL2,oE.-ZIVE H4NDRLD THDD&74iiD DQLLAR9 VUDEM=, ylaintiff prays Sfer Jpdqiant against -tm .Z.: . f6l,soo,ooo.oo): :_ Now comes theplaintif£..sEEioa'Eradford, Adniniatratriz , of the Sstate of aa=s xalcolm_sradtord, deceased, by.har- attorney, Nilliam E. Stewart, and complains against 9e defendant, 0 0 P. iarillard Co., a corporationa::aa follosnl 1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges allegations aat forth in Paragrayhs 1 through 18 of Coont Z. 2. The defendant srarrantad,that its ciqaratteswere free from any injurious substances; that the said ciqarettes ++sre whelesome, suitable and fit for such use and consumption by the general public, including plaintiff's decadent, and that the amoking of said cigarettes was not harmful to human healtht that the smoking and use of cigarettes sided digest£ons that the ..,:<. . smoking of cigarettes reliaved fat£guet that the smc7Cing of cigarettes restored bodily energy; that the smoking of cigarettes s _;; .: renewed bodilyeaargyr that the imcking of cigarettss~`released .r• bodily enargyr ttut•the smokinyof,cigarattes would not adn6rsely af€ect nor impair the rupiratory system and physical'sionditioa of atlsietesl that the amokim irritate the humari~throatr save, mpleasanLafter a vas aoothinq to the human nerw , cigarettes was acatartinqto 3. d not harm or ' g of cigarettes would the smriking sf cigarettsss esz that the smoking of systw That as a matter of'-fact.said cigarettes at all times herein mentioned cjontained unwholasoae, irritating, hazmful .°.::.'r.. and carcinogenic i;ugredients; that tne de€endaat knaw full well , ..,,::.. . that said cigarettes containad'sa£d ingredients and that by

IN TIIE OZBTRICT COURT G? $f18 UNITED STATES FOR TdE SQtf13tERit DISTRICT QF ILLINOIS SstAROti BRSDFpRD, Adniniatratrix of } the Estata of James Malcolm } Bradford, deceased, } } Plaintiff, } ) , V. } } } P. SARILLRRE} CO., a corporation, Uefendant. } COUNT I 0 CotfPis2zrf A3m aGMRCra POR .TSIRY TRZAL Now comes the Plaintiff, Sharon Bradford, administratrix of the Estate of James Malcolm Bradford, deceased, by her attorney, William E. Stewart, and complains against the da£en- dant, P. Lorillard Co., a corporation, as follows: 1. Plaintiff is a citisen.o£ the State of Illinois, residing surviving Juanita N. Bradford, his widow, Thomas Bradford and Illinois Revised Statutes of 1969. 3. That James l9alcolm Bradford, the deceased, left him in the City of Peoria, County of Peorias defendant, P. Lorillard New Jersey Co., is aJcorporation having its principal office in Louisville, Kentucky and doing business in the State of Zllinois and alsa- where. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs; the avm of $10,000.00. 2. That on the 9th day of March, 1970 glaintiff was duly appointed administratrix of the Estate a£ James Malcolm Bradford, deceased, by the Circuit Court of Henry County and duly qualified for said office and ever since has been and now is administratrix of said estate and brings this action as such administratrix pursuant to and as authorized by Chapter 70 of his daughters, as his only next of kin: ary bradford, his sons, and Barbara Dohaaiak and Sharon Bradford, Qo N FILED CD ~ Ihtfl 1 t 1970 ~ rT -T~- aE..._._O`s:«k__...._~f . 'ttiiAtA 7. tiTi£i1. CLeitit

SEPYIa OF PROCESS TRANSMITTAL Fr'RH, N. a 'Y A' GT:SYST.PM Tl.c t.arp~.era Ean I a~,t<Ce r wP.~ . ~+~ ~ ~:aSp tq`nl18w SyttaR .. utAr. `•.e.GiG r.u.. rot~rn A hiilliamsan Tobacco Corp. Law a. n. nox 5'i4 DeD Addison, Yeaman, Gen. Cs1. Zouisville, Xerituc36r-t0201--._. .tN......r.....aaN TO•C T GQP PCAATI4W SygTEM S ICJ CwF CI$CiNtIATi. 4HSa ftMi wa . C T CORPCHAT20$ SYS ED _ , IAS ANGELES,_CALZF. ,ur wax. ....sa....a....aa......:..a.~a~0.'L'33 ..... VIA: k j CeN.Red Mad ( y M.nen4er { ~ C.ri:Ged Air M.y RE: PROCESS SERVED IN CALIFOFQT7p, 0.as.i+«t FOR BROWN 8 wZLLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION Ezr.....t c«.r..r! Fesiosed .r. eaP7.s e7 kgd pwvs sare.d +epen th. ststuiwy .q.M of tM .6ors company as leie*s: t_ T~ ~ A~tt~, Marjorie Trau 4s. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company, et al including Brown iE Williamson Company 2. Dor,mmnys) S.r.cd: Summons and Complaint for Damages - Jury Trial Demanded 3. Co.rt: United States District Court for the Northern District of California = Civil Action File No. 47361 4. N.t„noEACsoo: Alleged breach of warranty and negligence re certain cigarett< Plaintiff seeks judgment for special damages, $75C`~ ,040 general damages, costs, and further relief, and trial by jury for wrongful death of NAiZ,AC7 TRAU on or about 7 1f66. 5. On W{eom Praeen xas , ~ C T Corporation System - Los Angeles . 6. Dah ad Haur o{ Sarrim. 8/4/67 - 10: t10 A.M. 7. APps.ru. at A.n.er Dua: 20 days after service, exclusive of day of service 3. Piaint;dt Attom.y(,p Belli, Ashe, Gerry & Ellison " The Belli Bldg. " San Francisco, California 94111 s. p.m.rk: Although process server was informed of the discrepancy in eorporat title of Defendant and the state of incorpozation shown in the papers and the one shown on our records, he nevertheless left the papers. KRNQLY ACKNOWIEDGE iKQFC 8T SIGtdN^v AND RESURt3Rt0 SO US THE ENCLOSED CARBON COPY OF FE@S 7RANSMIT7Ai EORAL RECEIVED AND FORM3ARQED ON $/7fs7 sows yY- C T CORPO$ATIQN SYSfiF.M =" S. W. Dacey, Asst. Pice Pres. 1211 Carew Tower s.~....t Cincisusati Ohio 45202 q Srt I,-p if< .ew

pgA;iOSS LOHE JOYES, as Executriz of the Estate of ROe3ER'i' PZ'RhAH ' 0 JONES, Deceased, . D IXY Ooews the plainttft and by Ieave of o that same as amended shall read 1. The plaintiff is a aitizen of the Sttte of Alabama. The defendant, Brown L Stiliiamson Tobacco Corporation, is a Delaware eorporation, its principal place of business is Sn the State of • Xent..eky and ia therefore a citizen of that State or of the State of aware. The amount in controversey, exclusive of interest and cost, . ia.in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000). Jurisdiction in this . case is founded upon diversity of citizenship. - ' , 2. Theplaintiff claima, of the defesidant One tiillion . Dollars ($i,0oo,000) as damages for"that at aIi times material to ~ this complaint, the defendant, Brown & 4ailliemson 2obacco Corporation, manufactured, sold and distributed Viceroy cigarettes to the public including the plaintiff's teatator for use by the public and the plaintiff'a testator for smoking. ' , 3. Theplaintiff's testator purchased and consumed Viceroy cigarettes untSl his d,eath on, to-wit, Mareh 28, 1969, which were negligently manufactured, sold.and distributed to the public at large and to p2aintiff's testator by the defendant, Brown i F'illiamson ~ ioliuco Corporation. 4: The plaintiff further alleges that the said Viceroy ' Cigarettes that were negligently manufactured, sold and distributed to the general public which includes the plaintiffl,s testator, uere not reasonably safe for auch consumption by the plaintiff's testator and other members of the public, but rrere iimninently or inherently Cohen Deel. Exhibit T

! uce the genaral public to asoke cigarettes w, of injury to their health. That the affect of said'3:ragrsefnta tions through the media of television and radio r duce the general public, including plaintiff;xs dacedtiF{,j;;CCii smoking and to farm the general habit of smoking, inducin`g:l~them tp malignancy of the respiratory systee. 7. That plaintiff's decadent relied upon the skill, knowledge and representations of the defendant that cigarettes were fit for human consumption. 8. That the defendant negligently and carelessly manu- factured cigarettes and other tobacco products containing un- wtsoleaome, hanaful, irritating and carcinogenic ingredientst t1at said ingredients made said cigarettes unsafe for human consumptien and that smoking of said cigarettes caused plaintiff's decedent to incur a carcinoma of the respiratory system. • 9. That said defendant negligently and carelessly failed and neglected to take precautions to elireinate or render harm- less to the general public, including plaintiff's doded3nt;; the unwholcsome, harmful, irritating and carcinogenic ingredients contained in its said cigarettes. 10. That in the exercise of ordinary care said defendant should have known that its said product contained unwholesome, . harmful, irritating and carcinogenic ingredients that srmade their sa'sd cigarettes dangerous for ase and consumption by the general public, including plaintiff's decedent, and that the same were likely to cause plaintiff's decedent and other members of the general pubLic who consumed said cigarettes to devclop and contract serious illness, disease and malignancies thereby. 11. That said defendant negligently failed to conduct proper teata to determine the carcinogenic character of its product in spite of medical knowledge which vaa available to it and which it could have and should have known.

0 STATE OF ILLINOIS } )SS COt7NTY OF COOK ) CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUP?'TY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION DDOGUCdSI, Administrator } . of the Estate of JOAN RS. PETERSON, } . " Deceased, }' Y5. ) Plaintiff, ~ 72L 2954 }i No. t P. LL3RILLARD & CO4£PANY and } I3GGETT & MYERS, MCORPORATED, } } Defendants. ) COMPLAINT AT LAW . COUNT I Now comes"ttae plaintiff, EDWARD BOGUCKI, Administrator of fhe.Estate of JOAN M. PETERSON, Deceased, complaining of the dants, P. LORILLARD & COMPANY and Z.IGGETT & MYERS, INCORPORATED, and says: 1. That on and for a Lono time prior to ri5arch 7, 1970, the defendant, P. Lorillard & Company, manufactured, sold and distributed to the consuming public a cigarette known as "Kent" and on and for a Yonp+time prior to March 7, 1970, the defendant, Liggeft & Myers, ~ncarporated, manufactured, sold and distributed to the consuming , pnhlEc a cigarette known as "Chesterfietds." 03 . ~ ~-~ 2. That i2ce said cigarettes placed upon the market by the Q defendants and each of tisem were defective and unreasonably dangerous ~` CD ....w taf- -A Cohen Deci. Exhibit V 03

0 -2- 3. That for a tong time prior to t4darc"h 7, 1$70, plaintiff's decedent, Joan M. Peterson, had consumed and used quantities of cigarettes made by the said defendants and each of them. s, piaintiff`s decedent'snstained condi- of ill-being wW ch caused her death. 5. That plaintiff's decedent, Joan M. Peterson, died on March 7, 1970, 4. That as a direct and Prosimate result of the use and surviving her RICHARD PETERSON, her husband . LINDA PETERSON, her child CHERYL PETERSON, her child NANCY PETERSON, her child RICHARD PETERSON, her child i CYNTHIA PETERSON, her child ' LESLIE PETERSON, her child , NFARK PETERSON, her child om were living at the time of her death and all of whom are still living and aft of whom have sustained d2mages as the result of her death. 8. e said Edward Joan &2. Peterson, Deceased, by the Probate Court of Cook County, Illinois, and tenders herewith his Letters of Administration as evidence of his right to bring this action. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, EDWARD BOGtTCEQ, Administrator oi the Estate of JOAN M. PETERSON, Deceased, asks judgment against the defendants, P. LORILLARD & COMPANY and LIGOETT & MYERS, INCORPORATED, and each of them, in the sum of THREE THOIISANL3 DOLLARS {$354,QII©.a0}. 0

4. That fram 1942 until sPprox£mate3Y Pabru arY ti!'.1967. .. , ~ z~ in the state of Illinois and elsewhere, piaintiff*s ddsat did purchase and did smoke in the usual and ordinary~aer r' cigarettes manufactured by the defendant, ta-v£t, i:ant'~• `Ziu . ~. M Ci ettes Tlut uid ci arettes sra a2 d b id d f `, `j} ar w a s q . g y a aa e dant in paper and callophane containers and are soid £a that , iorm to various wholesalers, jobbers and retailers who in turn sell said cigarettes to the general pubSic including plain- tiff'a decedent. S. That the defendant maliciously, wantonly, fraudulently, falsely and deceitfully rapreaeated to tae ganeraZ public, ' including plaintiff's decedent, by means ef various advertising madia, that the smoking and using of iti brand of cigarettes was not Lartaful to healtixt taat tLesmoking of cigarettes aided digestiont that the smoking of cigarettes restored bodily energy; that the smoking of cigarettes renewed bodily energy; that the smoking of cigarettes gave bodily energy; that the , smoking of cigarettes relieved fatigue: that the smoking of cigarettes would not leave any unpleasant after e€fectsi that the sssoking.of cigarettes would not adversely affect nor impair the respiratory system and phyaica2 conditions that the smoking of cigarettes would not ha= or irritate the human throat and that taie smoking of cigarettes was sootting to the human nervous aysteR. 6. That the defendant xantonly, maliciously, fraudulently and deceitfully made the aforesaid representations to the general public, including plaintiff's decedeat, intending that ,they and he should act upon theiaF that said representations were made by means of advertisements ia various periodicals and newspapers o€ generai circulation and took tke foru, among others, of statements 'uy Individuals represented as medical and 00 athletic persons by their manner of eiress or language used; tasat ND d t ~ d f en an e advertisements of this nature vare calculated by the

-3- I COUNT II Now comes the plaintiff, EDWARD BOGUCKI, Admfiyistrator of the Estate of SQAN 11. PETERSON, Deceased, complaining of the defendants and each of them and says: 1. Same as paragraph 1 of Count 1. . 2. Same as paragraph 3 of Count I. rior to and during her consumption of cigarettes safety, and the defendants and each of them were then and there guilty of one or more of the following wrongful acts: (a) Carelessly and negligently manufactured, dis- , tributed and sold for consumption and use by the general public, fnctuding plaintiff's decedent, • cigarettes known as "Kent" and "Chesterffelds" and as a direct and proximate result of the use of said cigarettes, piaintiii's decedent lost her Ii€e; aintiff's decedent was In the exercise of ordinary care for her own (c) Carelessly and negligently manufactured, dis- tributed and sold for consumption and use by the pubiic, cigarettes when they knew or in the exercise of ordinary care ought to have known that said cigarettes were dangerous and harmful to health and life; Carelessly and negligently failed to warn the public of the known dangers and hazards of the use of said cigarette s; Wilfully and wantonly manufactured, sold and distributed Ehe said cigarettes when they knew that the said cigarettes were dangerous and harmful to life and as a direct and proximate result thereof, ptaintiff's decedent lost her life; Wilfully and wantonly manufactured,.sold and distributed to the public, including plaintiff's decedent, cigarettes without warning said

PL8I2`STI_rFS EEa^: ;Y DE_`=L9ND TRIAL BY JURY. BUTLER. JEFFERSON & FRY Bylsl ROBERT P. FRY RQSERT P. FRY AtLOtr3ly3 L4S FS8iLiLSSL3 0 !

ROBERT P. FRY A member of the ft.-m of BUTLER, TEB€EP.SON tF FRY 626 tYilshire Boutevard. Suite 914 Los Angeies, Cai€tornia 90017 Telephone: (213) 627-0041 IN THE Iils'ITED STATES DISTRICT COIIRT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11.4 JOHN COilSS2OCK and LLSRY K, h33aora by their Litem, GAIL , and GAIL CO:RSTOCK d CECIL COMSTOCK. Iadividaally, } !S£S. -7 2-~3`I~ Yu # # # # j Plaintiffs, } # } >'LRICADLTOBACCO COMPANY, } a Delaware corporation, R. } COMPLAINT €OR DAMAGES {PersonaiIajury, Negligence, Espress Warranty, Impiied Warranty. Strict Liability) ? 1 REYNODLS TOBACCO COSSPANY. } a New Jersey corooratiou, and' ) DEMAND €OR SURY TR1AL 180 TOBACCO INSTITUTE INCORPORATED, # } - a New York corporation. # } Defendants. 2 22 D Plaintiffs, GAIL CO3ISTOCK. CECIL COMSTOCK, and JOHN I COIeiSTOCK and MARY COJ2STOCK, minors, by their Guardian ad Litem E i ~ complain of defendants and allege as followa: FOR A FIRST CLAIYI 26 1. Plaintiff GAIL COMSTOCK Is the surviving widow of ABEL D. 27 COhISTOCK, deceased, and p€aintiff3 JOHN COMSTOCK and MARY Cfi33STCC: 28 are minor chiidren of GASL COMSTOCK and decedent. Heretofore GAIL 291 COMSTOCK has been duly appointed the Guardian ad Litem of JOHN 30 1 COMSTOCK and MARY COASSTOCK, minora, by the above-entitled court. co 31 ~ 2. At all times herein meetioned, defendant ,;SiERiCAN TO9AC Q COMPANY (hereinafter referred m 2s ATC) was and ts a corporation °~ d C7N G7 Cohen DeCl. CA

i for profit, purrey tobacci products inoluding cigarettas, disseminate information, as to the aforemeationed cigarettes to the general pubIic of these United States and ta DECEDENT €n parttcular, aa we€I as eaid defendants did negligently and carelessly fail and have continued to refuse to remove said products tram the maricetp€ace; as well as said defendants did negligently and ear,eleesly fall to warn the general public and DECEDENT berein of the possible dangers and serious adverse physical effects which could result from the use of the MANS3FACTURIING defendants' aforementioned cigarette products notwithstanding that the defendants knew or should have known of the dangerous propensities of said products and yet did continue to distribute and sell and advertise them as aforementioned for human use and consumption. 15. Notwithstanding the aforementioned facts and things, and in addition thereto, !a the exercise of reasonable care by each of the't.4AZt'UFACTG'SiING defendants, they would A.ave discovered not later than Tanaary, 1964, the aforementioned dangerous propen- sities aad possibilities for harm of their respective cigarette products and of the carcinogenic propertiesof said products and • yet sti2i have neg€igentiy and carelessly failed to warn the people - of these United States as well as DECEDENT to the date of his death. 18. At all t€mes pertinezt hereto DECEDENT did smoYe and in'aale the ::fANU€ACTVAING defendants' cigarette products as aforementioned, anh each of them, in the manner they were to be used for, for the perpose for which they were €nteaded to be used, and in the way they had been tntended to be used. 17. As a direct and proximate result of the acts cf defendants. and each of them. DECEDENT did develop emphysema and carcinoma of the lung In approximately the year 1867. Said emphysema and carc€noms were directly and prosimateiy caused by smoktng and inhaiing the vapors o: th: ?,IANCFACTLMI?tiG defendants', aad each of thenr, cigarettes as _5-

reasan of_rhe abov.;pramises.plafitiLiit'a Geo . rt t carcinooa'of the right maia etasQ,b,ranchus r his death on April.ii7, 1968. 4. Piaintiff'st deasdent . smlced ,XSnt aig aforement£oned~pei'ied of tisii;~„"itidua.d by the _ . . . ,. ..-..tt:t by the defendant and'relyiaq.spga,#.ttte defendant's a At. ' ! 0 5. That in viev of the a notice af such breach of varranty :?s Prior'tofi23ng this:Aca-mpla£nt, Flaintiff yiv breached its iaplied varrantifa'ot tness in violation oi.Chapter 26, &aotions 2-314 Illinois Rev£sed 8tatutes. and merabantability and 2-315'of the 59tiEasP488, plaintif2 pray=;judgment aga£nst t3te-defeadant in the amount of 4K8 MILLZON F3VHSt3NDR8II TltOIISAtiD DOLLA% ($1r546,444.443. itilliam 8. Stewart, Attorney for Plaintiff, 11? s. C2iestnut Street, ICevsxiee, Illinois ~51443. Telepiwnei AC 3£59~853-48T8.

(A public as well as ptair.ti•"s desLdent of the dangers inherent in ttre use uf the said cigarettes of trhieh dangers defendants knew or should have 1;norm; Wilfully and wantonly misrepresented to the~~ public through various media of advertising the advantages of the use of the said cigarettes vhen they knew or ought to have known that in fact there were no advantages to the use and consumption of cigarettes. 4. That as a direct and proximate result of one or more af the aforesaid wrongful acts of the defendants and each of them, plain- tiff's decedent sustained conditions of ilt-beino which brought about her death. 5. Same as paragraph 5 Count I. _ 6. Saame as paragraph 6 Count t. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, EDWARD BOCUCKI, Administrator of the Estate of JOAN M, PETERSON, Deceased, asks judgment against the defendants, P. LORILLARD & COMPANY and LIGGETT & MYERS, ZR'CORPORATED, and each of them, in the sum of THREE HUNDRED - FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS {$350, 000.00} as compensatory dimages and an additional TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($250', 000.00) in exemplary or punitive damages. IFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY ' JAPrfES A. DOOLEY 111 W. was}tin,ton Sireet Chf@ago, ItlinOis 60602 7G2-1153

S::ca of G:izo.-:fs. aa5 :L: +Ir,z, a c's'.i: = a.'•a =tv c«xas f-',a r' 5'i . _ cl . _ . . . . 6~/ 74:.a.'.t Su ta.: .-.... .^.'.'-.^C:8 II L'.20 TW.r.......: "a:II psm0..Z v'r.i: 7~' ?=,CCO CO:dPSx.:, a eor~ c~l?t-, a=d ,~`... 3. SE ..0im5 _O~"ACCO 2D~Cz~~, .a?a;aadVI.S..c..-s•tceZF...i ~o..,s g aade: and «y v:r:v cl ac ..v ct cz...^a s~ta ctlar i: =n t.`.+s . ::a; tss:= as :a- t:a Cr.::_:; c: CC:: a w' C_hcai :. .a=GT'+cr' a C*•YL .. C '`L all .°.'_..^tc0 LlCvCt.3 1o it ~' -'FtzYat:dlii=c:t vcr':. • t 15 :S cc9 St1Yu~ LAI4^^.:u :iTOL:- a... i-._ _--:-r::_: ,~, u=kxctt c_ "u1:v".-'. ~<..: 16 ~/ utOZL r_s:l 17 1$ 19 i 24~; CO:v:?:1h^: aad €7Cs3S=.c V. ua_v ca~a~:d:+a::a 21 11 ;.:a aad di »:iSu::c~ o? c=1 -s_.a:~ :au tm%^.,cca p;o:ac;a _°ar::=a ca:._--A~ -~ 2A~- ~2 t»Ql. T.16:8 tO:riSuG^T~r i.uc=iar S4":a'V-ti 23; tizwcz Sc^i3 a.c.::r.. , ... 3E:i:OLCS TO:.SCCO Cc::.»?4_:- 2 30 31 :.I:d DG-S 4I ta a. ~-^:+:%-vzl. caa. a !a C:a r-1w:.tsct=-c, _'_-•a c;:c.`.:faetaa oi ei-~n: nc :wc :aiytc:. ;:adec~ fx Lr-aE et^x:w,~: .~. e:r:c c.~-e=:.`y 7czosra aa ln_t at niI ti:a8e Si03S s1 to ~ X. wc_ o tha :.~.n:~. :z __d a: spia;roaa c: 2a?uc<L-:-:3 AI.:i. _Cf.H TOi.<7CC0 P.. J. I:C;\4Lti.". : U::.a:..U .. _rci St a21 i:mcu DC=.'. Z lo V. Sac:cs~iVO. a 1:,. 1"I t+" k. i::u crurco a:.•1 m (`.:

cr ~ ~ 0 0 v ra

! _ :2_ca `•- -~. cc.rL:.f:cd. 5 a;=c-•. 5~ oi -,az, ii ;ha P:am'_osc, P=cL^~V;~Ys'a-..a 3s.::a c'. ,'?;vcd ef .ho cara, cc =~.-•_: ?~.^ad nx$a:y, e2vlw. ec,.:: xi :-.. ,,.aa: of :x3 EczctQ=. uL' ta t::tir ~-._.., 8 car:,wva $=~csaa e:,.^3.5,3,019. . . gj/ 12Ei p=aZza>'ss I. II, 2vf. Js V~. Yi:. :rZZ. 7a. ?.•_~'.a..c'::Mlo€C_~3r 13;} ti ~ac aL AaCca v?:S S':,: :_..._ _c+-- c:_L ci:att: a:.1lczzh at! cc: c_oi: .r 18 ~4 rai-:~ cf cac:o , =rcc3e etsr__~ : »:+ cc -ac: ci :: ^~•::m. ?::ai c_:3c_~_::x: ~ 19 #i .a fac2. da:cc::-ro cnd a iin ar_3 ha-i-«i, ia ca;,- 20j. a=t.a :.u=;;a 21 1' tr.d r e~piram:y ayt::.: a o-f ?tr_acno c~:c2 :si3 c,r-.N=c a--d :o!~7,cca y=c :m:5a 22 23 24 2 Gv3i pza='aCL3tt yc._c-3 of :_._Y. c~ i~.taa a G::•ccY caZ -•n=aL:3 3eent. af d-•~oC'vo cc 'act::ca e: ^.d ef;,p.rc:an. Csa sLa' Za_:.ic~. '.'w`, 3;acts ecntraci t•=8 caa.:c_i c•'•.': i 25 a': ,,_a: iaakay :aa•S'ta.-3 ~ h~a C_..ai ca cz aLa=t 3T.ary 2fi, tqi?. . 2? ~; YtH2I(ESo js3 ;=un: -,=:a:t $:a C::L_nla.-tn. 28lj1 c=ch a'_ t4em, aa :cL=r.io: ' 2'3 Tu0 ~ 2. ZtcanOnsu3n vaiu: r.: „:a c-s_ aacsu 01 13Lt f?laana cf 31~ ~z,;cs:<.ne ca n:na11 4s ,=rn.:n aZ ,°.a tir..a c? s2 3. Haaar..-v:z 4a isc c? Lhd aa.l burlal

incorporated under the laws oi the State of Delaware and doing business 20 within: the State of Califarnia and with(n the Central District of California; defendant R. d. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY (hereinsfter referred as RJR) at all times herein mentioned was and €a a corporation acorporated under the laws of the State of New Jersey and doing business 81 within the Statt of Californis and within the Central District of Caiifornia; eregoing defendants are herein collectively referred to as the NIIFACTDRINO" defendants; defendant TOBACCO INSTITUTE 9~ INCORPORATED (hereinafter referred to as INSTi'TUTE) at aSl times Q herein mentioned was and ta a corporation Incorporated under the laws of California. Plaintiffs are Informed and believe, ead on such 14 N lnformation and helief allege, that none of the aforementioned defendants operates a principal place of business within the State of California. 3. Plaintiffs GAIL COMSSTOCK, CECIL COMS1ClCK, -JOEIN i7 COMSTOCK and MARY COMSTOCK are residents and citizens of the Is County of Los Angeles, State of California. and are the sole heirs-at-law 19 of ABEL D. COMSTOCK. decedent herein. of the State of New York with its principal place of business in Washington, D.C. and doing business within the State of California and within the Central 4. The amount €n controversy In the present action is €n excess of the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars 410, 000. 00) exclusive of interests and costs. 231 5. 'S'his Court has jurisdiction of this claim ander the provisions 24 of Title 28. U.S. Code 51332. 5. At all times herein mentioned the MANUFACTURING 0 oI t Detendants, and each of them, were and are ccmpanles which grow, 27 ~ process, test, manufacture, produce, assemble, label, package. distribute, 28 d f d e an tra wholesale, retail, aduertise, sell, place in channels o 29 commerce for proiit, and ;,nrvey tobacco products including therein Ca 0 cigarettes to the general public of these United States and elsewhere €~7 ~~ 1 t __~ ,.. ..:_intifis' .'.ecedent, AU£L 4. COMSTOCK (hereinafter referred CD Ji?ii ....,a nvd`vnc.rri .,-r..._ tc...ie-w,~.e..ot.. cei.t cicarettes are 011 -2-

12. That saiddsfs 0 ~ ~ ~ i.... decadent, until teqttirad to dc so-.'py: the reds to giTa notice or rasa the gaaira2',•;public, including that said product vaf unrholssow.;and contained , . ,, ~ , y carcinogenic and haratful iagrod#. eatr vhich rore 2ikcl Zo casue tke plaintiff's decadent and ot2tar asmbers of the general public . _ ".b who used and coneumed said cigarsttssto devalop and contract serioas diaeasa and malignancias'there6y. 113. That as a proximate cause of the aforesaid ptsmises plaintift.•s decsdantiAcurrsdand~Ldid saffsr a maiign.acy arising from the right main stem bronchus which metastasiad rs- saiting in hisdeath:on 11pri1.17,:1468, within two yaars prior to the commsncemeat at this actioh~ 1<. That Jamsa !lalcoim 4radford, the deceased, at all timss herein mentioned was in th..exsrciss of due cara:for his safety. 15. That said aext af kin.:rare at all times herstn ne tionad in the exercise of due care.for the safaty of lames riaicolm 7lradrord. t4e deceased 16. That hy r.ason of the-death of said Jamss Malcolm - .:.-:-- ;- ; ilradford, d.csasad, hia said xUov has been deg'rived ef,her mesas of sopport.,and.hie said'ildrvt have ha:a,deprii!.d,of - iarge sims of monay_aad vaioahli;servicas rhickaames-Kalcolm Bradford, the deceased, was aCCnatomad to contsihote.ta.and . . . : . s:0 " ~ ~..9. would havecontinn.d to contributa smi perform;forrthsz. . 17. That as a:<proximata:c4siae of the aforasaid.premisss, the . . ,... . .:~ plaiatiff as administratrix hast5nen damaged in the amount of . r<.Ya il{FiYUMIU -1nVUa)K{u iIJULHtV -4?~ vsvVV. Vvl • • ' 2a. That the.defendanc.acted rith wanton dis feelings and health ot;the general public, plaintiff's decedent, and by,r.asc<si thereof piaint£ff,r~de ~~t4:C"7 '4' < punitive damagss against said-dbfanda~tt in theamocnt,of ONE l ~ . itli.LZamt DoL7a8S ($li.£ia0,004.U0}.f,bY vay of axsmgis- aad~:puaishmsnt

i 35. That as a further direct and prosimate result of the conduct 2 of defendants, and each of them, piaintiffe have Sncurred medical, hospital 3 and related expenses in an amount unknown to them at this time; plaiatilfs will ask leave of Court to amend this Complaint setting forth such amonnts 51 when the same become icnowa. ". 35. That as a further direct and proximate result of the conduct eadants, and each of them, plaintiffs have inonrred funeral and burial expenses in an amount unknown to them at this time; plaintiffs will ask leave of Court to amend this Complaint setting forth such amounts when the 121 FOR A FOURTH CLAIM 5?. Plaintiffs reallege and Incorporate by reference as though 'ully set forth herein Paragraphs I through 39, inciusive, of the First, 5 Second and Third Claims herein. 161 38. The MANUFACTURING defendants, and each of theaa, intended 17 their aforementioned cigarette products to be used for human consumption ention of the MANFIFACTURING defendants and did dissemiimte intormation cking. That the defendant INSTITUTE knew and appreciated the ezznce of that goal. ' , ; 39. IIefeadaats, and each of them, knew that their cigarette . i as aforementioned, were to be purchased and used without ~ pection for defects by the general public of these United States as weil ~ BECEgENT. 40. Said cigarette products as aforementioned were unsafe for their intended use in that they were Inherently defective when distributed, advertised and sold by the MANUFACTURING defendants, and the INSTIfiU'TE, without being limited thereto, and therefore defendants have become strictly iff $i. DECEDENT was not aware of the aforementioned defects at say time prior to the injuries caused by said products. As a pro:imate result of the aforementioned defective product, plaintiffs sustained -B-

g "' That the amount in controversy herein is In excess within this District. . ,. . . , Is t ` Caiifornia within this llistrict; and TOUACcr.~ iKSTSTUTE, INQ3itI'ORATI413 was and is a Distr€ct or Corporation doing business within the State of Catifor,,tz of the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars {$24,QOtJ.DO}, exclusive of interest and costs,. 2p PlaintiSi ts informed and believes and thereupon 3],~ alleges that at all times herein mentioned defendants, LIGGETT & MYERS, INCORPORATED, a D'elware Corporation, 3r, BROiVN&K'ILLSA2+LSONTOBACCOCOMPANY,a Delaware Cor- poration, R, J, REYNOLDS TOBACCO tDhiPANY,<a New Jersey 5P, _ Corporation, and the TOBACQO iNSTITUTE, iNCORPORATED, fij aDistrict of Columbia Corpora-tion were and ara - co mpanfes1engaged In the advertising and processing; ufacture, saie,and distribution of cigarettes, desgined, intended and advertis-ed for nse and consump- tion by individuals by means of smoking. . _ , .... , IV . " 22 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon 23 alleges that prior to May 12, 1970, in reliance upon the xA advertisements of defendants, and each of them, rnthy E. Nick2off, plaintiff herein, dfd<purchase,__ use and consume by smoking, certain cigarettes . 2%1 raanufaetured, sole and advertised by defendants, and-. V Ig Said cigarettes processed, manufactured, sold of them, from day to day in a presently unascer-' advertised by defendants, and each of them, were qoantity

1 ksaosvtedge about the carcinogenic causing properatv„ of said cigarettes and at- the time of said mtsret1rc, .sentattons and statements, knew them to be u III If the defendants, and each of them, their agents, ants and employees were noi aware of the falstty of thier statements, they made such statements negligently, carelessly, and recklessly without any factual basis and in utter disregard of reports to efendants, and each of them, and extant (nformatton he harmful nature of their products. _,. t i ].3~ The defendants, and each of them, their agents, servants and employees made such statements about safety as are.above alleged with the intent bf Ibg inducing.plaintiff herein to rely and act upon them; that the plainttft did.rely and act upon them;and that the plz4ntiff did not know nor could have known of the falsity of the representations. . Y .. The defendants LIGGETT & SrfYERS, II•ECORPORATED, $ROivN & 4VILLIAaSSON TO&ACCO CORPORAZ`ION, and $, S. . REYNOLDSTOI3ACII3 0O1tPANY, and each of them, through contributions and support of vartous types to defendant COD INSTITUTE, IATGLtRI-Y?IiATED permitted, encouraged, helped said tnstitute to deliberately withhold from the public the consensus of medical and I a:) 28P scientific knowledge regarding the carcinogenic 281 properties and safety of smoking,

the i::inor ~~IaiztiEfs, i~FICIu11:L PINES and S'i'I~2,iE~T }'I~~S; ,i~ the above entitled action. ?{ ~ 3 ((((F DATi.D : /~/L.1 10 I 7 12 1A i_j ...,w c:~.ce: oa '4 ~I,IC~yMCI[C6 ~~ -3- co ~ a

