Jump to:

Philip Morris

Tobacco Companies Win Suit Brought by U.S. Smoker

Date: 23 Aug 1996
Length: 2 pages
2077409723-2077409724
Jump To Images
spider_pm 2077409723_9724

Fields

Author
Mclaren, G.
Type
COMP, COMPUTER PRINTOUT
NEWS, NEWS ARTICLE
Area
PURCELL,CLARE/CARLSTADT
Named Organization
Amer, American Tobacco
Bat Industries
Brooke Group
Bw, Brown & Williamson
FDA, Food and Drug Administration
Lig, Liggett
Marion County Superior Court
Newsedge
Northeastern Law School
Philip Morris
Philip Morris Cos Inc
RJR Nabisco Holdings
RJR, R.J.Reynolds
Tobacco Products Liability Project
Site
N922
Named Person
Anderson, D.
Carter
Clinton, W.
Daynard, R.
Donahue, D.
Rogers, R.
Wall, C.
Xxyvonne
Author (Organization)
Reuters
Master ID
2077409565/9739
Related Documents:
Litigation
Mile/Produced
Date Loaded
18 Feb 2003
UCSF Legacy ID
dox60c00

Document Images

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size:

Page 1: dox60c00 Log in for more options!
0 0 Tobacco companies win suit brought by U.S. smoker (Adds quotes, background) By George McLaren INDIANAPOLIS, Aug 23 (Reuter) - An Indiana jury on Friday ruled in favor of four tobacco companies in a liability suit filed by the widow and family of a longtime smoker who died of lung cancer. The tobacco industry had badly needed the win to offset a $750,000 damage award delivered against it earlier this month by a Jacksonville, Florida, jury. Legal experts had said that the earlier verdict was a sign that juror attitudes were turning against cigarette companies. "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, senior vice president, litigation, for Philip Morris Cos. Inc. <MO.N>. The Florida verdict marked only the second time a jury had ever award damages against the industry. Anti-smoking forces dismissed Friday's verdict as insignificant because the jury in the case had not been allowed to see key internal industry memos that influenced the Florida jury and will be shown at upcoming trials. "This is a small blip on the screen. It doesn't really set us back," said Richard Daynard, chairman of the Tobacco Products Liability Project at Northeastern Law School in Boston. The victory could not have come at a better time for the industry that just earlier in the day had been hit by President Bill Clinton s approval of Food and Drug Administration's regulation of cigarettes aimed at keeping tobacco away from children. It is also the target of proliferating lawsuits filed by individuals and states seeking repayment of health care costs of smokers. In its verdict, the Marion County Superior Court jury found for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Liggett Group Inc., Philip Morris and The American Tobacco Co., now owned by Brown & Williamson, a unit of B.A.T Industries Plc. <BATS.L> RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp. <RN.N> is the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Liggett is a subsidiary of Brooke Group Ltd. <BGL.N> - The suit was filed by the widow and three children of Richard Rogers, an Indianapolis lawyer who died at the age of 52 in 1987. They sought unspecified damages, contending that the tobacco industry peddled an addictive product that caused Rogers' cancer. "I don't believe its the end of the war against the tobacco industry," said Rogers' widow Yvonne. "I believe that in my husband's death, even though we lost this trial, that he's still made a difference and that a lot of people now are more aware of what's going on and that he didn't lose his life in vain."
Page 2: dox60c00 Log in for more options!
0 The jury foreman in the case, David Anderson, said it had been proven at trial that health risks "were well known not only by the companies but by the people who smoked cigarettes throughout the years ... and we feel that knowing that danger there is some sense of negligence there." In the case -- which was tried once before and wound up in a hung jury -- the Rogers family contended the industry peddled an addictive product that was the cause of his lung cancer. Rogers originally filed the suit himself. He had quit smoking about a year before his death, after he was diagnosed with cancer. Lawyers for the Rogers family said during the trial that he knew he was addicted and tried often to quit, but the industry, by selling an addictive product, took that choice away from him. Lawyers for the industry countered that Rogers for at least 20 years was exposed to warning labels on cigarette packs and should have been fully aware of the risks. "This ruling suggests that the Carter verdict in Florida two weeks ago was an aberration," said Daniel Donahue, R.J Reynolds Tobacco senior vice president and deputy general counsel-litigation. Anti-smoking advocates disagreed and said the Rogers case was far different from the Florida action and the hundreds of other suits pending around the country. Copyright (c) 1996 Reuters Received by NewsEDGF/LAN: 8/23/96 11:52 PM

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size: