Smoking Gun
The US Supreme Court on March 31 let stand an Oregon verdict obtained by widow Mayola Williams, whose husband Jesse died of lung cancer, against the Phillip Morris Company. Jesse Williams started smoking in the 1950's, and was diagnosed with lung cancer six months before he died in 1997. Including interest, the amount Phillip Morris must pay is about $150 million, which will be split between the State and Mrs. Williams. (1)
There have been numerous suits filed by sick smokers and their families against tobacco companies, and the verdicts have gone both ways. The Williams verdict (originally nearly $80 million) was the largest in any smoking case up to that time. By declining to review the size of the award (after twice sending it back to the Oregon Supreme Court for review), the US Supreme Court has, in effect, allowed a state court to penalize a tobacco company more than ever before.
But is this verdict fair? Since smokers have been warned in many ways (including statements on the packages of cigarettes since 1966) that smoking may lead to lung cancer and other diseases, have smokers knowledgeably accepted these risks?
The link between smoking and lung cancer was established by the early 1950's, well before the late Jesse Williams began smoking. Cigarettes were already nicknamed "cancer sticks" at that time. The Readers' Digest used to feature an article in every issue about the health dangers of smoking. Information was also readily available from the American Lung Association and other groups at that time.
The US government, perhaps influenced powerful congressmen from tobacco-producing states, was very slow to respond to the problem. For example, through the Korean War, the Veterans Administration permitted tobacco firms to distribute free cigarettes to patients at VA hospitals. (2) Only in 1964 did the US Surgeon General issue a definitive report blaming smoking for lung cancer, other lung diseases, and cardio-vascular diseases. The familiar package warnings appeared less than two years later.
So, Mr Williams could have easily learned that smoking was known cause of lung cancer before he started smoking, but maybe he did not know. The tobacco firms were not legally required to warn him at that time, and they did not. Neither did the federal or state governments. Unlike their customers, the tobacco firms have known all along that cigarettes are highly dangerous to the health of those who smoke them, but the industry used its considerable wealth and marketing ability to convince the public that smoking was safe.
If only Mr Williams, and millions like him, would have quite smoking as soon as the Surgeon General's report came out in 1964, or even when the package warnings appeared months later, he and they might have enjoyed additional decades of good health. Although the percentage of American men who smoke has declined (from nearly 30% in 1964 to about 24% now), those who have tried to quit after starting have found it extremely difficult, and most have failed.
That is because nicotine, a key ingredient in cigarette smoke, is highly addictive. In fact, a whole new industry has grown up to fight nicotine addiction: pills, patches, even support groups. Internal memos (leaked by "whisteblower" employees) prove that the tobacco industry has known for many years how addictive nicotine is. If selling someone a harmful and addictive drug does not incur liability, then product liability must not exist.
So, Mr Williams got hooked, got sick, and died; does that justify an award that has grown to almost $150 million? In most (if not all) states, legal limits on "wrongful death" are far lower than this sum. Clearly, the verdict was a case of "punitive damages." Yet, there is no monetary equivalent to human life or suffering, and I agree with the plaintiff that this is a case in which punitive damages are justified. I cannot put a dollar-figure on just the right penalty, so I cannot quarrel with the jury's determination in Williams.
Phillip Morris will survive this verdict, but if many more verdicts anywhere near this big are entered against the cigarette makers, the domestic cigarette business will not survive. But more Americans will survive, and I like that better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Associated Press, April 1, 2009
(2) Despite the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, more veterans are being treated for smoking-related illnesses by the VA than battle injuries.
There have been numerous suits filed by sick smokers and their families against tobacco companies, and the verdicts have gone both ways. The Williams verdict (originally nearly $80 million) was the largest in any smoking case up to that time. By declining to review the size of the award (after twice sending it back to the Oregon Supreme Court for review), the US Supreme Court has, in effect, allowed a state court to penalize a tobacco company more than ever before.
But is this verdict fair? Since smokers have been warned in many ways (including statements on the packages of cigarettes since 1966) that smoking may lead to lung cancer and other diseases, have smokers knowledgeably accepted these risks?