LY3UNT FOUR . Plaintiff realloges and incorporates by reference as though fully se.t forth herein Paragraphs I through the First Count, Paragraphs I through IV of the Second Count, and Paragraphs I through V of the Third Count herein. . . ; ._ , _L - ,. B Prier to hiay22, 1970, defendants, and each of 0- them, did negligently and carelessly and with utter 11 and reckless disregard for the life and limb of the 12 public, fail to warn the general public of the harmful eleterious and dangerous propensitites of their- cigarettes which they knew to contain carcinogenic properties 27 The defendants, and each of -them, falsely, 18 fradulently, and deceitfuliy withheld fro m the plaintiff Z9~ material facts as to the safeness of defendants 22 23 24 25 aforesaid cigarettes and wilfully concealed the true state of knowledge about the carcinogenic causing properties of said cigarettes and'at the time of said misrepresentations and statements,• knew them to be untruthful. 2Sg' : If the defendants and each -of tfeem, were not , 27 a'ware of the falsity of their statementes, ;they made' 2a such statements negligently, carelessly, and recklessly 29 without any factual basis aad in utter disregard of . 3Q~ reports to defendants, and each of them,",and'"extant" - i "Z ta€or mation of the- harmful nature of their products.

aforementioned, and did direct and prasimstely cause ABEL D. C{}1*STOr_r to die on October 26, 1972, therefrom. is. As a direct and proximate result of the mnduct of defendants, and each of them, piaintiffs were deprived of the society, care, support, advise, counsel, 2ove, compsnionship, and affectiga of DECEDENT, Dollars (S2, 000, 000. 00). 6U husband and father, all to their general 19. That as a further direct and proximate result of the conduct afendants, and each of them, plaiatiffs have Incurred medical, hospital 10 1 sad related espensea In an amount aakaown to them at this ttme; plaintiffs ak ieave of Court to amend this Complaint setting forth such amounts 3U 20. That as a further direct and prn3imate result of the conduct when the same become known. eadants, and each of them, plaintiffs have incurred funeral and burial me become knowa. expenses ia an amount unknown to them at this time: plaintiffs will ask leave of Court to amend this Complaint setting forth such amounia when the 9 1/ _ . FOR A SECO 21. Piaintiffs reaiiege and incorporate by reference as though 21~ fully set forth herein Paragraphs I through 20, inclusive, of the r lrst Claim 22 herefn. 22. By reason of the conduct of the defendants, and each of t.4ea, 24 as aforesaid, inciuding but not iimited to the processing, manufacture, 25 distribution, sale, and ad7ertising of the aforementioned cigarette products i 0 by means of national magazines, periodicals, radio, television, bflSboards, posters. point of sale advertising, and other advertising means, ivithout being iimited taereto, and use of media and such for dissemination of ir_•crr:ntton, defenda.^_ts, and each of them, urged the use of cigarette products and e=press€p warranted, at all times pertinent hereto, to the general public includiaq~ DECEDENT that their reepective cioaratte products as aforeaentioned were proper and safe for human use and consumption by -6-

! 1~ ieace of Court to amend this Complaint setting forth such amouats when the €OK A TI3BD CZAI?f 29. Fiaintitfs reallege and icccorporate bp this reference aa though 61 fully set forth herein Par:grpphs" 1 through 28, Inciusive, of the First and same become known. - cigarette products of the MANUFACTURING defendants, and each of them, econd Ciaims herein. 30. Prior to and at the time DECEDENT smoked the aforementionec 10 the defendants hereia. and each of them, impliedly warranted to DECEDENT 73 that the aforementioned cigarettes were of merchantable qaality, and safe 12 far the use for which they bad been intended by the defendants; namely, for 23 1 smoking by human beings and the ielsafation of the smoke therefrom. 31. DECEDENT relied on the skill and judgment of the defendants, ach of them, in selecting and purchasing the aforementioned cigarette 169 products. , 32. Said cigarette products were not safe for their Intended use, 28,1 or of merchantable quality as warranted by defendants, in that they contained harmful, deleterious, and dangerous properties and that they contained 2011 certain carcinogenic properties; defendants aforementioned cigarette products were, in fact, unsafe, unwholesome and dangerous, and theretore 22 improper for human consumption by DECEDENT. 23~ 33. By reason of the premises and as a direct and proximate of the breach of said imalied warranties, as aforementioned, ABEL D. 2b ~ C4hISWICK contscted emphysema and carcinoma of the lung due to the use of the cigarettes of the h?,:DIIfFACTIIAihG defendants, and each of them, 27 t wSich resulted in his death on October 16. 2971. t 28. 34. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants, 2= 1 32~ and each of them, plaintiffa were derpived af the society, care, sup;rort, advise, counsei, love, companionship, and affection of DECEDEtFT. ausba_d and father, all to their general damage in the sum of Two :VtiLlion Ca Dotlary(32.iSiF3,tl00.G:1}. -' C:) U~7 6_ ~L~.~.i L1 D

rtised, iatended for use and consnmption 21 by individuals by means of smoking. 3 7. Defendant INSTITUTE is, and at all times from the date of ion of 1958 was, an organization which did prepare, collect 50 and disseminate information and reports to the tobacco industrp and to the general aublic, and thereby to DECEDENT, dealing with, without being ' Iimited thereto, the benefits and pleasure of smoking cigarettes; likewise 8g said INSTITUTE did cause to be disseminated, prepared and ccllected. a and reports as to the lack of harm, detriment, or adverse ! 10P effect of smoking cigarettes upoa amokers and specifically upon DECEDENT. Said INSTITUTE further caused to be prepared, coiiected, and disseminated 12 information and reports whicb were critical of the reports of scientists 13 and scientific bodies {iaciuding the United States Department of Health, 14 1 Education and Weifare} which demaastratedlhe fact that smoking iacreased 35I( t5,. Incidence of cancer ia the smoker b multi lea ran ia from 1 3 to 15 0 y p g g . . . 8: The aforementioned information and reports disseminated ased and were not objective, but were biased and partisan-in favoring ed, produced and disseminated by said INSTITUTE were not a defendant INSTITUTE and coacieved, thought of, prepared, coilected, 201 the Interests of the MANUFACTURIbiG defendants by encouraging the continuation of cigarette smoking by the general public, and DECEDENT, N eaic «11 and ta statin that the re orts of scientists concernia the cuciao g p g g defendants, and said INSTITUTE as such agent was approached, offered, engaged, agreed, and participated with each of the MANUFACTUBIVVG defendants to do the acts ereviousiv mentioned In Paraaraaha 7 and 8 all the wni2e said ii.SiaTUTE being under the direction of each of the 43ANUFACTURiNG deiendants. 10. Lucky Strike cigarettxs, a product of ATC, were purchased and consumed by smoking from day ta day by DECEDENT for ti:e period 9. Defendant INSTITUTE has at ail times from its date of rporation ia 1958, been the agent of each of the MANUFACTURING _3_ 2311 effects of smoking cigarettes were fallacious, unproven, and not trustworthy.

m appras£mately 1229 to 1957. l I. Camel ~cigarettes, a product of RTR, were purchased and consumed by smoking €rom day to da,f by DECEDENT for the period from approximately 1957 to 1971. . 12. At all t£mes mentioned herein, the MtiNL'FACTTTRZNG defea- n dealing with their aforementioned respective cigarette prodects, and the IN57ITUTE for the period of time from 1958 to date did inform _ and market cigarette products and advertise them through the med£a, magaz£n . eriodtca2a, biliboards, new:papers, radio, television, point of sale advertising and such other use of ined£a as to p nt before the general public and DECEDENT in particular the benefits, pleasures, use, enjoyment, 3,21 and lack of adverse effects of the smoking and inhaitation and partaking of 13 each of the MANUFACTURING defendants cigarette products. 13. The cigarettes of the 2hP3.IJFACTtFRING defendants, and each of them, as aforementioned, are harmful and dangerous to the 16U general public and to BECEDENTt each of said cigarettes aforementioned contained ingredients which had carcinogenic properties. The effect of such carc£nogenic Ingredients in the smoker is cumuiative, and the likelihood of such ingredients causing lung cancer increasea with the number and , frequency of cigarettes smoked by the smoker, and the period of time ~ which the smoker continues to smoke cigarettes. That at all t£mes j pertinent hereto, defendants, and each of them, knew or in the exercise of reasonable care, diIigence and awareness, should have known that their Ij E respective cigarette products, by the nature oftfu Ingredients therein did ~ within themselves toxic, dangerous, and carcinogenic agents and ' tances so as to make the said cigarette products izilterentiy defective I and dangerous to human life. SSS 14. Yota£thstanding the aforesaid facts, and the superior knoxtedee f such racta by defeadants :.erein, and each of them, defendants in addition thereto. and each of them, did so negligently and careiessiy grow, process. CO ~ re, preduce. assemble, label, package, distribute. ~ esale, reta£1, advertise, sell, place in channels of trade and commerce p G\ C) -i- U'i

0 as Dorothy E. Nickloff, plaintiff hcrekn, in that saqu ~ cigarettes contained certatn carcinogenic propertiea which defendants knewI of or In'the exerc£se of due - care, should have known of and which plaintiff herein rmful, deleterious and dangerous to 61 did not know and could not know of by 'reason of which' defendants, and each of them, are absoluteiy and strictly liable for the carcinoma of the lung which - plaintiff herein developed from said smoking and - . 14,q, which was diagnosed on or about May 12, 1870, necessita- g hospttalization, surgery and other treatment all 2fj to her general damage in the sem ofTwenty Five' • Dollars {$25,900,00}. . . . . .:;ct : ' ...... :VS ..~•::~z et .. . By reason of the premises, and as•a direct and ascertained and plaintiff prays leave to amend this Complaint setting forth such amounts when the same able amount, ,a11 to her d.mage in a sum not presently spftalization,;medical andrelated expenses in a rea- finally determined. 161~ ', proxim ate result thereaf, plaintiff herein has Incurred .2 29 34i 2 reference as though fully set forth herein Para- g,raphs I through YI of the First Count herein. 11 Defendants, and each of them, in the.processing, manufacture, saie, advertising and distribution of these clgarettes did expressly warrant that said c3garettes were safe for human use and consumption CO I Plaintiff realleges and Incorporates by

ion and was treated with every course of medical treatment and medicines known to his attending physicians, all to no ~ z That in calendar year 1974, Plaintiff's condition became it critical, in that Plaintiff commenced to pass fresh blood ~ through his stool, loosing considerable quantities of blood in 6. That for approximately fifteen (15) years Plaintiff suffered from chest pains, and has been advised by numerous physicians that there was no known medical reason for said chest 7. That on July 26, 1974, Plaintiff submitted to surgery for said rectal symptoms above described, which surgery consisted of a fissurectomy and hemorrhoidectomy. performed a hemorrhoidectomy and other surgerical proce$ures on the Plaintiff in order to correct the above described con- dition, which surgery again failed to bring Plaintiff relief. Further, said symptoms persisted in a growing and more severe 8. That following said surgery, Plaintiff's condition improved, and the symptoms above described persisted, n a ever-more frequent basis. 9. That on July 16, 1975, Plaintiff's physician again condition. . 10. That during calendar year 1975, Plaintiff was spitalized with an apparent heart attack, for he suffered I chest pains. ' That during the latter part of calendar year 1975 the symptoms above described substantially worsened and Plaintiff suEfered severe infection and was ultimately bedridden. 11. ...at an January 19, .376, Plaintiff ayain sub- surgery at the Elkhart General Hospital upon physician's advice, having been informed that unless the infection and bleeding were stopped, Plaintiff's life was in jeopardy. 12. That following said surgery, Plaintiff again exper- ed no relief whatsoever_

! 2 a 20 21 22 23 2 4 u 25 {~ 26 ~1 ~I 27 28 nfiom LAW OFFFCES OF Jo`IN H. TROTFER JR, {NCORFONATEO 4200 NpRiv Ma4q ST¢L; SVtR 946 SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 72'SO( TLLLtKOnL Git-193fi - 635-5633 Plaintiffs (SZ<.C t: ]F::.(3;Y -U'/- eT~Z:.4 S~.t)ia~ O.~iL. 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE ' MICF.AEL PINES, a minor; ) STEPHEN PINES, a minor; ) tdENDY PIiIES, a minor; and ) ANDREW PI~IES, a minor, ) No. by and through their } Guardian ad Litem, Barbara } Pines; and BARBARA PINES, } individually, } ) Plaintiffs, ) PETITION A:~tD ORDER FOR } .1PPQIsITifExFT OF GUARDIAN ve. ) AD LITEM LIGGET'P & iIYERS, a corporation, } and DOES I through Y, inclusive, ) ~ } Defendants. Petitioner, BARBARA PItirS, alleges: I Petitioner is a-esident of the City of Mission Viajo, County of Orange. State of California, and is the natural mothes of the four minor ci_?dren, MICFL3EL PINES, age 17; STEPt?EV PINES, age 15; WENDY PINES, age 10; and ANDREid PI\E5, age t7, all of whoLl reside at 26541 :Ii€SlosaLane, Mission Vejo, Californda; and that said ;,i3or5 have no general or test.ncentary -I-

104. That by reason of the foregoing decedent was damaged in the sum of FIVE HiTND3ED TH6iTSA.YD "($SOQ, pp0.00} AS AND FOR A T~,.iBTY-FOLi3T}I CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BATTEN, BARTON, DURSTINE & OSBC)Ei2Z INC. 105. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "4'°, "6" through "2fl^ , "18", "84", "88" and '°99^, inclusive of this complaiat with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 106. That by reason of the foregoing, decedentts widow and daughter were damaged in the sum of FIVE Hi}NBEED THIIUSAND ($50t3,000.Q0) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A'=fiI3:°:-2IiiH CAUSE OF ACTIOY ACulIYST BATTEN, BA,B.TDid, DURSTINE & OSBORN, INC. 107. Plaintiff re,?eats and realleges each and every allegation contained .n 9aran aphs "1", "4", "8H through "10", "14", '•94" and "99", inclusive of this complai force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. ame 108. That by virtue of defendant's plan as aforesaid to conceal facts and information from the public including decedent and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of and with indifference of the consequences to decedent's rights, health and safety and by making false statements and representations; the defendant by virtue of its liability in the 'PHIST°-FIRST" and "THIRTY-THIRD" Causes of Action, as hereinbefore set forth became liable to the decedent for punitive damages in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) ~ BOLLARS: - -„~ _ ES - CD L.T? ~ _.a CR

i smakin; and that said cigarettes did not contain dangeroua, tozic, or 2# esrcinogenious agents or substances. 30 23 DECEB£AT relied on the f . a orementloaod express wt arrany representations of the defendants, and each of them, in the pur,cLase of the respective cigarette products. - 61 24. Defendaats, and each of them, prior to October 26, 1971, reached said express warranties as atoremtnioaed by reason of the fact said cigarettes were, In fact, harmful and unsafe for human use and consumptioa by smoking, deleterious and dangerous ia that they did contain c properties. Said warranties were further breached in that I;l dedendants, and each of them, knew their position regardiag the safety and use of consumption by smoking and carcinogenic effects of cigarette smosing 1° t@as at com iete variance with the st i f d g va major ty o ine icai and scientific dge in the world, i'fl 25 B reason of L' i d d . y te prem ses aa as a irect and proximate 1a iR -suit of the bre ch f a id i f e a o a express warrant es as a oremention , , d ABEL D ontracted emphysema and carcinoma of the lung due to the use of tbe cigarettes of the MANUFACTUr"iPa70 defendants, and each of tbem, ri hi h i d i hi d h 1 resu w c te ¢ s eat on October 26 971 ,. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, plaintiffs were deprived of the society, care, aunport, Hvise, counsei, love, compaaionship, and affection of DECEDEI4T, and and father, all to their general daxage In the sum of Two .l`ullioa a an~uara Wt,vvv,vw.va). 2 30 27. `2 nst as a fur tner direct and prozimate result of the conduct ndants, and each of tSem, plaintiffs have incurred medicai, hospital related expec3es in an amount unknean to them at this time; plainttffs wi1l as'.t leave of C~urt to amend this Complaint setting forth such amounts ahen the samz become knawa. 28. That as a further direct and pro-imaterasuYt of the conduct of defendants, a nd each of t:em, plaintiffs have incur r ed funeral and buriai 32 ~ expenses In an asouct n:~nn-nn to then at this time: piaintiffs wiii asa _7_

YVII That ?s a furtl2eC direct and proXima.tc 1"C'tiiSiL` of _ tCie Y 5 conduct of the defendants, and each of them, as aforesaid, 4 plaintiffs, and each of them, have incu.rred expenses for funeral 5 and burial of plaintiffs' decedent, the exact amount of said 6 expenses unknocm at this time, and when said sum is ascertained, 7 plaintiffs will ask leave of court to amend thi4 Complaint to ip ii 3 include the true value thereof. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment against the defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1. For general damages in an amount to be ascertained; 2. For all funeral and burial expenses according to proof; 14 I~ 1 3. For costs of suit incurred herein; and 15 ~ 4. For such other and further relief as to this court may seem j=1st and proper. DATED: March 5, 1975. JOHN K. iRafTER, JR., Z ICQRFORAT:D By-l,cf ,-:~J6hn K, Trotter, Jr. ~ Attorneys for Plainti€€s S .o.v H. ix n-R. IJ Iv<7vvtiAiZ4 x• V1iVEf ~ 5zai.. an1. x.~ex~. se~o+ i 3_ - __ .

