Tobacco Documents Online

Video News Release 2077409629 . ~*;'o.vt .

9-10-1996 3:32PM FROM BETSY RICH 914 941 8964 P.2 REUTERS TV/ROGERS SUIT 1996 WIN VERSION 5TH DRAFT 8123/96 Suggested Anchor lead Anti-smoking forces suffered a set back today in Indianapolis where a unanimous jury retumed a verdict in favor of four major cigarette companies. Milce Morris has the story. - ----------------- Narration over shots of courthouse, THE CHARGES WERE FAMILIAR, A RELATIVE OF lawsuit documents, Mrs. Rogers, A DECEASED SMOKER SUING TOBACCO people smoking, etc COMPANIES. AND THE JURY IN THIS CASE CLEARLY REAFFIRMED THAT CIGARETTES ARE NOT DEFECTIVE OR UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS PRODUCTS; THAT PEOPLE WHO SMOKE MAKE THEIR CHOICE FREELY; THEY ARE AWARE OF THE POTENTIAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT BEHAVIOR; AND THAT PEOPLE ARE LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN DECISIONS. 0 Still of lawsuit documents THIS CASE, FILED BY THE ESTATE OF RICHARD ROGERS, AN INDIANAPOLIS ATTORNEY, ENDED IN A MISTRIAL IN FEBRUARY OF 1995 WHEN THE JURY WAS UNABLE TO REACH A UNANIMOUS'VERDICT. BUT THIS TIME THE JURY REACHED A VERDICT. AND IT WAS A BIG VICTORY FOR TOBACCO COMPANIES AND A MAJOR SETBACK FOR ANTI-SMOKING ACTIVISTS. ROGERS WAS HAILED AS AN IMPORTANT CASE BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIMED THAT MR. ROGERS WAS ADDICTED TO CIGARETTES, A CLAIM THAT WAS REJECTED BY THE JURY. David Anderson We had people who felt very strongly it's an individual's Jury Foreman right to choose the course of action that they take and if a product is legally marketed that it should be sold. Bill Ohlemeyer The message that they imparted was that Mr. Rogers was Tobacco Industry Attorney an intelligent educated man who made a decision to Shook Hardy & Bacon smoke, made a decision to continue to smoke; decided to quit smoking and should bear the responsibility for that decision. Dissolve o montage of clips of SINCE 1954, HUNDREDS OF CASES HAVE BEEN tobacco industry wins-superimpose FILED AGAINST THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY ON graph showing cases BEHALF OF PEOPLE WHO BLAMED THEIR ILLNESSES ON TOBACCO USE. 0 aa 0 m C) w 0 Page Number: I

9-10-1996 3=33PM FROM BETSY RICH 91a 941 8964 P•3 REUTERS TV/ROGERS SUIT 1996 WIN VERSION 5TH DRAFT 8/23/96 JUST 20 OF THOSE CASES HAVE GONE TO TRIAL. A JURY RECENTLY RULED AGAINST TIIE INDUSTRY IN A CASE IN FLORIDA, BUT THAT CASE IS BEING APPEALED. HOWEVER, NEVER, NOT IN ANY CASE, HAS A COURT REQUIRED THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY TO EVER PAY A PENNY IN MONETARY DAMAGES. JURIES HAVE INDICATED TIME AND AGAIN, THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE THE FACTS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL RISKS OF SMOKING AND THAT THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO SMOKE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS. • David Hardy I think that the tobacco companies will continue to fight Tobacco Industry Attorney these cases because we believe that personal Shook Hardy & Bacon responsibility is the way they should be or the basis on which they are decided and I don't think you're going to see any change about that. They're going to stay tough and we may not win them all but I think we'll win most of them. Dissolve to shots of smoker and DESPITE THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT MCOTINE Indianapolis courthouse AND ADDICTION, THE ROGERS JURY CONSIDERED ONLY THE FACTS AND THE LAW_ AND ONCE AGAIN, A JURY HAS DECIDED THAT PEOPLE MAY CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT TO SMOKB, AND THAT AMERICANS MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS. THIS IS MIKE MORRIS REPORTING N 0 V V ~ O <D W ~ Page Number: 2