The link between smoking and lung cancer was established by the early 1950's, well before the late Jesse Williams began smoking. Cigarettes were already nicknamed "cancer sticks" at that time. The Readers' Digest used to feature an article in every issue about the health dangers of smoking. Information was also readily available from the American Lung Association and other groups at that time.
The US government, perhaps influenced powerful congressmen from tobacco-producing states, was very slow to respond to the problem. For example, through the Korean War, the Veterans Administration permitted tobacco firms to distribute free cigarettes to patients at VA hospitals. (2) Only in 1964 did the US Surgeon General issue a definitive report blaming smoking for lung cancer, other lung diseases, and cardio-vascular diseases. The familiar package warnings appeared less than two years later.
So, Mr Williams could have easily learned that smoking was known cause of lung cancer before he started smoking, but maybe he did not know. The tobacco firms were not legally required to warn him at that time, and they did not. Neither did the federal or state governments. Unlike their customers, the tobacco firms have known all along that cigarettes are highly dangerous to the health of those who smoke them, but the industry used its considerable wealth and marketing ability to convince the public that smoking was safe.
If only Mr Williams, and millions like him, would have quite smoking as soon as the Surgeon General's report came out in 1964, or even when the package warnings appeared months later, he and they might have enjoyed additional decades of good health. Although the percentage of American men who smoke has declined (from nearly 30% in 1964 to about 24% now), those who have tried to quit after starting have found it extremely difficult, and most have failed.
That is because nicotine, a key ingredient in cigarette smoke, is highly addictive. In fact, a whole new industry has grown up to fight nicotine addiction: pills, patches, even support groups. Internal memos (leaked by "whisteblower" employees) prove that the tobacco industry has known for many years how addictive nicotine is. If selling someone a harmful and addictive drug does not incur liability, then product liability must not exist.
So, Mr Williams got hooked, got sick, and died; does that justify an award that has grown to almost $150 million? In most (if not all) states, legal limits on "wrongful death" are far lower than this sum. Clearly, the verdict was a case of "punitive damages." Yet, there is no monetary equivalent to human life or suffering, and I agree with the plaintiff that this is a case in which punitive damages are justified. I cannot put a dollar-figure on just the right penalty, so I cannot quarrel with the jury's determination in Williams.
Phillip Morris will survive this verdict, but if many more verdicts anywhere near this big are entered against the cigarette makers, the domestic cigarette business will not survive. But more Americans will survive, and I like that better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Associated Press, April 1, 2009
(2) Despite the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, more veterans are being treated for smoking-related illnesses by the VA than battle injuries.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 11:24 AM
3 Comments:
I disagree. I don't know if Jesse Williams started smoking before 1964 or not - I have more sympathy for the verdict if he started before. But I ceratinly don't see how you can fail to hold someone responsible who chooses to start smoking today.
The problem with such a verdict is that,as you suggest, it could put cigarette companies out of business. That impinges on the freedom of someone who wants to smoke, regardless of the health risks. I hold freedom as a much higher value than health. Personally I exercise my freedom by choosing not to smoke but I don't want the government telling me, directly or indirectly, what I can't do as long as it doesn't hurt others.
With the U.S. increasingly moving towards becoming even more of a nanny state, this is just one more encroachment on our freedom. Just like the economic bailouts, providing legal damages of this magnitude for such reasons rewards and encourages irresponsible behavior.
Hi,
I really liked your quote "If selling someone a harmful and addictive drug does not incur liability, then product liability must not exist". Hope all will understand and stop smoking.
I don't agree with the comment "If selling someone a harmful and addictive drug does not incur liability, then product liability must not exist." Tobacco is a harmful and addictive drug, and everyone knows that. If someone decides that that the pleasure of smoking outweighs the risk; how is the manufacturer of the tobacco liable for that individual's choice?
Even if you want to argue that there is product liability, I think the claim that if it is not liability, "then product liability must not exist"is hyperbole. Certainly one can come up with any number of examples that are more clearcut than that. How about a company that sells someone a car that it knows, through its own tests, to have a safety defect, but suppresses that infomration. Isn't that a far better example then the tobacco companies selling "a harmful and addictive drug" which everyone know is exactly that?
Post a Comment
<< Home