Tobacco Documents Online

-3- THE THE WALL STREgP JOURNAL MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 1996 • 0 LAW industry's victory. The juiors disclosed that they believed cigarette makers had been negligent in the case and that under somewhat different circum- stances, they would have ruled for the plaintiff. By Mmo GeraLLN SiQ(f RepoTlCr of THE WALL STEEET.IORitN/,L INDIANAPOLIS - A state-court jury sidedwith the tobacco industry in a closely watched case, refusing to award damages to the family of a heavy smoker who died of lung cancer at age 52. But in a postverdict news conference here, the six-member jury minimized the Jury Sides With Tobacco Firms In Cigarette Suit Filed in Indiana ' The verdict let the $45 billion tobacco industry avoid a potentially significant blow, amid a mounting wave of legal setbacks. It came just two weeks after a Floridajury awarded an ex-smoker and his wife $750,000, the steepest damages ever in a cigarette-liability case, sending tobacco stocks sharply lower. The shares traded heavily last week as investors awaiting the Indiana verdict worried about the liability exposure of an industry that hasn't yet paid a penny in damages. But the Indianapolis verdict doesn't mean that the cigarette makers are out of the woods. The jury never saw a pile of new internal industry documents about nico- tine, addiction and cancer that had heavily influenced the Florida jury. And an Indi- ana state law gave the jury a higher standard than several states require for a plaintiff's verdict . In a prepared statement read by fore- man David Anderson in a.packed court- room, the jury expressed "concern that our verdict may be misconstrued as an endorsement of the tobacco companies' position on smoking and health." The statement declared: "In this case, under the laws of Indiana, we found [the plaintiff] Richard Rogers bore a greater responsibility for the condition that caused his death than did the actions of the defendants." It added: "However, we felt the evidence did show a degree of negli- gence on the part of the cigarette compa- nies." To what extent, Mr. Anderson said, the ree except that the indus- couldn't a ju , g _ ry "'i___ try's negligence didn't exceed 50%. Under Indiana's law of comparative fault, that finding alone required a verdict for the defense on the claim that cigarettds were negligently designed, manufactured and sold. Thejurois also relected the platnhffs claim that cigarettes are unreasonably dangerous because they addict smokers and cause lung cancer. For the tobacco industry, the verdict- announced late Friday - offered a psycho- logical boost on the same day that Presi- dent Clinton declared nicotine an addictive drug by announcing sweeping federal re- strictions to curb tobacco advertising to children. Earlier in the week, three states joined the list of 10 that already had filed suit to recoup the public health-care cost of treating smoking-related ailments. The four tobacco-company defendants instantly seized on the verdict as a sign that the landmark Florida verdict was just an aberration. "This unanimous verdictt sends a clear signal that there is no legal groundswell in the American court system to reverse 40 years of precedents that people are responsible for their own ac- tions when it comes to tobacco use," said Charles R. Wall senior vice resident for Some industry analysts, however, were not so quick to agree, noting that the plaintiffs' lawyer who won the Florida verdict has some 200 other cases pending ~ in that state, including three slated for later this year. And Florida is one of 13 states that lets a jury return damages if a defendant is as little as 1%a negligent. "We're just going to have to see whether the industry can put on the same sort of defense in these Florida AUb [ b cases," said Diana Temple, a tobacco analyst at Salomon Brothers Inc. in New York. Antismoking activists went further, saying the verdict wasn't a good indicator of future results since Marion County Superior Court Judge Kenneth H. Johnson limited plaintiffs' evidence to what was admitted when the case first went to trial last year. That case ended with a hung jury- "What's remarkable is that even lack- ing that evidence, this jury expressed serious misgivings about letting the to- bacco industry off the hook," said Matthew Myers, executive vice president of the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids in Washington. "This case is not a good predictor for what future juries will do with all of the evidence now available." Mr. Rogers, a former attorney in India- napolis, was five years old when he first began smoking his father's cigarette butts from ashtrays. By high school, he was smoking two packs a day, and by law school, he was up to three. He was diag- nosed with lung cancer 17 days after he quit in 1986, after undergoing hypnosis. His suit, filed before his death in 1987, named Philip Morris; R.J. Reynolds To- bacco Co., a unit of RJB. Nabisco Hold- ings Corp.; American Tobacco, now owned by B.A.T Industrfes PLC; and Brooke Group's Liggett Group Inc. MONDAY; AUGUST 26, 1996 - USA TODAY MONEYLINE A QUICK READ ON THE TOP MONEY NEWS OF THE DAY ---- -- ----- TOBACCO COMPANIES WIN: An mdtana jury Friday ruled four cigarette makers are not liable for a: lung cancer victim's death. The jury accepted company arguments that Richard Rogers chose to continue smokfng despite known risks. Richard Daynard of the Tobacco Products Liabihty Project says future anti-tobacco lawsuits wiB succeed because they will Include evidenee' of the industry's knowledge of nicotine and addiction that were barred from the Indiana trfaL (Tobacco crackdown, 3A)