if.W CFFlGLS If JOHN K. TROTfER. JR.. I.ucoaaore.T-_a IzCO NCTT.Y .`.4AIN 5RLLS. SVITL 916 S.1NT.1 ANA. LALlFCRNlA 9-701 :LSNiton[ 5y7•3925 . E]3-56J1 d. ! ~~ .:aor ey tor P13i_ntiffs 8 9 s_o ;titSti:}:::6:LbSY Ftflt:•tLl\C>1'.lAROFL\')~ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 11'j MICHAEL PI4c5, a minor; 12 STEPt-E1 PINES, a minor; t1E'VI)Y PINES, a minor; and A IDREtJ PINES, a minor, by and through their Guardian ad Litem, Barbara Pines; and BARBARA PIiTdS, individually, Plaintiffs, ) PETITION AND ORDER FQR ) APPOINEi'tEi1t?' OF GL'ARU i Aid vs. ) AD LITENi } LT_GGETT & MYERS a cornoration ) I } 10 and DOES I through X, inclusive, S T72 19 ;~ Defendants. ) f1 20 : 2211 2J C1lifornia. -1- ) ) T he petition of MICHAEL PZ tES and STEPHEN PINIFS, minors, fully shows: I Petitioners MICHAEL ?INES and STEPfii I PINES are minors, over the age of 17 and 15 years, respectively, and reside with their mother, BARBARA PINES, at 255+1 Mimosa Lane, 2lission Viei o,co

1 2 3 III Plaintiffs P-ARSd2A PINES, individuall iZ That tlle filing of this action, plaiatif= - P,mA3A PINES was duly appointed by.the above entitled court and now is the Guardian ad Litem of plaintiffs :IZCFAEL pZVES, STEPHEN PINES, VcVDY PINES, and ANDREW PINES, minors. and MICHAEL PIi`cS, STEPEL"cN PINES, WENDY PINES, and ANDPO4 PIAj,:S, minors, all are the heirs-at-law of the decedent, ALAN PINES. That the true names and capacities, whether individual, 22;~ corporate, associate or otherwise, of the defendants DOES I 15~..througte X are unknow-n to plaintiffs who therefore sue said ?? ~ defendants by such ficitious names, and plaintiffs will seek I3 ~ leave of court to amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. V At all times herein aentioned, each of the defendar.ts was the agent, servant and empi.oyze of each of the rema.inIna defendants -a:ld, in doing the things herein alleged, was acting within the course, scene and purpose of said agency =_ezd employ- r;ent. eZ 2^_~ Plaintiffs are _.fforc=_d and beli're and upon sucn 25~ inFormation and beiier al?ege taat c1zfendant LZGGEiT & 2=RS, 20 ~ a corporation, is and at ail ti::ies herein mentioned :das a 27 ~ co_"7o=ati.on Cju'aZiFit'_~ to cZ-3_3e in 'i7LlSilless in l'i2s 5Cc'_te Gr 28:f Calat3rn~a. _1) -

i V Plaintiff alleges that defeadan,ts-, and each of them, did the things herein alleged as having been .performed by them, maIiciously, wilfully, and with less disregard of the rights or safety plaintiff. Plaintiff Is therefore entitled to and claims exemplary or punitive damages in an additional sum of Twenty Five Million Dollars ' ... 41 (S28, Q0Lt, 400. 00). , . W1ifiREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment: 21V 1. General damages In the sum of Twenty Five.Thousand BoSlars; - Exemplary or punitive damages [n the sum of Twenty Five Million 13ollars; 15 3. Special damages according to'proof;. 2G~ 4. Costs of suit;"and 5. Any further relief as this Court dee ms 3811 just and proper. BtPi'L13R, JEFFERSON & . A i'rosessiana2 Corporatio / t \ !k1t-.r I t "" By 0 ROBERT P, FRY Attorneys for Plain' ift-"-_. demands trial by }ur A professional Corpoc,atio • / 1J 1 ~litlk]3-:Y:1` I'. FR.Y ~ httorneys for PtaintitL._ BIJTLER,. JEFFERSON & FR

10 iajuries and damages. 42. By reason of the premises, and ay a direct and prozimate 30 result thereof, DECEDENT contracted emphysema and carcinoma of the , due to the use of the cigarettes of the ,1L4tii7F?.CTiSItING defendants, ana e 81 43. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants. d each of them, plaintiffs were deprived of the society, care, support, ' ~, connsef, fove, companionship, and affection of DECEDE;7T, 0 each of them, plaintiffs have incurred funeral and burial es in an amount unknown to them at this time; plaintiffs will ask 2ea're L Court to amend this Complaint setting forth such amounts when the same 15 wuen the same become known. will ask leave of Court to amend this Complaint setting forth such amounts 3 and related expenses in an amount unknown to them at this time; plaintiffs 11~ 44. That as a further direct and proximate result of the conduct 12 of defendants, and each of them, plaintiffs have Incurred medical, ho3pital husband and father, all to their Qenera2 damage in the snm of Two bfiilion Dollars ($2, 000, 000.06). ' 61 45. That as a further direct and proximate result of the conduct 3 , 2. For hospital and funeral expenses according to proof; 22 11 1. For gsnera2 damages in the sum of $2, 000, 000. 00; hecome known. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray fudgment: 3. For special damages according to proof; 251 4. For costs of suit herein, and 25 (~{ 5. For such other relief as to this Court seems just and proper. BUTLER, JEFFERSON & FRY Byis{ROB£x'ti P. 9RY ROBERT F. FRY Attoineys for Plaintiffs -10-

I - Defendants, and each_of them, prior to May 12, 2370, breached said warranties as aforesaid by reaso of the fact that the defendants, and each of them,- knew their position regarding the safety of use and consumption by smoking were causative itf carcino- genic effects and was at com plete variance with the ast majority of medical and scientific knowledge 0@ in the world. . . ~. ... . .. ...a... ...°~sr-::!:.. i tbe premises and as a direct and proximate result thereoi, Dorothy E. Nickloff, 0 plaintiff herein, contracted carcino m a of the lung 511 due to the ase of cigarettes of "defendants, and each of them, necessitating hospitaitaation, surgery and other treatment all to her general damage in 18 the sum of Twenty. Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00). 19 : . ; - ., .. :. 2.0 COUNT THREE ' - 21 E Plaintiff realiegesand tncorporates by referenc as though fully set forth herein Paragraphs I through 25~ the Second Count herein. 24 Yf of the First Count and Paragraphs € through"€S' of .II - • 0 32 The defendants, and each of them,•theIr agents, servants and employees, acting within the course and (X3 scope of empfayement, £aiselty, fradulently, and tQ dcceitfuliy withheld from the plaintiff herein matcria© facts as to the safeness of defendants aforesaid t}\ O ciagrettes and wilfully concealed the true state of ~ GO -A-

vs. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TNE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOOTN BEND DIVISION } ) ) Plaintiff ) } . _ ) BROWN & WILLIAMSOK . ) TOBACCO CORPORATION, ) Defendant -F~~ED JUL 2 6 1976 at F7LiNCSS 7. 6IiAt±Dy ~ S, DISLRfrr .....LLZFX CIVIL CAUSE f{fyAe/"2 COMPLAINT COMES i¢OW the Plaintiff, by counsel, and for first cause of action against the Defendant alleges and states: 1. That the Plaintiff is now, and was at all times relevant herein, a resident of the City of Elkhart, Indiana residing within the northern district of Indiana. 2. That the Defendant is a corporation, whose state of charter is unknown to this plaintiff, maintains principal offices in Louisville, Kentucky, and distributes its tobacco products and engages in advertising throughout the State of Indiana. 3. The Plaintiff, in approximately calendar year 1950, coamenced to smoke "Kool" straight menthol cigarettes, which product is manufactured by the Defendant herein. Since calendar year 1950, the Plaintiff has consumed approximately two (2) cartons of "Kool" cigarettes per week, smoking no other brand other than "Koo1" straight menthol cigarettes. 1 4. That approximately one year after Plaintiff commenced smokina said °Knol" civ_arr*r~c, Plain*_iff develops3 a;^sdica_ ition which persisted through and including the 20th day of February, 1976, which medical condition is characterized by itching, burning and bleeding rectal area. 5. That throughout said twenty-five S25) year period, Plaintiff has consulted with numerous physicians regarding said Cohen Decl. Exhibit Z

3 i B UTLER. JEFFERSON & FRY A Professional Corporation ROBERT P. FRY 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 914 Los Angeles, California 90017 i'_.... ' nVr^( f s[!ei l' $ ,Te2ephone: (2I3) 627-6041 ' €! ~s-ta+~PiainYii'f ..:.. .. _ ,.. -- - ,-.~ 6 . i`.' . g~ -THE'UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 133: vs. ' ' Pfaintiff 24 n. LIGGETT d h4YERS, INCORPORATED, L a Delware Corporation, BROWN & 1@i`; [VILLIANISON TOBACCO CC?RFiRATION, '~ a Delware Corporation, R. J. REYii'OLDS 16~; TOBACCO COMPANY, a New Jersey 171; INCORPORATEf?, a District of Columbia CL!'-'3`i.: fff?t:slds'j} at s.> . __~'~~..~?-....... . . Yth <:;.:N~_._._-....._._.»..~..,.Y_e. .u.. Corporation, and TOBACCO I'-`ISTIT€ITE, Corporation, . . CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA } } - - } COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGE: } } {PersonaiInjn~ry} } . . COUNT ONE tO1Y LY}ROTHY E. NILXL£JFF, and complains and defendant R, J. REYiYOLDSTOBACCO(SO2nIPANYwas and Is-a'© SJ1 ,, ey Corporat€on doing bus€ness within the State Cohen Decl. Exhibit X alleges as follows: I-, At all times herein, deSendant LIGGETT & hIYERS, ' INCORPORATED, was and Is a Delaware Corporation dotdg . business within the State of California with-in this OD 28f. District; defendant BRO1Vh'& VtILLIAn2SONTOBAC07 CORPORA- ~ 9~ TION was and is a Delaware Corporation doing business -'' 'j Q 0!: within the State of California within this District: ' 0%

IT The minors, A1T_CEfAEi. PIMS and STEPHGN PIY'.:5; have a' . cause of action against the defendants arising out of injuries received alleged to have been caused by the ne.,?.igance of the d4fendants. III BARBARA PINES, the mother of the minor plaintiffs, is a responsible person, qualified to become the Guardian ad Litem of the minor plaintiffs, and she consents, as appears hereafter, .to act as such Guardian ad Litem. No previous application has been made. , WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray that BARBXtA PINES be appointed as Guardian ad Litem of the minor plaintiffs, MICHAEL PINES and STEPHE.I PINES, for the purposes of this action. f . - ~c r Mic ae Pines, Petitioner ~ fJ ~ /. Steph(in Pines, Petitioner CONSENT I hereby consent to act as Guardian ad Litem for the minor plaintiffs, :I=G IH9EL PINES and 5T£PHEa PINES, in the above entitled action. Barbara Pines 00 ~ ~ 2sj warncc,or ~ c> K. Tcors=w.: E PT.R Nf s.,.>~ n...~. row~. o_-o liAtZ&ARA PINES is hereby appointed Guardian ad I_iten of CD

each the ultimate consumer in the condition in which said cigarettes were manufactured. That said 'Xoof cigarettes, manufactured by the Defendant ere consumed by the Plaintiff herein were, as designed and manufactured, unreasonably dangerous to the user thereof said cigarettes were consumed in a normal and ordinary 3. That the Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference 1 all of the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraphs 16 through 20 of pleading paragraph I herein. wttEREFOltE, Plaintiff prays for compensatory damages st the Defendant of One Hundred Fifty Thousand and no/100 ,000.D0) Dollars for the award of punitive damages of One THQRStHZtFG. MeGZ Hundred Thousand and no/100 ($100,000.00) Dollars and that the costs of this action be taxed against the Defendant. B CHESTER S PAULEN ax: H. Chester 317 W. Franklin Elkhart, Indiana 46514 Phone: 219/293-2565 Attorneys for Plaintiff

0 13. That during the period 1474 through January 19, 976, Plaintiff had submitted to numerous experiments of is treating physician regarding diet, nervous tension, etc., none of which changes in-diet, tempex3eent, or environment produced any relief whatsoever. ., 14. That on or about February 20, 1976, Plaintiff re- M; . f( called that the symptoms above described coincided essentially with that period in time when he commenced to smoke "Rool" F cigarettes, and he iaaaediately ceased to smoke.said brand of P ~ cigarettes. 15. That within twelve (12) hours after ceasing to smoke said cigarettes, Plaintiff's condition began to improve, e and within thirty (30) days his condition had cleared completely. ince that time, the rectal symptoms-above described and Plaintiff chest pains have disappeared. . 16- That the Plaintiff has been advised by his physician ~ that his condition was caused by a massive ingestion of menthol N through the "Kool" cigarettes over a period of time. Y 17. That the Defendant Brown s Williamson Tofiacco &~ Corporation, negligently and carelessly manufactured said "Kool" ~ cigarettes since calendar year 1950, combining dangerous quantities f a menthol substance with its tobacco product. 18. That by reason of the aforesaid allegations, the Plaintiff, has been damaged in the following particulars: he experienced great pain and sufferin3over a period of twenty-six (26) years, has submitted to three (3) severe surgical procedures within a twenty-four 124) month period of time, has incurred substantial medical and prescription expenses, and as lost substantial income from his business, all to Plaintiff te of One Aundred Fif=; Thousaud and noJ100 t$i50,00C.00y Dollars. 19_ Further, that the Defendant was aware of the dangerou; characteristics and nature of its product, to-wit "Kool" cigarettes, and willfully and wantonly continued to market said ptoduct without warning of the dangers inherent in said product. -3- C?c [%,:,I

20. That as a result of Defendant's willful and wanton misconduct, punitive damages in the sum of One Hundred Thousand and no/100 {$i00.000.001 Dollars should be awarded. 4iHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for compensatory damages against the Defendant of One Hundred Fifty Thousand and no/100 0 I 150,000.00) Dollars for the award of punitive damages of One ndred Thousand and no/200 ($100,000.00) Dollars and that the costs of this action be taxed against the Deftndant. II COtdES HOW the Plaintiff and for second cause of action against the Defendant alleges and states: 1. That the Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations heretofore set forth in rhetorical paragraphs 1 through 16 of pleading paragraph I above, each as if the same were fully stated herein. 2. That the Defendant expiressly warranted that its tobacco products were wholesome and fit for the purposes for which they were sold, whereas in fact said tobacco product was unreasonably dangerous to the health of those who consumed said product. 3. That the Plaintiff was in privity of contract with the Defendant and was injured as a result of consuming said tobacco products. - . 4. That the Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraphs 18 through 20 of pleading paragraph I herein. . WHEREFOBE, Plaintiff prays for compensatory damages nst the Defendant of One Hundred Fifty Thousand and no/10Q '($1s0,000.0Dt Dollars for the award of punitive damages of One Hundred Thousand and no/100 ($100,000.00) Dollars and that the costs of this action be taxed against the Defendant. -4-

LAYf OF>i<v Di JOHN IC, TROTTER. JR• i.ucOxvaa+ssa f200 Npeis M`n SiwGLT. SulTS 916 SANTA ANA• <ALlFORNIA 12701 TcLLOraosi 53]-926 - YDS-Sn33 .1 a 6 81 91 rl.coraey :or Plaintiffs ~ dC t~._ .£LO W:Ta l:LaL n:.\a? Oyt?~ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STeSTE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE ) !I ;j :3ICI{? :L PINES, a minor; 1 5 STEP:"i:}7 PINES, a r..inor; ) t•,`ENDY PINES, a ninor; and } AsiDR£T•d PsMES, a minor, ) by and through their ) Guardian ad Litem, Barbara ) Pines; and BA;RBARA PINES, ) individually, } ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ~ ) LIGGETT & ~,!Y£RS, a corporation, and DOES I through Y} inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) CO>•?PLaIDdT FOR WRONGFUL DEATH 21 i# COi £ NCW THE PL•AIN_IF:'S, AND FOR A C AJSE OF ACTION 2 B A Ai-:ST THE DF_rr D1:a:5 AND IAG4 OF aL EG AS i LLGYiS: I P1a:ntiz`s 3A3ix+IRA PC\i:S, and `"4Ii,N-ASL PINES, a minc 5-`•7~!lEN, '?-N~~ J~ a Ri.2Q=i :•i::':i•1 ?iN:_J, a ai,lOr; and AZIM Ri:W PiNL.S~ a minor, by and through their V'?ard2aii ad LiLe^1y Barbara Pines, i;alifo:nia. ar~- =csidznt,; of the {'cu,cy oE Gran~,e, St~to of -L` Cohen Deci. Exhibit Y

XIT_I Plaintiffs are informed and believe and up J ~ o ~l 6 7 8 10 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 '3 j 2__ 25 26 27 28 l f +~cc.~wn.aca v ~ v :Tn[3f! ~u~i_ rsa ~'y information and belief allege that'aftez plaintiffs' decedent , began to smoke the above described ciga=_-ette products, manufactu_= tested, inspected and sold by the defendants, and each of them, ~ plaintiffs` decedent was unable to voluntarily stop said smoking ~ ! and consuming said products, and did continue to smo!:e and consume said cigarette products until the time of his death on iiarch 9, 1974. XZV That the defendants, and each of them, did fail to warn members of the general public of which plaintiffs' decedent was one, of the potential risk of death if described products were used in the manner defendants, and each of them. XV defendants' above as intended by the That on or about ?iarch 4, 1974, plaintiffs' decedent did die as a proximate result of the dangerous and defective products as hereinbefore described as bein- manufactured, tested, i::saected and sold by the defendants, and each of them. XVI That as a proxi_=_te result of the defective and dangerous and harmful products, as hereinbefore described, and as a further proximate result of the conduct of the def~nd'1nts, a7d each of them, plaintiffs, and each of thzm, have been deprived of the care, comfort, society, protection, support and 3•crvices of said plaintif*s' decedent, ALA\ PINES, all to their 00 N z general e3ama-`s in the sua of TWO IMI.~.LION ($2,000,000.00) GOLL-`=4c: CD a- ! 01

