Federal Jury Finds In Favor of Philip Morris

CNSNews.com ^ | March 21, 2002

[Stand Watch Listen]

(CNSNews.com) - A federal jury in Providence, R.I., ruled in favor of Philip Morris U.S.A. in a case brought by the family of a Rhode Island smoker. Judith Hyde sued for compensatory damages for her husband Walter's death, because she said the company did not warn him of the possible health hazards when he started smoking in 1959, his teen years.

"The jury concluded that there was widespread common knowledge of the health hazards of smoking even before the Surgeon General's warning was put on cigarette packages," said William S. Ohlemeyer, vice president and associate general counsel for Philip Morris Companies. "The evidence showed that, like other members of the public, Mr. Hyde was aware of the risks of smoking and was legally responsible for his decision to smoke in light of those risks."

U.S. District Judge Mary Lisi had ruled that the only question to determine was whether it was the company's duty to warn Mr. Hyde of possible health hazards between 1959 and 1964, when the U.S. Surgeon General issued a finding that cigarette smoking may cause lung cancer in men, and could therefore be held responsible for compensatory damages only. Judge Lisi had ruled that once the Surgeon General's report was issued, there was no question over whether tobacco companies had a responsibility to warn of smoking dangers.

[nothingnew]

PUFF!

FMCDH!

[Fish out of Water]

index bump

[Max McGarrity]

Interesting, innit, that when the tobacco industry is allowed by the gubmint to mount a defense, they often win? Sounds right to me. I knew before I ever picked up a cigarette that they could cause health problems. Then I looked around at my family and friends' families and didn't notice they were dropping like flies and made a choice. I was a full-fledged voting adult at the time, too.

[Great Dane]

Sanity reigns again, this could become a habit.

[Landru]

These nefarious lawsuits must be dealt with precisely in this fashion by the targeted, and completyely legal American businesses.
That is to say; focus the question down to one, simple concept:

"What did [you] not understand about the federally mandated posted warnings which compelled [you] to continued your _________ behavior?"

Everything else these claimants have tried is, interestingly enough, not much more than a smokescreen; obscuring their inability to accept personal responsibility for their own action(s).

The bloodsucker sheisters certainly are not very happy hearing this.

[Gabz]

Interesting, innit, that when the tobacco industry is allowed by the gubmint to mount a defense, they often win?

As long as it is in a jurisdiction that hasn't changed the laws to forbid a defense (anyone remember Florida????)