Tobacco Documents Online

0 . . APn 08/24 0211 Tobacco Trial Copyright, 1996. The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. - - - - - By ASHLEY H. GRANT Associated Press Writer INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - On the day President Clinton imposed historic limits on the marketing of cigarettes, tobacco companies won a closely watched trial that one tobacco executive called "our most important victory yet." A jury Friday found cigarette companies not responsible for the lung cancer death of an Indianapolis lawyer who began smoking at age 5 and continued until just before his death in 1987 at 52. "This unanimous verdict 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 actions when it comes to tobacco use," said Charles Wall, a senior vice president for Philip Morris. But Richard Daynard, a law professor at Northeastern University in Boston and chairman of the Tobacco Products Liability Project, said that despite the loss, smokers will continue to challenge the tobacco industry. "Like other moderate-sized cases, you win some, you lose some. That's normal in lawsuits." he said.'The cases can still be brought in county courts all around the country, and they will." The widow of Richard Rogers was seeking at least $424,000 from four tobacco companies in lost earnings and medical expenses. The suit was filed shortly before his death and claimed Rogers was addicted to cigarettes and that smoking caused his cancer. - Tobacco lawyers said Rogers chose to smoke, despite warnings of the potential risks. "fhis is our most important victory to date dealing with the purported addictive' qualities of cigarettes because some members of th- :ciintiff's bar claimed it was an ideal case," Wall said. The jury foreman, David Anderson, said, "The key evidence wc> -act that Richard Rogers understood that if you smoke, you n:r, o risu -~ relt -. more of an obligatioh than a desire to quit." The verdict came on the day the industry was dealt a setoack, with Clinton clearing the way for the government to regulate niconne as a drug. It took on extreme importance as the industry wondered wnether the tide of opinion in America's courtrooms has turned against it afre: a ruling earlier this month in Florida. The Florida jury awarded $750,000 to a man who got lung cancer after 44 years of smoking. It was only the second time a jury ruled against the industry. The first verdict was overturned on appeal. In the Florida case that went in favor of Grady Carter on Aug. 9, lawyers were able to introduce tobacco company documents linking nicotine and addiction. But the records were barred from the Rogers case because it was a retrial and the judge limited evidence to that introauced the first time. In the first trial, when the documents were not introduced. jurors -- couldn't decide if Rogers smoked voluntarily. John Banzhaf, executive director of Action on Smoking and Health and a- law professor at George Washington University in Washington, said the "secret documents are the key" to defeating tobacco companies. "If you don't have the secret documents, you blame the victim," he said.

0 "If you do have the documents, blame the companies." A disappointed Yvonne Rogers said the trial served to raise awareness of the dangers of smoking and doesn't believe her husband died in vain. "I'm very sorry we've lost this battle," she said. "I don't believe it's the end of the war against the tobacco industry." The other companies involved in the lawsuit were R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a unit of RJR Nabisco Holdings Co.: American Tobacco Co., owned by B.A.T. Industries PLC; and Liggett Group Inc. of Brooke Group PLC. _