A National Legal-Action Antismoking Organization
Entirely Supported by Tax-Deductible Contributions
| Home | Search | About ASH | Why Join | Comment | Email page |
|
Action on Smoking and Health
A National Legal-Action Antismoking Organization Entirely Supported by Tax-Deductible Contributions
|
CA Appeals Court Overturns $22 Million Verdict Against Big Tobacco [04/08-3]
Excerpts from: Court overturns $22M tobacco ruling
CNN [04/08/04]
A California appeals court overturned a $21.7 million verdict Wednesday against cigarette makers Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds and sent the key smoker lawsuit back to a lower court for retrial.
The California Court of Appeals reversed the March 2000 award on grounds the trial court issued improper jury instructions in the case against Altria Group's Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings.
The ruling also marks a victory for the tobacco industry because the case was the first time cigarette makers were held responsible for people who began smoking after the U.S. surgeon general announced the dangers of smoking in 1965 and health warnings began appearing on cigarette packages in 1969
Leslie Whiteley originally sued the cigarette makers in San Francisco Superior Court, charging they acted with malice, knew about the hazards of smoking and deliberately misled the public about those dangers even though the companies had been printing health warnings on packages.
A jury in March 2000 awarded Whiteley -- who died of lung cancer soon after the trial -- $10 million in punitive damages from each company as well as $1.7 million in compensatory damages in a decision later upheld by a San Francisco judge.
Yet the appellate justices found the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that it could not base liability on conduct that occurred from 1988 to 1998. During those 10 years, California had given the tobacco companies immunity.
The three-judge panel found evidence the companies misled and deceived consumers, but the justices nevertheless sent the case back for retrial due to the improper jury instructions."A proper instruction advising the jury that it could not find defendants liable for fraud or negligence based upon its conduct during the last 10 years of that period would have made such arguments impossible," the panel ruled unanimously.
Plaintiff attorney Madelyn Chaber said she was disappointed with the ruling but buoyed by the fact the court found that there was "substantial evidence" for her client's accusations.
Click Here to View the Entire Decision
| Home Web Page | Search This Site | Learn About ASH | Why Join ASH | Comment on This | Email This Page |