0 III COMES NOW the Plaintiff and for third cause of action ~ against the Defendant alleges and states_ 1. That the Plaintiff incorporates herein by referenc < all of the allegations heretofore set forth in rhetorical paragraphs I through 16 of pleading paragraph Iabove, each as•if the same were fully stated herein. 2. That the Defendant impliedly warranted that its °Kool" straight menthol cigarettes were of a merchantible quality and fit, safe and in a proper condition for the intended use, but in fact said ^KOO1" straight menthol cigarettes purchased by Plaintiff were unmerchantible, unfit, unsafe and improper for its intended purpose. 3. That the Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraphs 18 through 20 of pleading paragraph I herein. - WH£R£FORE, Plaintiff prays for compensatory damages against the Defendant of One Hundred Fifty Thousand and nojlo0 ($150,000.00) Dollars for the award of punitive damages of One Hundred Thousand and noj1d30 8100,000.007 Dollars and that the costs of this action be taxed against the Defendant. i ' IV COMES ROW the Plaintiff and for fourth cause of action against the Defendant alleges and states: 1. That the Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations heretofore set forth in rhetorical paragraphs I through 16 of pleading paragraph I above, each as if the same were fully stated herein. 2. Tcat the Defendant designed by way of blending certain types of tobacco with certain menthol substances the "Xool" cigarettes hereinabove described, and furnished the same to numerous distributors for ultimate sale to consumers in the state of Indiana, one of which ultimate consumer was the Plaintiff herein, and said Defendant expected its tobacco products to _5_ ~

0 STATE 4F i(EW Y4RK : COUNTY 6F Yfiid YORK) HORACE G. HZTCH£G£R, being duly sxarn, deposes ad says: That he is attorney for Gordon W. Bickert, Janet C. Hrorrn, Richard W. Collins, Melvin 0. Goodman and JaEuti P. Stearns, the parties xtso have signe3 the foregoing Cartifi- cat• of Incorporation; chat to the best of his knosrtedge and balief. no previous sppiicasion for incorporation of The Tobacco Irsstitute, Inc. has heretofore been made by said i,neorgerators or any of thaa_ s! Horace G. Hitchcack Subscribed and sworn to before ms this 27th day of January I458 s/ John HroY3tinQ ~t4Lisy P{i .L Ic JoM 8RCWN ING x4TAAY FUBLtC, State of Yaw York No. 24•0462003 Qualiliad in Yiags County Cert. filad with Hax York County Ctark Coatmission expires March 30, 1955 {Seal}

0 Narsa Res idences J. 'w2iizney ?eterson Laccheus Mead Lane Greenwich, Conn. Hilliasn T. Rcstd, Jr. Sahat tiill Farm Sabot, Va. Stephan C, Stephano 73fl5 North 12th Stieet Melrese Park Philadelphia 25, Pa. 7. All o£ the subscribers to this certificate are of full aga: at least tuo-thirds of them are citizens of the United States; at least ahe at tttem is a residestt of the State of NeW York: and at least one of the persons named as directars is a citizen of the United 5t,xtes and a resi- deat of the State of Nest York. LY WI7YES5 WHERE4F, we havs made, sigaed and a=- knaxledged this cartiEicase. - t7ated this Z7th day of January, 1953. s/ Gcrdon W- Bzckert arao, s ic ert s! Ja et C. Hro~rri anet . ra~n s/ Richard Yt. Collins ICAir . 8 11L3 fn 4. Goadmaa s/ 4111 Mvin oa aan { Ja_hn P. St$arns a n P. ~zearan

- 5 - 10. In my review of the Liggett documents that are the subject of this Court's Memorandum Decision and Order of October 15, 1997, I have found numerous documents that were prepared by Covington & Burling for TI's Committee of Counsel. These documents were transmitted to the committee members in their capacity as members of the TI committee and as clients of Covington & Burl%ng. Liggett does not have the right to waive any privilege attaching to TI documents that are in Liggett's possession solely through the participation of various Liggett lawyers on the Committee of Counsel. Such documents are protected by the plain language of K.S.A. 50-426(a)(3), because they came to the knowledge of Liggett in the course of transmittal between Covington & Burling and its client TI. 11. In short, each and every privileged document prepared by or transmitted to Covington & Burling that is found in the Liggett documents that are the subject of this Court's Memorandum Decision and Order of October 15, 1997, is entitled to protection under the joint-client doctrine andJor the plain language of K.S.A. SO-.i2b(a)(3). These documents were either created in connection with Covington & Burling's joint representation of multiple tobacco companies, or are TI documents that came to be in Liggett's possession through its participation on TI's Committee of Counsel.

-2- 3. The cerritory fn which the aperations of the eorpor=tion uill principally be conductad is the City of avaar York and the Distriat of Golumbia. ¢. The principal office of the corporation York shail be Loc2ced in the City of New York, County Nex York and State of Nau York. 5. The nenzber of directors shall be aoe yess than 3 ctor more than ZS. 6. 'Ihe names and residence addresses of the persoas constituting the Board of Directors until the first annuai eeetr.n; of the corporation are: Nsmes Martia 3. Condon Cullman, 3rd Senjamia F. Few Psnos B. Georgopulo Bowman Gray Lewis Gruber Paul M. Hahn ' Emery M. Lewis Joseph P. MeCauley Residenc:s $DS S+reetbrier Read Meatphis, Tennessee Sleepy Hollow Road $riarcliff Manor, N. Y. 665 Sasco Hill ttoad Southport, Conn. 360 Riverside Drive New York 25, N. Y. 8rookberry Farm R. F. 0. 3 Wistston-SaZeat, ?t. C. 470 West End Rvenue New York Z5, N. Y. 14 East SSth Street Nev York ZI. N. Y. 5044 Dunvegan Road Lauisvi3le,.Ky- Z22 Munro 4oulovard Valley Scream, L.I, N. Y.

he costs and disbursements of this action. SPETSER, SHUwATE, GEG^HAYt $A Attorneys for Plaintiff Office and P.O. Address 200 Park Avenue Kew York, Hex York Co ~

dants COUNCIL and I:iSTITLT&, was calculated to, and did in fact, induce and lead the public, including plaintiff FINE, to ieve that said advertisements and the claims, pronouncements and statements tnerein contained, were sanctioned by the commun- icatioi.a and press s4edil over uhose stations and in whone page, said advertisements were presented, and also sanctioned by the United States Goverament. } 20. That the defendant PHILIP MQIi&IS, aided and abetted~ e other defendants in thi5 r.omniaint, has saent. on infor- acation and beliet, .t::ring a calendar year, the sum of approtii- mately One Hundred Fifty Million (SI50,000,000.00) Dollars in advertising cigarettes. That, upon information and belief, de- fendant PHILIP MORRIS has spent very much smaller amounts of ney for medical and scientific investigations into the ef- I fects of smoking in general, and cigarette smoking in particularl upon human health and upon the various organs, portions and ~ tracts of the body. 21. That, upon information and belief, the volume of sales of defendant PHILIP MORRIS' brands of cigarettes was due to, or at least greatly enhanced by,the aforesaid constant and massive advertising practices engaged in by defendant PHILIP S and the other defendants herein. That during the year 1962, some siaty-three million (63,000,000) persons in the United States smoked cigarettes, and that retail sales of cigar- ettes, in the United States during said year, totalled Seven ~ Billion ($7,000,000,000.00) Dollars. 22. That said canstaht and massive advertising prac- tices relating to cigarettes, as aforesaid, especially those advertisements and telecommunications commercia2s of an inac- curate and misleading nature, as hereinafter described in more detail, contributed directly to the large number of persons smoking tobacco, particularly cigarettes, in the United States, OJ I~3 5- C:) C.T"t CY7 V

and caused injury and damages proximately thereby to the p}aintiff, as herein alleged. State of California. III Plaintiff is informed amd believes, and based thereon alleges, that defendant APiERICAN TOBACCO CO.,ia a corporation transacting business in the State of California. IV Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that defendants First Doe to One Hundredth Doe, and each of them, are residents and citizens of the County of Los Angeles, V At all times herein mentioned each of the defendants nt and employee of each of the remaining defendants, and all times acting within the purpose and scope of said agency 21 22 230 VI Plaintiff is the widow and ADRIENNE MORRISON, the anc ewploysaen daughter of VIRGIL MONEY, deceased, are the sole heirs at law of VIRGIL MONEY, deceased. Plaintiff,EFFIE MONEY, is a resident and a citizan of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. ADRIENNE MORRISOPI is a nominal defendant and a necessary party to be considered in the event of plaintiff's award and is named herein . No award is requested against her. ..t all times herein mentioned defendant At'ie'RICAN TQ- 271~ BACCO G0. was, and now is, engaged in the business of manufacturing 28 (((, producing, distributing, selling and purveying tobacco products, including cigarettes. VZZI At all times herein mentioned, defendant, AKEEtICAN TOBACCO CO. was, and now is, manufacturing and marketing itg _p_

and to social approval of tobacco smoking. 23. That a leading tobacco industrialist, who is also, one of the originators of American cigarette adveitisements and a.iver.sir.e, has c.c.'!.cd t_.., be+-the _ca_,,,. - _^r the existence of the cigarette business and indus.try in the 21 uniteli States. ~ 24. That the Assistant United States Surgeon Genera2, j in 1964, advised t..e Federal Trade Comnission that advert;s:ns: mation and belief, during the period of their existence by the E defendants COUNCIL and INSTITUTE, has engaged in an extended and ~ active practice of advertising its brands of cigarettes to teenagers through the medium of college newspaper advertisements even though said practice has long been condemned by responsible persons and.groups in this country. 26. That the defendant PHILIP MORRIS, together with the defendant BURNETT, sought to induce thousands of American girls of college age, enrolled in the various universities and col- leges in the United States, to smoke its brands of cigarettes, through the scheme or device of awarding prizes to those Ameri- can university and college sororities which consumed the largest amounts of its said cigarettes during a set period of time. That such scheme or device has been condemned by responsible persons and groups in the United States, which defendants PHILIpI plaintiff FINE, to start smoking and then to continue to smoke. 25. That defendant PHILIP bf6RRIS, aided and abetted by the defendants BURNETT and HILL & KNOWLTON, and, upon infor- : is o^o ^f the z^ft_eaces ahich has caused the pub, c, ad BURNETT knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care the defendant BURNETT, has advertised and, upon information and ' wn. 27. That the defendant PHILIP MORRIS, together with , under the circumstances then and there existing should have continues to advertise, brands of cigarettes in univer- -6- 's" nnrtl~B `~u'

11 surgeons to examine, treat and care for the said VIRGIL MOKEY, 2 deceased, and was required to, and did, arrange funeral and burial f the said VIRGIL MONEY, deceased, and did thereby incur medical, 4 funeral and incidental expense. The exact amount of such expense 8 is untcnown to plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff will ask leave of urt 'c amend this complaint to set forth the exact amount there- en the same has been ascertained. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION ' BN - XVII Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates herein 10 by re-'erence each and every allegation of Paragraphs I, Ii, III, IV, V, VI, YII, VIII, IX and X hereinabove set forth. XVIII 14 11 By reason of the conduct of the defendants AME&ICA33 3ACG0 COMPANY, First Doe through Twentieth Doe, and each of them, as a€oresaid, including but not limited to, the advertising of the 14 said products by means of national magazines, periodicals, radio, 1s television, billboards, posters, point-of-sale advertsing, and advertising means, defendants, and each of them, warranted` ~ 20 to the general public, including VIRGIL MONEY, deceased, that the 23 said products which were intended for human use and consumption 2 were safe for such use and consumption and did not contain danger- 3 our, toxic, or carcinogenous agents and substances. I 24 XIX ~ Defendants AMERICAN TOBACCO Co., First Doe through entieth Doe, and each of them, breached the aforesaid warranties 7~1 in that they purveyed the said products at a time when they in fact ous, toxic, and carcinogenous agents and substances 281 which were inherent2y`dangerous to human life and which made the ' products unfit for their intended use and unfit for human .. onsumption. -5-

-2- Dukc, at at. v. R.I. Reynclds, lnc., et al., I'to. D122149 (Dist. Ct. Iefferson County, Tex. ftled June 12. 19d5). BufI#tr v. LiggerF Graup. Itrr., er rst., No. 85-254b (D.C. btasa. fiied Juae 19. 1985). Lirestomh, er ak v. American Tobacco Co., et aL. No. D-122197 (Disc. Ct. Jefferson County, Tax. filod June 20, 19E5). He3s v. PJtftrp hiorris: Inc., et at., No_ 55-3271 (D.C.Mass- fited Aug. 22, 1985). Dircte v. Rl. Reqnal6s, Inc., et at., No. 13-122513 (Disc, Ct. 3efferson County, Taz, EIW Aug. 29, 198s}. F.dwards, et aL v. R.J. Reynatdr. Inc.. er at., No. 8-122617 {Cir. Ct. lafferson Couay, Tc.xL lIled Aug. 29. 1985). Fautldnbury v. Braxn & Wetitcrosan Tobacco Corp.. er rsL. No. 83 5dtSli (D's$c CL Fiuzis Caunty, Tex. fskd Segt. 27. 1985). Rtavis v, RI. Reytrvlds, hsdtrs., fnc., er at. No. 1103 (Cle Ct. Union Coeuup, Tam tlted Oct. 3. 1985}. Cahaltero. et aL v. Fhitip Marris, Irtc. u at., No. 13,20 (Dist. Ct. Duvs! County, Tex. ita3 Qcs. 7, 193.5). #lertihp, er aL v. R.I. Reptrctds. Inm, er ai.. No. 85-3888-MA (D.C. Mass. ftted Oct. 13, 1955}. Manrr, u aE. v. Phittp Morris, lsc.. u aL. No, 85-17812 (Disc. Cr. Harrit County, Tea. filod 4ct. 28; 1955). 'tlips v. RI. Rqn.rlds, Indw:, tru:, et e1., No. L-3783 (Cir. Cc. Biouat Coan€y: 'Fena. #ikd Ca. 21, 1985). Carfiste, ns aL v Philip Morrts. Int, et at., No. 387.233 (Di.c. Ct. Travis County, TexL fsIed Oct. 21. 1455}. Boaniglit v. Phi13p Monis, Inc., er nt., No. 387.233 {Bisc. Ct. Travis Ccunty, Tez. fled Ott. 21, 1985). G7over. er aL v. Phitip bforri,r, Inc., er ai., No. 85-58293 (Dlst. Ct. }IaTu County. Tex= tiltd Ckt. 22. 1985).

-uardian. II 0 16 21 22 8 ; 23 w K. o' .. n:`~3. Q` ~ v 3A.. ~ JxSY.:~4Ma~iSJ OlTH ST.Z{LT! •/IT_ wll j $n V iA Ax 4. t7f NBY PINES and ANDREW PINES, ages 10 and 5, respective_ have a cause of action against the defendants upon which their best interests require that they bring an action in this court for damages for the wrongful death of their father, ALAN PINES. III petitioner is a competent and responsible person, qualified to act as the Guardian of said minors in this action; that no previous application for an appointment of Guardian ad Lite:n has been made. WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that she be appointed Guardian ad Litem for said minors, G7ENDY PINES and ANDREW PINES, to prosecute such action on their behalf. 'f3AttBAi2A PINES, PETITIONER 0 R D E R BARBARA PINES is hereby appointed Guardian ad Litem of :dENDY PINES and Ay'DRD+1 PINES, minor plaintiffs herein. DAT,:D a 17 t erior Co d the SL ~* J ~e o p u

cicarcctcs would not hara or i::itatc the hw-an tlmoati that the ars3ldnu of ci„arctteo would not leavo any uyp2eaaant aftcr ' offcctaT that the au.okina of ci.£arettcs Naa aaathinD to ths huaan ncrvous aystom; that the saoking of aiCarattca waa co,.fortina to the hur.an norvouo cystsa< IIS That as a cntter o£ fact _zid cigarattco s`r all `_..±s hcrein eontioned contained unfio3ecoRat dalatariaus, irritatinyr and haruful incredienta{ that defendanta fuil wa11 knerd thiaT thst by reaaon of the preaisost plaintiff waa aausad and did auffar the injuriea alle£ed in parofranh XII of pinintiff's firat cauea of actian. Plaintiff ocokod ciEarattea for the aforor..ontionad pariod of ti3o, Snduccd by the srarrantics c:ade by said defandants and relying upon dcfcndnnto' akil2 and Judoiont. V Prior to filina this toonp]aint, plaintiff gave written notice of ouch breach of varranty/defendanta. u'FM?EFt'R£t plaintiff prays judGmont aCainat defendants and each of thrna as folirnrcl 1. ;300,=.CO general dacw£ca. 2. SpeciaS dacai„oa as alleged harein, 3, Eaomp2ary and gunitiva daccCes in the avm of ,',3rtKrfi~06o.00. 4. For costs of suit: 3. For ether aeot raliof. .'iR2AI. DY J€RiY ZS DEF:AHDED HY PT.AIN2IFF. J9SF 26 i)i1. C, ?.'. Ca13r..-ath, Clark t'ELVZTt i!. D&LT.S VASZLIR] B. CFIDUVII DEtNT'a C. PM&1iT;.1f CABULIT78. D. iirFc£ Dp '6 Yin t* Be1_U a•rav~ i-. ULl.1•1

0 1~ and wilfully failed, refused ind neglected to warn the general public, including VIRGIL MONEY, deceased, of the said inherently dangerous nature of the.said products. XLI The said VIRGIL MONBY, deceated, purchased the said 3rorncts over a period of years, and consumed the said products _n the manner in which they were intended by defendants to be con- aH sumed, to wit: by inhaling the vapors given off 'sy the said prod- ucts sncen-ignited. 104{ %II1 0 tionate husband to plaintiff and had provided support and mainten- 19b2. XIV At the time of his said death, the said VIRGIL MONEY, contract cancer, which said cancer caused his death on November" As a proximate result of the said conduct of the de- fendants, and each of them, and of the use in the intended manner of the said products as aforesaid by the said VIRGIL MONEY, de- ceased, the said VIRGIL H€kiBY, deceased, was caused to, and did, 1@11 deceased, was, and for a long time prior thereto had been an affec- o plaintiff. XV By reason of the said death of VIRGIL MONEY, deceased, as aforesaid, plaintiff has been deprived of her husband's comfort society, protection, guidance, support and maintenance to the grea loss and damage of plaintiff in the sum of.Two Hundred Fifty Thou- sand Dollars {$250,000.40}. XVI As a further proximate result of the said death of deceased, and the fatal disease which he contracted 31 33 as a proximate result of the defendant`s wrongful conduct as aforl said, plaintiff was required to, and did, employ physicians and -4-

xx As a proximate result of the said breaches of warran the said VIRGIL MONEY was caused to, and did, contract cancer Wh- caused his death on November 6, 1962. X]tI At the time of his said death, the said VIRGIL Mt3NEY, deceased, was, and for a long time prior thereto, had been an aff tionate husband to plaintiff and had provided support and mainte- nance to plaintiff. XXII By reason of the said death of PIRGZL MONEY, deceased, as aforesaid, plaintiff has been deprived of her husband's comfort society, protection, guidance, support and maintenance to the gre~ loss and damage of plaintiff in the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thou- sand Dollars ($256,0fl4.49). XXIII As a further-proximate result of the said death of VIRGIL MONEY, deceased, and tha fatal disease which he contracted as a proximate result of the defendants' wrongful conduct as afore- said, plaintiff was required to, and did, employ physicians and surgeons to examine, treat and care for the said VIRGIL 2,6REY, ased, and was required to, and did, arrange funeral and burial 24 of the said VIRGIL MONEY, deceased, and did thereby incur medical, funeral and incidental expense. The exact amount of such expense ~_s unknown to plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff will ask leave of court to amend this complaint to set forth the exact amount thereof when the same bad been ascertained. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION. ~3 XXIV ~ Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates herein CD tS7 eference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs.I, ~ ~ , IV, V, VI, X, XL, XII, XIII, XIV, XV and XYI. . 0% -6-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SWTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI JACKSON DIVISION NO. 3004 MRS. EVA MAE 1tILSINSON JOHNSON; .• JULIUS NICHOLAS JOENSON; MRS. NONZZ€ JOHNSON #NDSPETI{- CLYDE EARL JOBNSON A MINOR BY B& %T OF FRIEND NATURXL GUARDIA{i, MRS. EVA MAE WILiIit§UN JOBN- SON HIS MOTHER; AND MISS GARY #LiRCELLE JOtijd50N, A MINOR, BY HER NEXT OF FRIEND NATURAL GUARDIAN M4tS. EVA MAE VILLINSOk JOHNSON, HER M02ftk PLAINTIFFS V5. BROWN & IPLLLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION; R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COA4'ANY~ TH€ AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY; PRILLIP MORRIS, INCORPORATED; AND P. LORILLARD COMPANY DEFENDANTS Comes now Xrs. Eva Mae Wilkinson Johnson; Julius Nicholas Johnson; Mrs. Wonzie Johnson Hudspeth; Clyde Earl Johnson, a minor, by his next of friend, natural guardian, Mrs. Eva Mae Witkin: Johnson, his mother; and Miss Gary Marcelle Johnson, a minor, by her next of friend, natural guardian, Mrs. Eva Mae Wilkin- son Johnson, her mother; and files this their cause of action against the herein named defendants and with respect shows un to the Court the following facts, to-wit: (I) That the plaintiffs are all resident citizens of Pike County, Mississippi. That your plaintiff, Mrs. Eva Mae Wil- kinson Johnson, was the wife of the late Nicholas E. Johnson and the other plaintiffs herein were the children of the late Nicholas £. Johnson and plaintiff, Mrs. Eva Mae Wilkinson Johnson. That the plaintiffs herein are the sole and only heirs at law of the late Nicholas €. Johnson. (2) That defendant Brown 8 WiI?iasson Tobacco Corporation, is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the law of the State of Kentucky, domiciled at Louisville therein, en- gaged in and doing business in the State of Mississippi. That the said corporation has not been authorized to do business in Mississippi, b_1 is actualtv doing business in this state

x av 1,4 3ceat Souievsu -<sng .. liLOIT id gQ$UL 9 al " S r. . . -o Tor ¢'-intiff 'F ~ I, . <iw5" L4 >- . -._I@FE MO&RZSOii; FIicS )? . _..JREDTH DOE, Inclusive,) CO1.n3r. ,8 TP3 BTtn'iE C^i' CALSFQ&.~Ti : -M :':r_ .^.c'._'YTY OF LOS ?.\vrM-. N 7 X,.. SO~ _36i SECfRi`il s4~,i.$f}'r::. CQMPLAZP.`T .a:.;CO CQ., a cor;wra~_an ; } _..•.i TOBACCO CO., a cor- j Defendants. .. 3'ainti€f alleges: 19 FIRST CAtISE OF ACTION :v 21 Z The =r=e names or capacities, czk:~ther inc: ide:.', ;c-- 22 .•ate, assoc:ats or otherwise, ai defe^-ar : First ilt- thrc.c ;r Y~_ 2., 29° "-:e '_%~-idred-'-. Doe, inc.usive, are .:nkno.rr. to plaintif,:, whc io.e . rs said dafer=dants t, such of corn:•-. .o amerc: shis .. 1a'_nt _ s.:. .... t. e: .. CI1E zE.: ...ats uaen the sa:.. .iawe :.~.n as:.._ _n. I1 28~ p1 .._iff is informed and believes, and t_..:d .. 39 i=Egss, tiia:: . sah of cne defenc. ncs ,3.esiznat~6 herei.. by a`_ __ _~. ~ ' ~ 30 -itious came ;- a manufacttrer, .:oeuce-. _,%~iesaler, distriour !Ss 32 retailer, or other purveyor of t: .acco pro4~cts. and 's respons.~ _a sorze manner for the events and happenin~,a c.:_ei: a_r°rre; _, ,N? Cohen Decl. Exhibit L

163. That as a direct and proximate result of his said reliance on said misrepresentations and•as a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the defendant its aforesaid directors and members, to keep him in decedent was injured and damaged as hereinabove in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND,($500,008.40) AS AND FOR A FIFTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH - U.S.A. 164. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every gatioh contained in paragraphs "1", "2'•, "1Q•" , "11", "16^, through "I52" and "162", inclusive of this complaint with effect as if specifically set forth bereat. 165. That as a direct and proximate result of his said on said misrepresentations and as a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions -of the defendant COUNCIL, its aforesaid directors and members, to keep him in ignorance, decedent's widow and daughter were damaged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A FIFTY-THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEAECf1 °- U.S.A. 166. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "I^, "2", „10^, "I1°, <'14•>, and ^148" through ^152", inclusive,'of t6is compiaint ivith tiie force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 167. That the defendant COUNCIL, over the years, in its position as research arm of and spokesman for the tobacco in- dustry, supplied advice, furnished reports, and criticized and Ci7 -35- !\3 C:) Ul \0 f~.3 ~

V1I That at all times mentioned herein, dafendants LZu,^~.*_"_r-r & iEYERS', a corporation, and DOES I through V, and each of then, tiare engaged in ihe business of manufacturing, fabricating, 511 1 selling, inspecting, packing, and delivering tobacco products 61 1 including cigarettes for use by the members o2the oene-aiL 9 public. VIZI Plaintiffs are informed and believe and upon such ?Q lI =2 t i information and belief allege that the defendants, and each of then, intended that the hereinbefore described tobacco products, including cigarettes, were to be used for the puroosz of uublic 13 consLmption in that said cigarettes were to be smoked by '„embers 15 of the general public and the smoke was to be inhaled into the lungs of the members of the general pub2ic, and the defendants, lo 1s and each of them, further knew that each and every said cigarette would be consumed in the manner stated above. LX ig Plaintiffs.are informed and believe and upon such information and belief allege that the defendants, and each of them, knew that the above described tobacco products, including 44 ( cioarettes, would be purc'rt3sed by the members of the oeneral 25 j~ 3ublic and used thereafter without inspection for defects 21 i, iherein. 11 X Plaintiffs allege that the plaintiffs' decedent, ALAN Pj1:Es, LRrouoi}ollt the course of his Lifetime, smoke tobacco ?=Jd1ccs-,~ incLL'di::o c l°ar2c:.es fiiailtifc2ctu,"_2d by the. defendants, -3-

daughter were damaged in -~he sum of FIVE HUNDRED Tg9t,S3.\'D :$at}O,G0G.00} DO'..:.nnS. 33 n\7 :.^.a A C.>.isZ08 ACTIDI AGAI\ST 3iT*,wV, B;?.':04, DLaSTISE & 4S80E\ IP:C 98. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and evgry - allegation contained in paragraphs;'1","4", "6" through ^10°, `15^, "SO" t,.rough "S4", inclusive of this complaint with the saae force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 99. That dese.:danc 3A^'St, BiRTO\, DGe2S;I,~-4 & OSBOdN, cor?oratioa doi:.g 'o-.:siness in the State of fiew York 100. That by reason of the foregoing decedent was " damased in the sum of 9IVa SUl'DR£D THOUSAND ($500,004.00) ~ ~ DDL..ARS while alive. AS A'n`[J FOR A TRI3^`_'-SsCOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BATTEN, BARTON, 3S!?STR€£ & OSBORN, INC.. 101. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in parao aphs "1^, "4^, "6° througb "10°, and "&9" "18", "80" through ^84"l, inclusive of this complaint with the saae force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 102. That by reason of the foregoing, decedent'ss widow and daughter arere,danaoed in the sum of FIVE RI7NDRED u°S1.1'D ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A TBIRTY-^aHIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BA.21£l, BARTON, DL'aSTI\z A QSBORY, INC. 103. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs •'1", "4", "6" through "10", "14", "84", "S9" and '•59", inclusive of this complaint with the saae force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. _21_

158. That as a result af all of the aforesaid the 0 has been damaged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED Tg0u8A2ity ($500,000.00) DOLP,AItS. AS AND FOR A FIFTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH - II.S.A. . 159. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every. allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "2°, "10", "F1", "18", and "148" through "187", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat, 160. That as a result of all of the aforesaid the plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FOR A FIF;Y-r'IEST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE COMACIL FOE TOBACCO RESEARCH - U.S.A. 161. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1°, "2", "10°, '.'Zi", '°14", and "148" through "152", inclusive of this complaint srepresentations, and was deceived thereby. eceiving plaintiff who relied at least in part upon these the public including decedent! true state of knowledge about carcinogenic properties of cigarettes for the purpose of against COUNCIL, intentionally and negligently misrepresented the eviously alleged in the "FO'-RTY-NIi7TH° Cause of Action and effect as if specifically set forth here 162. ?hat the defendant COUNCIL, its aforesaid directors and members, prepared and had published statements which, as 07 - 34 _ J3 -~a CD ~fl ND Co

and each of them, and that said smoking habit c:cisted i=rom approsiuately, 1950 1up through and including th~R time of-th=" 3 { plaintiffs' decedent's death on March 9, 1974; that p1ainti:fs' 4 decedent did smoke habitually a certain type of c3narette known 5 as Chesterfield Kings which said cigarette was manufactured, . 6 inspected, tested, shipped and sold by the defendants, and each 7 of them. 8 YZ 9 Plaintiffs allege that at all times mentioned herein and during the iifeti,~ne of the plaintiffs' decedent, and during 11 the time that plaintiffs' decedent did purchase the above 12 mentioned cigarette products that were manufactured, tested, 13 -a lj i _fl sold and inspected by the defendants, and each of them, said cigarette products were defective and unsafe for use in its intended manner by members of the general public in that,said cigarette product was defective and harmful to the health and 17 safety of the members of the general public when said product 18 was used as intended by the defendants, and each of them, in that said cigarette product did and was [cnow-n to cause serious 201 illness of the Zung and respiratory tract including but not ~ 21 limited to carcinoma. 22 ~ xii ~ 281 Plaintiffs are in=ormed and believe and upon such !!! + 24 ! inrormation and beliei allege that plaintif=s' Gecedent neittler 2.5 ~ ~ knew nor had reason to Lcnow at any time prior to his first 26i s-ok:ing the cigarette product in question in approximately 1950 27~ ~ ths e_cistence of any said defect or dangerous propensity of <"3 s.c:d prod.ct. =ORIT_ 1] u..u SSIIEET~ i -+-

luted reports of others in conscious, wilful and wanton, or :,ut rather, by artifices, stratagems and devices as previously " alleged herein, contrived to conceal such facts and circumstances ecedent of said carcinogenic propensities of said products, made no attempt to apprise or inform the public including reckless, disregard ofhealth, safety and weil being ot the public including decedent, since it knew, or should have known, that the aforesaid cigarette products were, or probably were, carcinogenic; and yet, with indifference to its obligatipns as one preparing public statements abosst products for human . consumption and to the consequences of its acts or omissions, public including decedent. 9 decedent, and to proceed in wilful.and wanton disregard of, 168. That by virtue of defendant COUNCIL's plan and sign, as aforesaid, so to mislead the smoking public including ic including decedent that related to cigarette products the concealing of information of importance to the smoking and with indifference to the consequences upon, decedent's rights, health and safety, and in the making of false statements for human consumption, and by virtue of liability for amages in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) BOLLARS. Causes of Action "FO ATY-NIYTR" and "€IFTY-FIRST", defendant COUNCILhas become liable to decedent while alive for punitive AS AND FQR A FIF't`Y-FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH - II.S.A. 169. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "2", "10", "1&", same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. "148" through "152" and "167", inclusive af this complaint vith -36-

16. Inat uetencant ehii.IP SiQttRiS utilized €he services and the scientific and research skills, experience and re- sources of the defendant COUNCIL for the purpose of manifesting to t`e 5-cr ican a nd :cc. `_.x4de ..zdica: ;.rofc>szon, to t.._ Uccer..- ment of the United State~, and to the public, including plain- tift FINE, the att,itude, iaesnage nau Conc'susioR tiiai the scuz,az- iag of cigarettes, including defendant PHILIP 3EORRIS• brands of } cigarettes, did not constitute a cause of ill health irn hu:an censuners and, in ,ar:__::lar, did not constitute a carci^c,~cn:: risk. 17. That defendant PHILIP MORRIS utilized the services, experience and contacts of the defendant INSTITUTE for the pur- pose of promulgating, and manifesting, as stated in the preced- ing paragraph, to the medical profession, the United States Government and the public, including ,rlaintiff FINE, the atti- tude, message and conclusion that the smoking of cigarettes, including defendant PHILIP MORRIS' brands of cigarettes, did not constitute a cause of ill health in human consumers, and in particular, did not constitute a carcinogenic risk. , 18. That the defendant PHILIP MORRIS, aided and abetted by the defendants BUBR€TT and HILL & KNOWLTON and, on informa- tion and belief, aided and abetted during the period of their existence also by the defendants COUNCIL dRU INSTITUTE, strove and still strives, to induce the public, including plaintiff FINE, to smoke and use through human consumption the aforesaid brands of cigarettes as a pleasant, healthful, non-injurious and safe product and did, ii: €act, as hereinafter alleged, induce plaintiff so to use said cigarette products. 19. That the continuation of a steady and massive ad- vertising campaign, as hereinafter alleged in more detail, by the defendant PHILIP MORRIS, aided and abetted by the defen- dants BURNETT and HILL & KNOWLTON and, upon information and be- lief, during the period of their existence also by the defen- t'A 4- ~ ' Q ~ F".7 C1

104. That by reason of the foregoing decedent was daaaged in the saa of PIS:: Hu'\-'3iR133 iTioiiSAM CS500,444.40j .• - D0-,3S W:.ile alive. AS AND FO3 A T:{iE?'Y-FOLRTK CAUSE OF ACTION AGAIFST BATTEN, BARTON, DURSTINE & OSSOB2i, INC. 105. Plaintiff repeats and reallegess each and every a=_agation contained in _ara=apas "4", through "10", "iS", "84^, "89" and "S9^, inclusive of this complaiat with t:e same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat, 105. ^::at by reasor, af she foregoing, decedent's widow -:d daughter were damaged in the sssm of FIVE HLTtDFtED 2$OL'SA#"D ($500,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND FO3 A:dI3TY-?I3:H CAUSE OF ACTION AGAIASr BATTEN, BA.~^sO?I. .;,RSTIhn & OSBORN, INC. 107. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in yaragraphs "1TM, "4", "6TM through "10", "14", "94" and "99", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. I4S, That by virtue of defendant's plan as aforesaid to conceal facts and information from the public including decedent and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of and with indifference of the consequences to decedent's rights, health and safety and by making false statements and representztions; the defendant by virtue of its liability in and '.aISTY-TF.IR,O" Causes of Action, as 'aereinbeSore set forth became liable to the decedent for zuaitive damages in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLL2RS: l 1

AS .l\D FOR A FORTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION .1GAuS5'i F00Ti„ COaE e: BEd.DI1G . 120. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every al2egation contained in paraarapts "i^, '*4', ^8" through "I "14", "54" and "122", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth hereat. 121. That by virtue of defendant's plan as aforesaid to conceal facts and information fr,om the~public including decedent and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of and with iadifference of the consequences to decedent's rights, health and safety and by makine false statements and renresentations; the defendant by virtue of its liability in the ":?I3'iY-Sz4E2.'TH" and "THIRTY-hT\'TA" Causes of Action, as hereinbefore set forth became liable to the decedent for punitive damages in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS. AS AND F03 A FORTY-S£COY+D CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST FOOTE, CONE & 8£LDING 122. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "i", ^4", "6" through "10", "ig'•, "94°• and inclusive of this complaint mith the same force and effect as if specifically set forth bereat. 123. That by virtue of defendant's plan as aforesaid to conceal facts and information from the public including decedent and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of and with indifference of the consequences to decedeat~s rights, lfealth and safety and by making false statements and representations; the defendant by virtue of its liability in the "TIII$TY-£IGfffEI" and "FDBTIkTH" Causes of Action as hereinbeEore set forth became liable to decedent's widow and daughter who were damaged in the sum of FIVE MILLION ($S,OQO,QflO.QO) DOLLIRS. -25-

(corr) STARS OF riI830IIftZ CITY 08 ST. LOUIS SS. IN TRS DZS4'RIC^a COURT OF PFi£ UNITE6 STATS58 FOR TN$ EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI IItA C. L7a~E, Plaintiff, sa. Citil Aation 95't3 R. J. BYT3R}Iffi SCBiCCO CGIMPAIi, a tto. (3) corporation, TffiS A!ffitSCAR 14SkCC0 CO., ISC., a corporation, P. WaT'.t1T'n CO}SPAA'Y, a corpomtioa, BRCWA k YISS.IAM- SOR T6BACC0 CORP., a corporation, aa6 QASAT ifi£AMTZC & PACZPIC TP1i CO., a corporation, Defen6ants. COAPLtDFT IZRS'P COQI!! ! 1. Tkis court has Jvrisdiation af this eanss by raaaoa of 3irersits of altisaasklp of ths p2alntiff and of the d.fsedants, la tLst plaLstif! Ss a sitissa mf ]flskuri ani all the fsfeoiants a2'a ooTpoTatioas lAi6rpo3Yted aOd fiLtflg 3ID/s2 the 1aXa of statss atAar tbsa Rissasri. The a.a+sit Sa smtro.m,t ta.aais anlat.i.e sf intaast sna .«ats, the nss of Three sbo..aat s.u2srs t#3.WD3. 2. DefsedCat, R.J. 34120144 'lbbatM CaaPWa is aaA Wu at aIt iias. 3iaasia aa#lo..t a Rau iarstf sorpoastSqa eagaisst ot sststlaE diT aal by .lrtila at laf 1u! ifVapi 31 tSa tarlsMi s,L sanstastum-SnL. s.ana other preinoq, tipsattas bmta tiaiar the lsaa6 ars .f Crl sl4aretts aat totaas !ss sl.prsitaa fat fista!latiaE tA.ss prodmts for resals to the uitiaata sonsn.ar tSU'otis[bout sarievs parts of the world, lnsiviiag tht Staite of RUSOVrt. ca ~..} ~ Cohen Dec7.. Exhibit B p €:3 C-3

11. That deteneani YkiLIp MORRIS di.d, at all times men- tioned herein, and still does, manufacture, sell, distribute and supply for profit, brands of cigarettes known as "Philip 15orris'., __.`•`-arlboro", znd 12. That as part of such manufacturing and supplying of its products, defendant PHILIP MOiiRIS has published and dis- seminated and has caused to be published and disseminated writ- :r.;s _na ...`ar it3 a1i=a_' :e^L_:.=~xc ettes. That many, if not mast, of said oral and written s:a:-3- :cents published and df=sefiinated by, or on tu>half of, def=ndan* PHILIP MORRIS consi~ted ut for, and o:. dant's brands of cigarettes in the form and style of radio and television announcements and commercials, and advertising in various American newspapers and magazines; and that different advertisements appeared in the aforesaid media which then ex- isted, during the period from 1930 through 1983. 13. That as part of said manufacturing, supplying, selling and advertising of its said cigarette products, defen- dant PHILIP MORRIS has employed, or otherwise utilized, the services and skills of the defendants SURHE'rI, HILL & KNOWLTON, COUNCIL and I2tSTIT[ITE. 14. That defendant PHILIP MORRIS utilized the services of defendant Bt1BiiETT for advertising purposes, to wit, for con- suitation on, preparation of, and distribution and dissemina- tion of advertising material and data, and for any and all other services and skills required and used in connection with advertising of, and for, its said brands of cigarettes. 15. That defendant PHILIP 6tORRIS utilized the services, skills, experience, knowledge and contacts of the defendant BIS.I. C~ & KNOWLTON for public relations purposes. ~ -3- '~ CD CTI C?J f'J LSf

from canctr and as a result thereof was required to tater a Lospital oYasre he xss opsratsd upcn by iLta physicians and his entire right lung was removed by 3urgeryx plaintiff suzftr.d, suffers and will in the future suffcr froa teeare pain of body snd mind, pain and sarer.ess of the t]unat, naek, c.sat, back and ai'des, d3Sficulty in sxsllc.rSag, dyspnes, eoi,g3iing, general xaa3a»as of the body, and a greater susceptibility to colds and other respiratory infeatianst. plalatiff's asrret and ner.ous systsa were se»rely shock.d and shsttareli all of said injuries and effects tiaereof are aerious and pernantnt, and the function and usa of said organs and parts hare been sirlously and per.aanently impatrtd, dim3nished and rendered painfu2} plaintiff las been disal,led from psrfoming his usual xork and duties and will in the future be so disaDledt plaintiff has lost his ragss and earnings at the rate of approzimately Sizty Dol2ars (450) Per week sinoe Raroh 30, 14'•L., and will in the fature continue to loas sll or the greater portion of his xagss and earnings. In tha aisassu7 aars and treatmsnt of said disease and injuriea plain- t3ff has insurrtd end oilissted hisseif to s,pand the am of sppra:insts ly iVo monsand Dellaw ($2,G00) aat win ia tAe frture 1e seqadred to txpsnd adtiiiooal ss:s far natwsart asi3tal traatarnt and earsi all to plaiatiffls iasag* In th. snasat of !ra Ymtrai Hftt Thousand Dsil+ss 04'JOsOGB}. Ywxmn. Flaiat3ff Yra7s ja6Pant a=sivst defendants in the a.nmt ef Two Yaograd fi2ty S7oevsaal Dailara {}2$o,00p) ant for his saata herein eapaoist.. Coosa now plaintiff and for his oomplaint states thatt 11. lLintiff incorporates by rsfersnas ali of the allegations aet o,.t in peraarsyha 1, 2, 3, 4, S. 6, T aod $ of tha fiast count of his soaplaint as though fully s.t out herein. -x- 0

areat Atlantic :r Pacific *ea Co., who in turn se11 said branda of cigarettes to the general public, Including plaintiff. S. Defendants nilfully, maliciaualy, vaAtonly, fraudultntly, falsely and dsasitfully reyresented to the zasaeral public, includiig nlaintiff, through various edvertiain,a, _tedia, ti1at the •.aokino of their r.speativs brands of oigarettea and tobacco was not harmfui or irritatih&f that ths use and smokin.g at said yroduets aided tiseatioa, relieved fatigua, and restored, reaavs4, pas and re- leaaed energ7, that smoking of said cigarettes did not affect or lapair tifs wind or ynysical condition of athletes, did not hars or irritate the thraat nor leats an aftertistef that smoking aaid cig- aretta, tobaccos was soothing, restful and coeforting to the narvcs; that tach of the aforementianed brands of cigarettea contain less nisatine than did any or all of the other brands. Pla3ntiff, in saafdxg the aforasentioned brands af cigarettes end tobacco, did rely, amoag other things, aa the lmoxleige and skiil at defendants in makiae the aforeaaid repraseatatians. $. Ziah at the dsfendaats rlprlaeatad and warranted that their raspstite lranaa af titarrttes and tobacco rsrv free from any injfaiaus substance, that the amofsins of aaid 6ranis af aigaivttn affi tobaaaes was xholesams, suitable and satistaetoi7 far svah usa aa! soassagtloa by the seneral yuYlia, iaalmtSni Dlaintitt, when, in faat, sait }rands of sigarettss aad tobacco at a22 tiaea Htrsin sratioa.t sonttin smxholasass, delsterieuss irritaMSg sad Lanitul isgrsa,isat+. 10. Toliowiq aat asastrrentli nith ths raFirsaatatiuu and ratrauti.is af ssfwHats, plaintiff atoiud 4fsadaDta' attarttte and tobacco grodaats, aad as a disaot aad yrosSa.te result ef the de- ferdaata; brsaeh.s of varrant7 " esgrsaa reprssentatlons Flaintiff sustained the following serious and perssnent iaJurips Plaintiff devalaped, still has and ni12 in ths futsre suffer .j-

and c::_h vf t:2eN, t~ =ailir.- ::-eft_cs-, af cid hrQach of .rsr:~.ticE to r:id d-;' ^'.'-•.~._ ca :c11ai~-z: cn or Pb c•st July 25,2951 to g COrport.`vFBn, a eapy of s.~,jich to ::ZRiC:": TO?ACi,Cs iC::a'AaZ s ac_~crztEa~, a copy of vhich ia P-tsat.od hsreto and m.:rkad u:y`6it ci;a and ir.aarpoWtad herein by rcfa_caco su+ thaL,'s fully net forth. ~d sh.ad he^e:.o tnd ..._..:cd LZ%V:'t ~;~ =d i=arparate3 horoin rcfa:os.ce c3 tFt:,Luh fully Evt forth, oa or c,.,aut u*siy 25i 1961, :'dR A Sz:rns1A2Z 1.a'rB 3iZ7ii;.:C Fv13TH CAUSS 47 AViICw4v~LZc,~a DoSL:Y1Y.T3, ADD aACH G? TMS, ssaiT:: I'is fiL i~a Ea F.f.a::_T.L-., D'sVZD K. LZ$^Ls'.u asS nL3+Vi23s L:.._.. C. ~..= and =e =-:a 2___..i?i by rCfeJ'e11c8 _'~ i =?Iq c..v :crth eYe+y e21c.ion ks Zi _Za ISZ! 1.1111 +_ -='ti .Y of th,,_r Firet CaL;;a of 32 II iyet dafer.Gu:ts, LIuUS?: a:Y_ZS ':G=C9 Cwi2A.Y, a coz;or8- , S', c-.3 F: of tcair. TThird fa-z- of :etiLn 2-fsa_reoovo sst forth. L_'cioa ha=ei*_"`avc _CL nY' , r d Y_., _ ZI :: d III of thair .- . ... a3 Gauaa of hetica fcrt%i c;.d F=r~rsv~irs III, tiora. 4.; '?ICk'; iGJb~G? COS.P;r.7, e cor,-or;.tiozt, zt:d DN3 X3I to a t Z, ixchs:.~a, and cych of t~cn, yronsred, -a:.aufactured, gr<iduce tc`tec'., in--pccted, etc_cd, c=+_ttribLted, £a-d cold nrid tc~acco p,.-cdLcta `aa : c~~cara ¢11Z,'.c3, Yd th 1^Y»led;a and intent that s 3d p.4_..,,-te3 tc bo va_.! by of the p'ab2ie, ir.aludiag ;.2£...'nLS.fs ~zd }?~f i_faE Cc:e•~:rt, C? Z. L:.~~:,ZB, and Ac•Iicrlg wrr atcS to y2^{ntis"Fa ~.' glCintiffs* deecdeat tiaat v Jid tobacco yrvdzats azra of =rcR;.zt:1}1° cu.rlitr and fit for }„ ~z ncntta_--:tie^_, and rn~sa^ 31y .fit fcr the pnr-,..ae intaLdod; _lZ_

i STATE 0€ NEW YOAT. ) CITY OF NEW YCR7C : ss.: C4i!'44'fY OF NEW YflAK] Qn this 27th day aF January,.195&, before me geT- scnaily sppeared Cordon x. 8icksst, Janet C. Brovn, Richard w. Coil'sas, Melvin B. Goodman and John F. Stearns, the subscribErs, to me known and known to me to be the persons who executed the foregoing Certificate of Eacorgora- tion, and they severally aeknovledged to me that they executed the same. sl Sohn 9ra~rn~ ~~St ~Ta ~aiy 'Tza JOtII1 BROWNING NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York No. Z4p4a8ZD46 Qualified in Kings County Cert. filed with New York County Clark Co=issian expires March 30, 1959 (SQ11)

0 31 32 c x; -er.t~:_e. tcL:<t{ +.a i.:n . i u rt,.n + r6o:r uw uiits<a tr.a sc::e to co

H

p1a£ntiff hereby deaands ir£ai by jur}. - HLS.i.1, st31i€ and 6k3YY eys r t 11 22` 239 24+t j 28 29 30 -1 (31 -32-

xxv P2aintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon t R. .T• REYNOLDS TOBACCO C0, is a corporatic transacting business in the State of California. X7CVI At all times herein mentioned defendant R, S, Rgy2t0yD; ing, producing, distributing, selling and purveying tobacco produ. OBACCO C0. was, and now is, engaged in the business o€ manufactu 9 inc2udingcigarettes.. 10 %%VIy At all times herein mentioned, defendant R. J. %EyNOy . was, and is now, manufacturing and marketing its prod• so2d, distributed and purveyed the said "CA2SEL", and, more speci- RXVIZZ For many years prior to the institution of this actio efendants, and each of them, advertised, manufactured, produced, vision, and point-of-sale advertising. That each and all of said advertisements did come to the attention of VIRGIL MONEY, the de- ceased, and he was thereby persuaded to obtain and smoke the de- fendant's product so advertised, and.coAsumed said product by in- haling the vapors given off by the said product when ignited. magazines, periodicals, billboards, newspapers, radio, tele- ucts under various trade names including, among others, "CAMhZ", Said product under said trade name was advertised through the med: advertised, manufactured, produced, sold, uted and purveyeZ by defendant &. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO. is 28 29 36 32 to the general public, including VIRGIL MONEY, deceased. OJ N es herein .~ II, XRV, ~ 0~.'o 32 FOUATE CAUSE OF ACTION XXIX Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorpor by reference each and every allegation of para IV, V, VI, XXVI, XXVII and XXVIII. -7-

ious trade names.including, among others, y "fffiF.BERT TAREYTQATSe,, °TAREYTtkd FILTERS", and "TAREYTt7N DUAL FILTERe" gP Said products under said trade names were advertised through the q" media of magazines, periodicals, billboards, newspapers, radio, ision, snd point-of-sala advertising. That each and all of a g-the vapors given off by the said products when ignited. IX For many years prior to the institution of this action, i 22 dant`s products so advertised, and consumed said products by essed, and he was thereby persuaded to obtain and smoke the de- sai.d ^dvertisements did come to the attention of VIRGIL P`,4NEY, the defendants, and each of them, advertised, manufactured, produced, sold, distributed and purveyed the said "HEiLBSRT TAREYTONS", ",TAtYYTON FILTERS", "TAREYTON DUAL FILTER", and more specifically, r.aEt le,ncaainw:, irusniltnQ Six.lusa , anu 'lAitP.I1VOl SIUAi. 21L1LtW were advertised, manufactured, produced, sold, distributed and purve,=ed by defendant AMERICAN TOBAGGO CO. to the general public, including VIRGIL MONEY, Deceased. X ' At a11 times pertinent hereto, defendants, and each of them, knew, and in the exercise of reasonable care should have :cnown, that the said products contain toxic, dangerous and car- 3U cinogenous agents and substances in such quantity as to make the 26 ' pos;ess such knowledge, and in the exercise of reasonable care said products inherently dangerous to human life, and that the said 25'- public, including the said VIRGIL hi4NEY, deceased, d obtain such know ledge. 291 Notwithstanding the aforesaid facts, and their superior _-, 3p knowledge of such facts, defendants negligently, recklessly, un2aw- ~ 28j XI ~ ly and wilfully failed, refused and neglected to remove the saic tx3 . ~ products from the market, and negligently, recklessly, unla:=_ ly (,.4 -~-

i 3 STATE OF CAL3FORhRA COttCtTY OF VYRIF7CAYCON -iid.95153 C C P.} f. L{( i{iM dttId .CYl4i I Aqf If/i lW t^Y^i on dar.li al I es+h• A.r.•c.....F. r.. d+0+.. Sn..tds., emH .a.. t4s...r[ur..n5:d 11 1 15 16 1 21 an YiudasYxi alw wri.j.rw.6w w i'.6d at n i. ct.r auc.73.Ge.. L te M cac I ar6/a Iw a'da tsrttl.t sar.rr,' Lta tit Lsrpiag u h:. wi rnssec td"o 4.1s (PROOF OF SERVICE $Y tLiII.-7413a.'miSSC C P.l STATE aF CAUFORNIA poxrr OF LOS A?.Gh'Lr'S 1 a. s«+ine .l t4 71wiu2 Stuu ast . r.+ilr.e r1 rir a.wir .larwid; ! aw ..u N. +K .1 ri.~ieraa is+n ul nat . p.rt, m a..4Ain.mLk1 «tl«~: x> §.++neu.u:c.4: 354 West ocean Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90802 o„ dDecemher I'/ , tv _~4 Second Amended Complaint for Damages 311 s4 defendants :. Califarnia Beach Lan , g 24 ; tr....u s )+v...: 25 D'Pielveny & Myers Attorneys at Law 26 433 South Spring Street Los Angeles, California 2? Attn: F:. S. Smith, Jr. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Attorneys at Law 634 South Spring Street Los Angeles, California 90614 Attn. John W. Aanlon t saWr f« f.dr.t, aetw rsn.Gr.y iotv7.• we c\s u k.e s.t a..ac , :lecerber J1/• 1964 ~ Long Beach •S.d N. xdFaw.ad Vw1./ sscsll wra l.r.u,h:.~++s+wt sd.r K•Jq .d Miary, d, wet npd....,.nv+i...

