FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  

Contact: Richard Daynard
Edward L. Sweda or
Mark Gottlieb
(617) 373-2026

e-mail to media[at]tplp.org (use @sign)

May 21,  2004

Louisiana Jury Requires Tobacco Companies to Pay $590 Million
to Help Louisiana Smokers to Kick the Habit

Background and Commentary on the Phase II Trial Verdict

GLORIA SCOTT and DEANIA JACKSON,
PLAINTIFFS,

 vs.

 PHILIP MORRIS INC.; R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY; LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY, INC.; BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION, individually and as successor by merger to THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY; and THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC.,
DEFENDANTS.

 CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS
STATE OF LOUISIANA -- DIVISION "K"

Case No. 96-8461

Phase 2 Verdict Background

       On July 25, 2003, a state district court jury in Louisiana ruled that cigarette manufacturers should pay for smoking cessation programs.  The jury rejected claims for industry-paid medical monitoring for 1.5 million Louisiana smokers and ex-smokers.  That same jury returned to the court room on March 29, 2004 to hear two months of testimony and arguments concerning how much money the tobacco companies would need to pay in order to help their addicted customers to quit smoking. That amount is $590 million.

           This landmark class-action lawsuit was brought on behalf of smokers seeking payment by the major cigarette manufacturers of medical monitoring for 1.5 million Louisiana smokers and for programs to help smokers quit.   Approximately 7,000 people in Louisiana die each year of smoking-caused diseases. 

           The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Louisiana residents who took up smoking as of May, 1996.  The class definition in Scott  was defined as:

"all Louisiana residents who are or who were smokers on or before May 24, 1996, of cigarettes manufactured by the defendants, who desire to participate in a program designed to assist them in the cessation of smoking and/or to monitor the medical condition of class members to ascertain whether they may be suffering from diseases caused by, contributed to, or exacerbated by the habit of cigarette smoking, provided the class member alleges that he or she commenced smoking before September 1, 1988 or that one or more defendants actively and intentionally engaged in a course of conduct designed to undermine or eliminate compliance with or attention to warnings on cigarette packaging."

            The plaintiffs are represented by a consortium of about fifty law firms known as the Castano P.L.C.  that was organized in 1994 to pursue a national class action on behalf of all smokers.  That class action was ultimately decertified and, on the next day, May 24, 1996, the consortium of attorneys filed the Scott case.       

          The tobacco firms’ witnesses included an economist who said the companies should not have to underwrite a smoking cessation program for more than 3 years.  Another defense witness, a medical claims administrator, called the huge fund sought by the plaintiffs unnecessary.  He said the companies could instead issue credit cards that smokers could use to pay for help to stop lighting up. 

Plaintiff lawyers argued that one industry witness, Dr. William Nasetta, an internist and occupational medicine specialist who has overseen several workplace smoking cessation programs, is not qualified to assess the broad menu of options they contend that the companies should have to underwrite for 25 years at a cost of more than $1 billion.   

            On November 4, 2003, Judge Richard J. Ganucheau issued a per curiam order in which he made the following findings: 

"This Court determines that the class of Louisiana smokers has demonstrated a need for court-administered programs designed to assist the class of Louisiana smokers who desire to quit smoking and to prevent relapse . . .”

“The Phase II trial will determine the nature, types and components of the cessation of smoking programs, the parameters of such programs, the procedures to be adopted for the establishment, implementation of such programs, the requirements of eligibility of the class of Louisiana smokers who desire to participate in such programs, the duration of the programs, methods for insertion of these programs into the existing public and private healthcare infrastructure in the State of Louisiana, the cost of the programs and the procedures for the establishment and the administration of the court-supervised fund . . .”

 

“Individual addiction is not a prerequisite to participation in the program.  Individual causation, to the extent that it is an issue, will be determined administratively, and not by a jury . . .”

“Based upon the Phase I trial record, this trial court has determined that the principles of comparative fault do not, and more importantly, should not apply to this case.  Applying comparative fault to this intentional act, fraud and conspiracy case would vitiate the very public policy that underlies the doctrine of comparative fault . . .”

“The Phase I trial record showed, and the jury found, that the defendants committed fraud and intentionally conspired to commit that fraud . . .”

 

“The liability trial record in this case also revealed that the defendants’ intentional wrongdoing is, was and will always be fundamentally different in nature than plaintiffs’ negligence, if any.  A true comparison of fault…is simply not possible . . .”

 

“The evidence in this case led the Phase I jury to the findings that defendants’ conduct was intentional across the board, and conspiratorial.  Accordingly, the defendants should be estopped from making the argument that the public generally, Louisiana smokers in particular, knew or should have known these facts which the defendants have consistently misrepresented to be untrue or unknown . . .”

 

“Consent is not applicable to this case.  Based on the trial record, consent is vitiated by the defendants’ superior knowledge and inducement of the plaintiffs’ class members to smoke with the intent and desire that they become addicted . . .”

See Complaint (pdf)

Commentary

Edward Sweda, Senior Attorney for the Tobacco Products Liability Project at Northeastern University noted: "This was an historic victory for Louisiana smokers.  Last July, the jury found that the tobacco companies addicted these smokers through their reprehensible conduct and now must pay to un-addict them."

Mark Gottlieb, also an attorney for the Tobacco Products Liability Project observed that, "The real winners here are the taxpayers of Louisiana. This smoking cessation program will mean fewer smokers on the state's Medicaid program suffering from cancer, heart disease, and emphysema.  This jury's award points to how underfunded tobacco cessation and education programs are around the country despite the billions of dollars paid to the states by the tobacco companies after the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement.  When a jury hearing the evidence determines that it will cost half a billion dollars top help Louisiana Smokers to quit, it shows that the average state expenditure on tobacco control of $10.4 million per year is woefully inadequate."

-- ## --