Tobacco Documents Online

• Tobacco Cos. Win Ind. Liability Trial-2 FORM TYPE: LEGAL ISSUER: FEDERAL FILINGS BUSINESS NEWS SYMBOL: X.FFI Indianapolis, Ind.--The tobacco industry breathed a heavy sigh of relief today when the six-member jury panel in Indianapolis concluded that the four major U.S. cigarette producers are not liable for the illness and death of Richard Rogers, in the case known as Rogers v. RJR Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al. The Rogers case has been watched closely by Wall Street following the 8/9/96 verdict against Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co. from a Jacksonville, Fla., jury that awarded plaintiff Grady Carter $750,000. In this case, Roger's claimed that the tobacco companies are strictly liable for failing to warn of their products' propensity to be addictive, in addition to being harmful, and that the companies failed to design a less addictive cigarette. An additional negligence claim asserts that the companies failed to exercise reasonable care in designing cigarettes. The tobacco companies asserted that Rogers was aware of the risks of smoking, repeatedly ignored warnings to quit and that he was not addicted to cigarettes since cigarettes are not addictive. i Critics of the tobacco industry call this defense 7 contradictory: the industry maintains that there is no direct evidence linking smoking to cancer; yet, if smoking does cause cancer, the industry contends that smokers must accept responsibility for their actions and since the public is aware of the risks of smoking, the industry cannot be held liable. Although the Rogers and Carter cases have factual similarities, the two cases tested slightly different liability theories and exposed the juries to different evidence. For instance, Indiana's comparative negligence law only allowed Rogers to recover if the jury found Richard Rogers less than 51% responsible for his own injury. Although Florida law would have allowed Carter to recover from Brown & Williamson even if he was 99% responsible for his own injury, the tobacco company strategically declined to raise the defense of contributory negligence, thereby, forcing the jury to make an all or nothing conclusion. In addition, the Indiana jury did not view prejudicial Brown & Williamson internal documents that allegedly demonstrate the cigarette manufacturer's knowledge of the hazards of smoking well before this information was made public and before the enactment of the Cigarette Labelling Act in 1966. Even today, the tobacco industry maintains that smoking does not cause cancer. Case History The case was filed by Richard Rogers on 3/7/87 after being 8/23/96 1

~ diagnosed with lung cancer on 8115/86. Richard Rogers, an attorney, died from lung cancer on 10/2/87 at the age of 52, and his wife, Yvonne Rogers, continued the legal battle against the tobacco companies. The case was dismissed early on and Rogers appealed to the Indiana State Court of Appeals, which reversed the dismissal but denied the prosecution of fraud and failure to warn after 1966 claims. Eight years later, strict liability, negligence and pre-1966 failure to warn claims proceeded to trial but did not end the dispute. Although the jury unanimously agreed that cigarettes are unreasonably dangerous, they split 5-1 on whether Rogers "voluntarily" incurred a known risk by smoking. The trial judge subsequently entered judgment in favor of the defendants on the pre-1966 failure to warn claim and punitive damages. Rogers began smoking as a kindergartner. By middle school, he was smoking a pack a day, by high school graduation he was up to two packs a day and up to three packs a day by 1953 while in the army and thereafter. Rogers incorporated smoking into every activity, and despite many creative efforts to quit the habit, could not stop for more than a few days at which point he finally realized he was hooked and that smoking was more than a bad habit. Rogers finally quit after hypnosis and drug therapy; two months later he was diagnosed with lung cancer. The named defendant tobacco companies are Philip Morris Cos., RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co., a unit of RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., Liggett Group, a subsidiary of Brooke Group Ltd. and London-based B.A.T. 49 Industries PLC.'s Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co. defended on behalf of The American Tobacco Co., due to a February 1995 merger. /FEDERAL FILINGS CONTACTS: (202) 393-7856 FOR EDITORIAL, (800) 487-6162 FOR DOCUMENT SALES, (202) 628-8990 FOR NEWSWIRE SALES, & (888) FED-FILE FOR TECHNICAL SUPPORT./ (END) FEDERAL FILINGS-DOW JONES NEWS 08-23-96 20:25 08/23/96 20:25 :TICKER: AMB BGL BTI LTR MO RN BTI.L UST FFI.O :SUBJECT: INSP TOBC LAWS CT FL NY ENGL FDPR HOT Copyright (c) 1996 Federal Filings, Inc. - A Dow Jones Information Services Co. Received by NewsEDGE/LAN: 8/23/96 8:32 PM 0 8/23/96 2