|
Contact: Edward Sweda e-mail to media @ tplp.org
August 15, 2003
PHILADELPHIA JURY THAT DID NOT GET TO REVIEW CRITICAL INTERNAL DOCUMENTS FINDS BROWN & WILLIAMSON CORP. NOT LIABLE IN LUNG CANCER DEATH
Background and Commentary on the Trial Verdict
A Philadelphia jury today found that Brown & Williamson Corp. is not liable for the lung cancer death of a man who smoked Carlton cigarettes thinking that they were safer than conventional cigarettes. The judge refused to allow the jury to see critical internal documents that showed how American Tobacco Company marketed Carltons in a manner that would keep the victim, WIlliam Eiser, from quitting smoking by fooling him into thinking that Carltons are a safe alternative to other brands.
LOIS EISER, AS THE
ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM M. EISER AND LOIS EISER, INDIVIDUALLY, vs.
BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO
CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO THE AMERICAN TOBACCO
COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, This lawsuit was filed by William M. Eiser and Lois Eiser in March 1999 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for injuries to Mr. Eiser which he claimed were caused by smoking Carlton cigarettes. After Mr. Eiser's death on December 3, 1999, Mrs. Eiser became the sole plaintiff. Mr. Eiser, who was from Philadelphia, was just 54 years old at the time of his death. After serving in the U.S. Navy from 1965 until 1969, Mr. Eiser worked in a variety of occupations until buying a local grocery market in Philadelphia in 1978. The case was brought by attorneys George J. Badey III, Charles E. Mangan III, and David J. Berney of Sheller, Ludwig & Badey in Philadelphia. The defendant, Brown & Williamson, is the successor company to The American Tobacco Company, which was merged with Brown & Williamson in 1995. American Tobacco produced Carlton cigarettes. Brown & Williamson is represented by Bruce G. Sheffler, Thomas E. Riley and Karen A. Iafe of Chadbourne & Parke LLP in New York, and by Peter S. Greenberg and Jennifer A. Diamantis of Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis LLP in Philadelphia. The trial was held in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania with Judge Gary F. DiVito presiding. Jury selection began on or about July 23, 2003. A jury of twelve jurors and two or more alternate jurors was empanelled. At least ten jurors had to agree on the verdict. According to Brown & Williamson, Mr. Eiser indicated that he smoked Marlboro cigarettes from approximately 1960 until 1970. Mr. Eiser then smoked Raleigh cigarettes from around 1970 until 1973 before switching to Carlton cigarettes from approximately 1973 until 1998. Raleigh cigarettes were manufactured by Brown & Williamson. Carlton cigarettes were manufactured by The American Tobacco Company until it was merged with Brown & Williamson in 1995, and by Brown & Williamson thereafter. Mr. Eiser allegedly smoked 2 to 3 packs of cigarettes a day. He quit smoking in 1998 only after he was diagnosed with lung cancer. Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages and claimed that Brown & Williamson should be held liable for fraud and misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, strict liability, breach of express and implied warranty, negligence, negligent performance of an undertaking to render services, conspiracy and concert of action, unfair trade practices, and violation of consumer protection laws. Mrs. Eiser also sought damages for loss of consortium. Among other claims, she alleged that advertising for Carlton cigarettes, which relied on a discredited method of tar measurements, led Mr. Eiser to believe that Carltons were safer to smoke than other kinds of cigarettes. See a vintage advertisement claiming that ten Carltons have the tar of just one Marlboro Light. Edward Sweda, senior attorney of the Tobacco Products Liability Project at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston noted: "Because of the judge's rulings, this jury did not have the opportunity to consider critical evidence supporting the Eiser family's claims. Documents that provide the context in which Mr. Eiser decided that he would be better off smoking Carlton cigarettes rather than other brands should have been admitted and their exclusion provides a strong basis for appeal." Mark Gottlieb, an attorney for the Tobacco Products Liability Project observed that, "The type of deadly deception that American Tobacco used with their Carlton campaign was clearly designed to intercept smokers who would otherwise quit and give them a product that they thought would be safe. So many people like Mr. Eiser have paid with their lives for buying into the Carlton hype that more cases like this are likely to be tried in Philadelphia and throughout the country."
-- ## -- |