COURT OF TfIE STATE OF NEW YORK F Ycti' Vcav . F!NE, iF,t Plaintiff, PEILIy WhiliSi ... . fFt.:.v~sL/Jaf ~ AMERICAN TOBACCO, INC, ; LIGGETT & hfYERS TOBACCO C0. , INC. ; P. LflP.ILLARh CC3., INC. ; ~~ LEO BURNEI"P tY1.. INC.: HILL & KNOWLTON, INC. ; TOBACCO INST IT[:TE= I;t(;. ; and TOBACCO INDUSTRY RESEARCH COMMITTEE, an unincorporated association; and TIMOTHY V. FFARTNSR"t, as Chairman, W. T. HtfYT, as Executive Director, and CLARENCE C. LITTZ.B, as Scientific Director, of Tobacco Industry Research Committee, an unincorporated asso- ciation; and TISOTHY V. HAATh'8't'T; 1F, T. Ht3Y'tt; and {S,AAENf:8 C: LIRTLE, doing busi~, sittees Defendants.- : indeX `o. : Plaintiff desig- : nates County Naw York as the ^7a^r. ).° ,.:°12_ : rias:s oi srle is §503(a), ia) C.P.L.R. SUMMaNS --------- -------w=. aaaed Defendants: . 2IU ABi ITNI SSi SII10iQME# to ans~er the -ofti7sint in this action and to serve a copy of yat~ aas:er;=os`"`if._tha cor plaint is not served with this suauonsf to serve pearance, on the Plaintiff's Attorneys within twenty (20) days the Tobacco Industry Research Coa- service of this sns.ons, exclusive of the day of ser- vice (or-.rithin 30 days after the service is oo.plete if this suaaons is not personally delivered to you within the State of 2te* York); aad in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgaeat will be taken against you by default for the relief de- _.,-a„a a.. +ke ....,4e~..t. Cohen Becl. Exhibit M 82405K

82405822

said reports that were printed in the newspapers were diluted, distorted, confused and negated by the counteracting reports of the defendant COGNCIL; that such COUNCIL reports were statee, on sQ,ae .~:cast.,r-, . .,- ::asai in4 :rom COtSCIL. 202. That plaintiff was further subjected to biased, distorted and inaccurate reports through the e#forts of the Scientific Advisory Board of defendant COUNCIL in soliciting and inaccurate statements of research and evaluations thereof. 203. That defendant COUNCIL promulgated, in 1962, a re- port made by consuitar.ts and representatives of de€endant TOBACCO, that employees of said Company who smoked ~ very heavily did not develop lung cancer; but that said report covered a study that was not performed under scientific condi- ~ tions, as defendant COUNCIL knew. . 204. That delodant COUNCIL, aided and abetted by defen- dant HILL & XHOIILTDN, caused to be run in a large number of newspapers in the United States, in 1954, an advertisement . which it prepared and sponsored as a frank statement to cigar- { ette, as entitled by defendant; but that such advertisement did Ij not, in fact, contain such a frank statement and sought to con- fuse and to obfuscate the question of causation of cancer and to present biased information on that question. 205. That by undertaking to make reports to the news- often often under its own name, or that of one of its afore- .. said directors, and by undertaking to publicize reports of its own that were biased and inaccurate, and by publicizing the as- sertedly scientific and the grant-giving activities of its aforesaid Scientific Advisory Board, the defendant COUNCIL, its aforesaid directors and members, directly and intentionally attempted to become, and did become, a well-known public figure. -49-

dants did modify =a: {:•,;~-.:~_.., 3^d ii'3 ••-.it -uch ir....~._i.2r., claims. That during the period of pendency of such proceedings before the Federal Trade Comtcission as aforesaid, the said det fendants knew of the inaccuracy of said ciaiiAs, or published ' an.: proc:~.ltistce ar:_ = ~ t;u t.., should such claims turn out to be false. , 31, That during the ~ year 1964, the Federal Trade Ccm- p mission entered into an examination of advertising practices of 7~ each and every delendant herein with respect to cigaretse~, a5 to whether such advertising was deceptive. That'at least :.+o of the Commissicners, personaily and for the Co.;.nission, favored rules to curb deceptive practices on the part of cigarette .:-anu-- facturers and advertisers. ~ 32. That because of the extensive advertising as al- ~ Zeged aforesaid, of defendant PAILIP MORRIS' brands of cigar- ettes, plaintiff FINE was influenced to begin to smoke them and by virtue of the continuation and increase of said advertising, said plaintiff was influenced and induced to continue to smoke and to continue to smoke defendant's brands of cigarettes. 33. That in so smoking and continuing to smoke the esaid brands of cigarettes, this plaintiff was reassured, by the existence and continued flow of said advertisements and their number and quantit}, that smoking, and smoking of the aforesaid brands of cigarettes, would not be harmful to him and would not be injurious to his physical health. 34. That, as aforesaid, plaintiff did rely on the con- tinued flow and,appearances of advertising for the aforesaid { cigarettes as some assurance of safety flowing from the defen- 1 dants PHILIP MORRIS, BURREIT and HILL & K:i4wLT6N and, durin 11I1g their period of existence, from the defendants COUNCIL and IH- ! STZTUTS. That plaintiff reasoned and concluded, as defendants inteaded, and such was the state of his mind as a member of th 00 il;

misleading and deceptive representations about the tobacco pro- ducts, including defendant pHILIP3tQRRIS' brands of cigarettes, on which it was preparing, or aiding in the preparation of, statements, tv e::pr<s::.=trL.n„ and bc .mpi;'ir.g, ~:cat Soci1 products were safe, wholesome and harmless and in some manner • good for the health of the smoker, whereas it knew, or should have known, that these brands of cigarettes were not beneli- cial to ..a ..c__th _. _.._ _..._ .-~, -_ ?ar<, *hsr use and consumption of said cigarette products caused, .vr ,a,.•.,b- ably caused, cancer of the respiratory tract organs and other respiratory porti^ns of the body, including the lungs. 214. That the defendant COONCIL, its aforesaid direc- tors and members, thereby knowingly, intentionally and £raudu- lently omitted, concealed from, and failed to disclose and de- clare to the public, including plaintiff, the risks to health, including cancer of the respiratory tract organs and other res- piratory portions of the body, including the lungs, created, or probably created by smoking and consumption of the cigarette tobacco products, including defendant PHILIP E[oRRIS' brands of cigarettes, for xliich.it was preparing, or aiding in the pre- statements, although it was, or should have been, well aware of said risks. 215. That if the defendant COilNCIL, its aforesaid direc- tors and members were not aware of the risks of cancer asso- ciated with smoking of cigarettes, including the aforementioned brands of cigarettes, at the initial time of issuance of state- ments it and they were preparing, or aiding in the preparation of, concerning the effect upon human health of smoking tobacco products, including the said brands of cigarettes, said defen- dant and its aforesaid directors and members, as the pears i:_00 passed, acquired such medical and other scientific knowledge ~ ~ and iaformtion as to inform it and them that said brands of C:) CTt -52- {DO -4 -3'~

206. That as a result of said public efforts and said notoriety, the dc -endant LUU\CIL, its aforesaid directors and members, violated their duty and obligation to the public, in- . cigarette smoke contained substances carcinogenic in nature, and their duty not to prevent the public from obtaining un- biased and accurate 3nformation about the carcinogenic, or probably C1SC~;:'.1~~ ~r n:!•ars ^• a:!!=*3?`._ _ ^12~C'j ... C:~at'- ette smoke. 207. That the duty owed by defendant COUNCIL to the pu6lir, includinsr olaintiff, as stated in the iGanediately pre- ceding paragraph, was further breached and violated as a result : of the efforts of defendant COUNCIL, its aforesaid directors ~ and members, to di2ute, negate, counteract, conceal, distort and' minimize the medical.and other scientific reports, studies }1!1!t!, and surveys that were being released on the subject of the ef- fect of tobacco smoking upon human health, life and longevity. 208. That as to plaintiff, the acts and activities of defendant COUNCIL, and of its aforesaid directors and members, constituted an intentional interference with, and an intentional invasion of, plaintiff's right to personal good health and to physical well being; that such acts and activities of said do- fendant directly and proximately resulted in the infliction upon plaintiff of temporal damages in the form of ill health. 209. That as to plaintiff, the aforesaid acts and acti- vities of defendant Ct3tlHCIh, its aforesaid directors and mem- bers, constituted a prima facie tort, in that said defendant did intentionally that which was calculated in the ordinary course of events to damage plaintiff without just cause or ex- cuse, and which did, in fact, injure plaintiff herein; that such acts and activities constituted a violation of plaintiff's legal rights, including but not limited to his right to per- ',. sonai good health"and physical well being, committed knowiagiy._sa- ca N ~ CD 13'} Lc'i V N 7

220. That the defendant COUNCIL, over the years, in its position as rese.,ch arm and spokesman for the tobacco industrp,supplied advice and furnished reports and criticized and diluted rey'o::3 a: ::t::Crs :a :,....>C_J(:5. »Si.'1. ano santon, or rC-iiiteS.. disregard of the health, safety and well being of the public, , including plaintiff, since it knew, or should have knovt,y that 3 the aforesaid products were, or probably were, carcinogenic; and~ yet, with indi:ference Lo it. o:ri.gations as one prcparin;; ...- vertising for a product for human consumption and to the conse- quences of its acts or omissions, it made no attempt to ap- prise or inform the pub2ic, including plaintiff, of said car- cinogenic propensities of said products, but rather, by arti- fices, stratagems and devices as previously alleged herein, i contrived to conceal such facts and circumstances from the pub- lic, including plaintiff. 221. That the defendant <bitNCIL, as stated in the im- mediately preceding paragraph, acted oppressively, with indif- ference to its obligations and to the consequences, and in wan- ton and wilful, or reckless, disregard of the bealth; safety and welfare of the public, including plaintiff, in thus attempt- ing to conceal, dilute and falsely present information on smok- ing in order to enhance the business of the tobacco industry and of its members. 222. That by virtue of defendant cDUKCZL's plan and de- sign, sign, as aforesaid, so to mislead the smoking public, including plaintiff, and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of, and with indifference to the consequences upon plaintiff's rights, health and safety, and in making false statements and in concealing information of importance to the smoking public, including plaintiff, in that it related to cigarette products designed for human consumption, defendant CI)tRiCIL has become liable to plaintiff for fraud, deceit and invasion of his per- co r"') 0_1~

sonal rights, for punitive or exemplary damages, in the sum o Five Million ($5,000,000.00) Dollars. LS 9*,'F1 FQR :1 TtrENTq-SEt'C7y'n ^;;'SF, OF Ar;i'St3v TOBACCO RES'adRG2i - v.5.d. 223. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every al- legation contained in paragraphs "3" through ^222" inclusive of FnYe c<i~p132.a. .a._.: ilte ~e4c s~•LCB .cln} cLfrca la i. - .- fically set forth hereat. 224. That by virtue of defendant COUNCIL's conduct in thus i•ecklessly, an1 i:: disregard of the circumstances as '.:c:•e- inabove alleged, in making false statements and counselling others to make false statements, without knowing whether they were true or false, concerning the nature and effects of the cigarettes with which it was dealing, which cigarettes, when smoked, involved an unreasonable risk upon the human health of the smoking public, including plaintiff, defendant COtRSCIL has become liable to plaintiff for recklessly-made representations, for punitive or exemplary damages, in the sum of Five Million ($5,000,000.00) Dollars. AS ANS) FOR A T1FE2i1'Y-THIRIT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST D&FEtiD,l3i3' TOBACCO INSTITflTS, INC. 225. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every al- legation contained in paragraphs "1" through "224" inclusive of this complaint, with the same force and effect as if speci- fically set forth hercat. 226. That the defendant INSTITUTE, as alleged hereia- e, is a membership corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of ltew York; that it was areated in 1968; that upon information and belief, it represents all, or virtu- aily all, of the cigarette manufacturers in the United States, including defendant FHILIP 3StTRRIS. -55-

227. That one uf the incorporators of defendant I\"STZ- TUTE is the President of defendant PHILIP MORRIS, one Joseph F. C1,Iiman, IIi. ' 32L. F Wia ...a. ....a:iQli aa.C .n.ai.. , . iai` ....fiu3.~.:. .:eC`. TUTE is wholly financed by payments secured from its member , tobacco companies, firms and corporations; again upon informa- ~ tion and belief, that each of said tobacco cor i porations or or- i Qani7ations pays Far_- ac.^seunts. said amounts bc'_n, Scknown to plaintiff, but kno~n tu the defendants herein, annually 'o..•ard the work and functions of said INSTITUTE. 229. That the pri:nary function of defendant INSTITUTE is, and has been, to act as a public relations sppkesman, organ and outlet for the tobacco industry in and of the United States,t of which industry defendant PHILIP MORRIS is a member, as are the defendants REYNOLDS, AMERICAN T6BACCC, LIGGEIT & MYERS and ZO&II,T.dND, and by which industry each of said defendants main- tains its existence, subsists and profits. 230. That the function of defendant INSTITUTE as a public relations organ, in the years since it was created, is and has been to ao2d the attitudes of the public, including plaintiff, and to prepare messages and pronouncements for said public, including plaintiff; that all of said messages and pro- nouncements indicate, or tend to indicate, that it is health- ful, or at least not tearmfu2, to smoke, including the smoking of the ataresentioned brands of cigarettes and that reports Of ill health being associated wi4ssmo8ing, especially of cancer, are erroneous and inaccurate, or are incomplete. 231. That a further function of defendant I2iSTITUTE has been to defend the tobacco industry, and particularly the tobacco manufacturing corporations and their products, from - critics. 00 -56- ~ ~ i.± 7 ~ CZ)

about products for human consumption and to the consequences , of its acts or omissions, it made no attempt to apprise or inform the public including plaintiff of said carcinogenic propensities of said products, but rather, contrived to conceal such facts and circumstances from the public including plaintiff 144. That by virtue of defendant HILL & KNOt¢LTD?i's plan oresaid, to conceal and cause others,to oonceal facts and information from the public including decedent, and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of, and with indifference of the consequences to, decedent's rights-, health and safety, in . making a false statement and diluted statement and aiding and ng others in making a false and diluted statement relating to cigarette products designed for human consumption, and by virtue of its liability in the "FOSTY-TEIZRD" and "FORTY-FIFTH" Causes of Action defendant HILL & K,l`OWLTON has become liable to decedent for fraud and deceit and for invasion of his personal rights while living for punitive damages in the sum cf FIVE SFILLIOY ($5,000,000,00) OOiLA88, . AS AND FOR A 703TY-3:OHTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST HILL 'x i.\Oti= O:i, INC. 145. Plaintiff repeats and realhdes each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1", "2", "10", "11^, ^14", "125" through "12&^ and "143", inclusive of this complaint with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth bereat. P 1! 146, That by virtue of defendant HILL & KNOWLTON's plan . as aforesaid, to conceal and cause others to conceal facts and information from the public including decedent, and to proceed in wilful and wanton disregard of, and with indifference of the consequences,to, decedent's rights,'health and safety, in making a false statement and diluted statement and aiding and abetting W -30- N3 4~ CD {St <f3 N -P

kmk 9. In the alternative and in the evesxt tlsa.t'petitioner is notr entitled to damages for the wrongful death of her husband, then uid I in that event petitioner khoxs that she is entitled to xorlme compensation benefits under the laws of the State of Louisiana. 10. That Armstrong Contracting & Supply Corporation, domiciled in East Baton Rouge Parisk, Louisiana, is engaged in the oonstrnc.- tion business, particularly insulating work, a hazardous business within the meaning and intent of the Ytorkmen's Compensation Laws of the State of Louisiana. ' 11. . That petitionen's husband, Clarence k, Faciane, Sr., uas employed by said Armstrong Contracting & Supply Corporation as an , insulator as hereinabove alleged, a hazardous occupation at an average weekly wage in excess of $100.00. 12. Your petitioner further shows that the lung ailment was an occupational disease or accidental injury within the meaning and intent of the Yorl®ten's Compensation Iaws~of the SSate of Louisiana and arose out of and in the course and scope of'his employment. 13. Your petitioner further shows that the said employer or its insurer has failed and refused to pay norl®en's compensation benefits, necessitating the bringing of this suit. 14. Yhat on and prior to Septesber_,1959, there Was in full force and effect by the payment of premiums and otherwise, policies of worSmen's compensation insurance and public liability insurance issued by defendant TEE fiBAYBIBItS INStSNJICS C4DBAMY in `

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---