Skip to comments.
L.A. Jury Rejects Damages Against Philip Morris
Reuters ^
| 07-31-03
Posted on 07/31/2003 5:31:43 PM PDT by Brian S
Thu July 31, 2003 07:20 PM ET By Gina Keating
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A Los Angeles jury on Thursday cleared Philip Morris USA of liability for a former smoker's inoperable lung cancer in a closely watched tobacco lawsuit.
The jury found that smoking was a "substantial factor" in causing Fredric Reller's illness but determined that Philip Morris, a unit of Altria Group Inc., had not misled him about the dangers of smoking.
The jury deadlocked on one fraud count against the tobacco company after six days of deliberation.
"The jury heard clear and compelling evidence that Mr. Reller was well aware of the risks of smoking and was responsible for the smoking decisions he made," William Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris' associate general counsel said. "The jury's decision makes common sense and legal sense."
The case has been closely watched because Reller's attorney, Michael Piuze, has won two record-setting verdicts against Philip Morris.
Piuze said that he would seek a retrial on the one fraud count on which the jury had been unable to reach a conclusion.
"I'm kind of perplexed about the jury's finding that Philip Morris never made a false statement about smoking," Piuze said after the verdicts. "You have to ask the jury what that's about."
Piuze had asked the eight-woman, four-man jury to award Reller actual damages of about $17 million plus punitive damages, Philip Morris said.
A lawyer for Philip Morris said the company would ask the judge to rule from the bench on the remaining count of whether it had fraudulently concealed the risks of smoking.
The trial began last month, with Philip Morris arguing that Reller, 64, was already addicted to nicotine by the time he started smoking the company's cigarettes.
The Reller lawsuit is the first tobacco case to be tried in California since both the state's and the nation's high courts ruled that punitive damages awards should correspond to actual losses. The California Supreme Court set a ratio of 3 to 1 while the U.S. Supreme Court found that the ratio should not exceed 9 to 1.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; US: California
KEYWORDS: philipmorris; pufflist
1
posted on
07/31/2003 5:31:44 PM PDT
by
Brian S
To: Brian S
Sanity re-enters the debate.
2
posted on
07/31/2003 5:40:44 PM PDT
by
IronJack
To: Brian S
The smoking lamp is lit!
To: Brian S
Common sence in a LA courtroom?????
I smoke.I started at 12 years old.I knew it was not "healthy" when I lit my first cigarette.
I am an addict.My fault.My choice.My problem.
I wonder who the heroin addicts sue? That is a demonstrably more destructive and harmfull substance to use and abuse.
4
posted on
07/31/2003 5:48:45 PM PDT
by
sarasmom
(Punish France, Ignore Germany, Forgive Russia. Canada-well they are mostly French)
To: Brian S
"The California Supreme Court set a ratio of 3 to 1 while the U.S. Supreme Court found that the ratio should not exceed 9 to 1"Interesting....the CA Supremes set a more restrictive limit on punitive damages than did the US Supremes! Another small crack in the liberal stranglehold of this state?
5
posted on
07/31/2003 5:52:00 PM PDT
by
NilesJo
To: Brian S; *puff_list; Just another Joe; SheLion; Great Dane; Flurry; CSM
While I despise PM and how they have sold out to the Smoke-Gnatzies - it's good to see that some people still believe in personal responsiblity.
6
posted on
07/31/2003 5:52:31 PM PDT
by
Gabz
(anti-smokers - personification of everything wrong in this country.)
To: Gabz
It never has been about smoking and health, it has been about trial lawyers and a huge nest egg to rob. Trial lawyers are some of the democrats biggest contributers.
7
posted on
07/31/2003 6:34:57 PM PDT
by
meter man
To: Brian S
How could the jury possibly know to what extent the man's smoking was a factor in his illness? We don't even know what causes cancer.
8
posted on
07/31/2003 6:45:49 PM PDT
by
redbaiter
To: sarasmom
Must have been at least 1 Freeper on that jury.
9
posted on
07/31/2003 7:41:39 PM PDT
by
Vesuvian
To: Brian S
Thank you jury.
To: sarasmom
The sense may be attributable to a change in the jury pool. Currently in L.A., jurors report for a "one day /one trial" system.
The court excuse as many of the employed and professional people as they once would because all jurors are released after one day if not selected to sit for a trial. This means that many jurors are obliged to sit even if they are personally losing money in their job or business.
The jury panels are in a bad mood. A judge in L.A. Central recently told me that his last three juries came in with three rapid defense verdicts.
11
posted on
07/31/2003 7:56:37 PM PDT
by
BenLurkin
(Socialism is slavery.)
To: Brian S
This must be satire. No California jury would work like this. Smoke Gnatzies made this story up.
12
posted on
08/01/2003 4:53:04 AM PDT
by
Conspiracy Guy
(Call em "Smoke Gnatzies" Little minds buzzing into your business. Swat em every time.)
To: Brian S
Looks like if you smoke real heavily, and you want to blame the tobacco companies for your smoking & cancer, it just won't fly anymore. Or not as easily.
13
posted on
08/01/2003 5:06:30 AM PDT
by
dennisw
(G_d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
To: Brian S
Attorney for the plaintif receives 6 months confinement
I wish!
14
posted on
08/01/2003 5:09:01 AM PDT
by
verity
To: Brian S
With the recent fast food jokery lawsuits going on these jury members (Americans) finally realize the idiocy of such lawsuits. Before the issue of personal responsibility and choice slapped them in the face they didn't care!
15
posted on
08/01/2003 5:26:02 AM PDT
by
CSM
("Smoke Gnatzies" - New term for the antis, invented and promoted by Flurry.)
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson