Fla. jury: Smoker was addicted
Published: February 13, 2009
A Florida jury decided yesterday that a longtime chain smoker's death from lung cancer was caused by nicotine addiction, a potentially costly loss for tobacco giant Philip Morris and an important test case for thousands of similar lawsuits.
The lawsuit by Elaine Hess, widow of Stuart Hess, is the first of about 8,000 such cases to go to trial since the Florida Supreme Court in 2006 threw out a $145 billion jury award in a class-action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of smokers and their families.
The state's high court upheld the conclusion that tobacco companies knowingly sold dangerous products and concealed smoking's health risks, but ruled each case must be proven individually. Now that the jury has found that Hess was addicted, the case will proceed to the liability and damages phases.
Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, said the decision means the exposure to damages of Philip Morris USA, a unit of Henrico County-based Altria Group, could be substantial.
The decision, however, is just one case out of thousands. "You need to see more than one case before you think there is a trend," he said.
"People are talking about it as a bellwether," Tobias said. "It is the first stage of this one case, but it is the liability phase, and I think it is important that the jury found there was a linkage between the addiction and his death."
Hess' attorneys have not revealed how much they will seek in damages, but it will likely be in the millions of dollars.
Starting today, "the jury's going to hear a lot more about what the tobacco industry has been doing for the last several decades," Hess attorney Adam Trop said.
In a statement, Philip Morris looked ahead to the next phases of the case, saying: "The Hess trial is not over."
In closing arguments, Hess attorneys Gary Paige and Alex Alvarez said Stuart Hess smoked heavily for 40 years and tried numerous times to quit, even trying hypnosis at one point. But they said the nicotine was too powerful, forcing Hess to continue smoking even as he was undergoing chemotherapy before he died in 1997 at age 55.
"People smoke because they're addicted, not because they choose to," Paige said. "Nobody wants to be addicted to cigarettes. It's as addictive as cocaine and heroin."
Kenneth Reilly, attorney for Philip Morris, said Hess' own medical records show that he was able to quit from time to time but made the decision each time to resume smoking despite doctor's advice to stop. Reilly said thousands of smokers successfully quit each year.
"From an objective standard, have they proved Mr. Hess was addicted? The answer is no," Reilly said.
The trial, which began Feb. 3, is being closely watched by the tobacco industry and by the thousands of other Florida smokers and survivors who have filed similar lawsuits. Although it does not have a direct legal effect on those other lawsuits, the Hess case could signal how they will turn out.
"This [verdict] may be an indicator that they can go forward, or at least a number of them can, if the damages are big enough," Tobias said.
The $145 billion class-action award by a Miami jury -- in 2000 the largest such punitive award in U.S. history -- was thrown out as excessive by the Florida Supreme Court.
After that, "I think the defense side believed that the cases would go away, that they would not be worth it in terms of litigation financing as individual cases rather than a class action," Tobias said.
Staff writer John Reid Blackwell and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Hi Rayzor, What do you mean by “great equalizer?“ I’m not sure that I understand. Could you explain?
Those were my words at the end of your post. I “searched my conscience” and stand by my words. Litigation should not be the great equalizer in this country, but it is.
“Contrary to contemporary thinking, human beings are moral agents… choice is what distinguishes us.”
Posted by ( MarshallJohn ) on February 13, 2009 at 10:24 am
PERSONS organized into CORPORATIONS are also MORAL AGENTS. They too must be held morally accountable for their choices.
CRYBABY CORPORATIONS PLAY THE POLITICALLY CORRECT “I AM A VICTIM” GAME BETTER THAN ANY.
“Am I my brother’s keeper?“ – Cain answering the Almighty (Gen 4:9)
Corporations, like Cain of old, want all the protections real people enjoy under the law, but none of the responsibilities. Corporations are persons that have obtained special legal protection and exemption from social, civic & moral accountabilities that are required of ordinary persons.
BUSINESS DEFINITION FOR: CORPORATION: http://www.allbusiness.com/glossaries/corporation/4949198-1.html
legal entity, chartered by a U.S. state or by the federal government, and separate and distinct from the persons who own it, giving rise to a jurist’s remark that it has “neither a soul to damn nor a body to kick.“ Nonetheless, it is regarded by the courts as an artificial person; it may own property, incur debts, sue, or be sued. It has three chief distinguishing features: 1)limited liability; owners can lose only what they invest. 2) easy transfer of ownership through the sale of shares of stock. & 3) continuity of existence.
IF AMERICAN’S CONTINUE TO ALLOW CORPORATIONS TO CLAIM SPECIAL RIGHTS AND EXECPTIONS FROM ACCOUNTABILITY. AMERICA WILL DIE. AND IF AMERICANS DON’T STOP THEM NO ONE WILL!
The American peoples’ complacency over the oil industry’s The-Republic-Owes-Us-a-Living Mind Set led to the greatest strategic blunder—economic, military and geopolitical—in human history: The deliberate dismantling of federal policies defining a sustainable 21st century economy and liberating Americans from Mideast oil. This occurred in the mid 1980s and has been going on ever since. Gone were research grants for new energy sources, and tax breaks for work-a-day Americans investing in efficiencies for their homes and businesses (I got $900 tax credit for insulating my house) ; leaving, by default, a policy of tax-funded programs subsidizing production and consumption of oil.
On behalf of the SPECIAL PERSONS incorporated as OIL COMPANIES, we Americans support brutal Petro-Tyrannies; we spend lives and limbs of our young troops & also that of uncounted civilian innocents in foreign lands. We stifle science, ignore reason, dumb ourselves down, affirm irresponsibility (corporate & personal) as expressions of Liberty, and squander our children’s birthright. We have lost 30 years of scientific, technical & economic progress spinning our wheels and paying taxes to honor what SPECIAL PERSONS INCORPORATED AS OIL COMPANIES HAVE CLAIM AS THEIR RIGHTS.
The tobacco industry is the worst of all because they have organized their customers as a special class who are discriminated against because they smoke—hence when smokers fight for the false right to force tobacco smoke on others they really lobby to further the interests of the corporation over the good of our Constitutional Democracy.
How else do we explain the hissy-fit of moral outrage expressed on this blog towards the WIDOW OF A DEAD TOBACCO CONSUMER? Something is VERY, VERY WRONG!
I hope that those of us for whom, Elaine Hess’ [the widow of Stuart Hess] lawsuit against the tobacco industry has inspired remarks like “Personal responsibility is almost non-existent anymore….The judges and juries that let this nonsense go on ought to pay the damages, not a company doing just doing business” will take time to think about their words and to search their conscience.
Studebaker, I’m sorry for the loss of your father. I agree with you that his generation was the greatest. My father was of that generation too. You make some excellent points, as does 12steprevenge. While I’m not going to change my stance, those comments do shed a different light on how I look at the whole thing. I guess I might not be quite as disturbed if the lawsuits weren’t so ridiculously high. I know, I know…what is the value of a life? Yeah, I get that. I still maintain my stance.
As for manipulating the nicotine, has it occurred to anyone that maybe that also was for quality control? Think about it: tobacco companies get tobacco from dozens of sources. For instance, there’s no Marlboro Plantation or Winston Farm or Camel Tobacco Supply. So with that in mind, how do you suppose that every single cigarette of one brand tastes the same? I smoked Marlboro Reds for 15 of the 27 years I smoked. Every single one of them tasted the same. That’s why I kept smoking them - I liked the taste. Same goes for any other cigarette.
One other thing to consider with nicotine manipulation: if tobacco companies continue to increase the levels of nicotine, wouldn’t demand for cigarettes increase exponentially? Why, with that logic, eventually demand would be so high that the companies wouldn’t be able to meet it. It’s a stretch, I know, but it’s theoretically possible.
zerro, I saw your name and, ahem, “distinctive” writing style and my name at the start of the post. I said it before, but I’ll reiterate it (that means “repeat”) for you: your posts are incoherent drivel (that means “worthless stuff that’s impossible to understand”)and I refuse to waste my time trying to decipher them (that means “figure them out”) or comment on them.
“We are a free market; but also a free “polis”—a free society; and free markets depend on free societies & the rule of law, which in turn rely on civic virtue. In constitutional democracies, the qualities of free markets are supposed to be determined by an informed and virtuous public, which holds as its highest value the sovereignty and dignity of each individual. It is the publics’ responsibility to wisely define the legal sanction or restrictions of products and there uses in light of the good of the republic and of the equal rights of each individual. Caveat Emptor is good advice; but there is buying and selling that effects those who are not involved and that may weaken the greater republic. That’s how I see it, anyway.“ - Studebaker
Very well stated. I think, as a premise of most political philosophies (aside from variations of authoritarianism, I guess) is an assumption of virtue on the part of its practitioners. As we all know, though, there is no shortage of dishonor in this world. Citizens, corporations, and politicians all endeavor to play by a different set of rules than everyone else. We like to talk about personal accountability to no end, but what of corporate accountability?
There’s no question that Philip Morris took steps to increase the levels of nicotine in order to make their product more habit forming so as to sell more cigarettes. PM engineered a product that has functioned as it was designed to, at the peril of its consumers. Sure, smokers choose to pick up those cigarettes and smoke them, but that’s not the end-all be-all of the story. Mr. Hess payed for his complicity with his life. Is it so ridiculous for corporations to answer for the role they have played?
The more I think about it, the more I am puzzled. Why do many of us who post here vilify an elderly widow who sued the tobacco industry—which is her right by constitution?
Hello Rayzor:
My father smoked his first cigarette Government Issue in the Navy WWII. He would never smoke around us kids. In spite of my father’s council I smoked in my late teens & early 20s (I, with my dad’s enthusiastic approval, was also in the Navy at that time) before quitting. That was nearly four decades ago. My father quit in 1996 after being diagnosed with lung cancer. He lost a lung and the chemo/radio therapy was very hard on him—though he refused to show it. I am happy to say that dad is still with us and is enjoying life.
It takes a long time for the son to appreciate the quiet wisdom of the father. And I truly believe that his generation—from the Great Depression, through WWII, and to the Moon—is indeed the Greatest. My father does not hold anyone or anything accountable for his sufferings, only himself. But I feel it to be my duty to point out where assumed rights under the free market intrude into the greater principle of freedom—the free society. And my father encourages me to that end.
We are a free market; but also a free “polis”—a free society; and free markets depend on free societies & the rule of law, which intern rely on civic virtue. In constitutional democracies, the qualities of free markets are supposed to be determined by an informed and virtuous public, which holds as its highest value the sovereignty and dignity of each individual. It is the publics’ responsibility to wisely define the legal sanction or restrictions of products and there uses in light of the good of the republic and of the equal rights of each individual. Caveat Emptor is good advice; but there is buying and selling that effects those who are not involved and that may weaken the greater republic. That’s how I see it, anyway.
Forgive that I ramble on so….studebaker
Thanks for clarifying, studebaker. Your post makes more sense to me now. To be honest, I never looked at it from the widow’s point of view. However, I still don’t see where PM or Altria are to blame.
We have a free enterprise system in this country. Therefore, if a company wants to sell a legal product and there is a market for it, then it seems to me that the person purchasing the product assumes the responsibility for the repercussions of consuming or using the product. So even if Philip Morris was manipulating the amount of nicotine in cigarettes (which I don’t believe is true), the fact remains that there are no laws prohibiting that. And let’s not forget the ancient Latin adage, “Buyer beware.“
My biggest concern with the tobacco verdicts is, where does it end? Thankfully, someone was astute enough to see the insanity of the lawsuit filed by the woman who sued McDonald’s a few years ago because her son, who ate at McDonald’s all the time, weighed close to 500 pounds. If we apply the same logic of this frivolous lawsuit and the tobacco verdicts to any other situation, there really is no end.
Cars can go 100 mph, and IF they hit a tree, they can kill someone. Motorcycles have only two wheels, thereby making them only half as safe as a car which has four wheels. Why aren’t we suing Armour and Oscar Mayer? Is there a more unhealthy food than bacon? What about eggs? My son is allergic to albumen, or egg whites. I’m not suing chicken farmers. Using the logic of the tobacco suits, Anheuser-Busch, Miller Brewing, Coor’s Brewing, ad infinitum would never get out of court. Nor would Sara Lee or Enetemann’s.
I think what most people are trying to say here is that just because a product is available for our consumption, in the end, the amount of that consumption is up to the consumer…not the company that makes the product. Therefore, personal responsibility is the key, NOT the fact that a company makes a product that might be potentially harmful.
Sorry Rayzor. Perhaps I did go a bit over the top.
MY CURRENT DIATRIBE
I think many who post on this blog regard the special legal protection that corporations have obtained to be a sort of moral imperative for all humanity—it is not. Human decision makers, engaged in commerce, who obtains special legal protection by incorporating, are no less prone to moral failings than an individual plaintiff that sues for damages claiming corporate malfeasance. Corporations like PM & Altria should be able to muster the moral courage to weather a few slings & arrows with honor—and emerge the better for it. Certainly a business (& board of directors) that continues to sell tobacco for human consumption and is dependent on a market of unwise choosers is morally weak compared to the business that puts easy tobacco money, with all its liabilities and externalized costs, behind and strikes for new enterprises more helpful to our world than harmful.
I don’t understand how a widow who sued the tobacco industry could inspire such ardent moral indignations and broad Us-Against-the-World type claims as: “having self-respect takes a back seat all too often in this country…No one today is will to take responsibility for their own actions and decisions…Personal responsibility is almost non-existent anymore…people should just step up to the plate and accept that they were weak.” For my part, I can understand that smoker’s widow would want to stick it to the tobacco industry. If a smoker’s widow’s claim we must trust the courts to screen it; for as imperfect as it is, our legal system is the only one we have.
MY RESPONS TO RAYZOR’S QUESTION:
“You didn’t address anything. You offered nothing but a summary of key statements throughout the postings. Again, what was the point? Am I missing something?”
Yes you did miss something Razor; and it’s my fault for hiding my comments amongst a bunch of quotes. For your convenience I have recopied my comments below. These are the points of my previous post:
MY PREVIOUS DIATRIBE:
Depending on how future individual cases turn out, it may one day be concluded that since tobacco companies CHOSE to “knowingly [sell] dangerous products and concealed smoking’s health risks” they rightly suffer the consequence of that CHOICE—after all No One Made Them sell tobacco or lie about it. A person or business that stoops to selling tobacco these days—even to those who are foolish enough buy—and expects not to face the consequences of such “business” decisions live in a dream world and think that “society owes me something.”—studebaker
I hear this sort of talk everyday; it is popular, socially sanctioned in many circles. I see a politically correct lifestyle-cult which requires some other person or group as the focus of its member’s derision & blame so that they can imagine themselves as being well above the mean in strength, character and morality. You must admit that many of these posts have a Preachy, Gossipy, Whiney, “The Whole World is against Poor Righteous Me” quality.—studebaker
Rayzor & all: I would appreciate your thoughtful commentary on my “diatribes” (current and previous)
Sincerely
studebaker
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement