Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
After nine trials over the health effects of secondhand smoke on flight attendants, the defense has emerged victorious in all but one. The trials stem the 1997 settlement of a class action - Broin v. Philip Morris - which gave more than 3,000 fli ...
According to Benjamine Reid of Miami, who defended the tobacco industry in its most recent victory in November of 2007, the defense has typically argued that the injured was not caused by secondhand smoke because "in the environment of an airplane cabin, there is not enough exposure to secondhand smoke to cause any injury."
But the plaintiffs have not given up hope.
"We have a long way to go," said Edward Sweda
Jump to full article »
The tobacco industry, however, has escaped liability in 10 of 11 suits — the bulk of those involving actions filed by flight attendants — since 2001.
Last month, the industry racked up its latest victory in a series of lawsuits involving flight attendants who alleged that they developed cancer due to secondhand smoke on airplanes. The case was filed by a mother who claimed that her flight-attendant daughter developed lung cancer and died due to exposure to secondhand smoke on airplanes. Menchini v. R.J. Reynolds, No. 2000-20916-CA-01 (Miami-Dade Co., Fla., Cir. Ct.).
The Menchini case was the ninth flight-attendant case to go to trial since 2001. Juries have ruled in favor of the tobacco industry in seven of those cases, although a judge ordered a new trial in one of those cases. Another went against the industry, and yet another ended in a mistrial and was eventually dismissed.
"We are seeing increased victories . . . but the tobacco companies are the defendants here and they are certainly much more vigorous in their defense tactics than the defendants in the other types of secondhand smoke lawsuits," said Edward Sweda Jr., a senior attorney with the Tobacco Products Liability Project . . .
There are potentially hundreds more flight-attendant lawsuits awaiting trial, many of them stemming from a 1997 class action settlement that gave about 60,000 flight attendants the right to sue tobacco companies individually, Sweda noted. Broin v. Philip Morris, 641 So.2d 888 (Fla. 3d Ct. App.).
One Weston, Fla., law firm alone, Weinstein & Weinstein, has more than 300 flight-attendant cases still pending. . . .
Benjamine Reid of Tampa, Fla.-based Carlton Fields' Miami office, who was the lead lawyer for R.J. Reynolds and Brown & Williamson in the Menchini case, said the flight-attendant cases are not about whether second-hand smoke causes illness. Rather the question is: Does secondhand smoke cause illness in a particular environment, in this case an airplane?
The answer is no, said Reid, who convinced the jury in the Menchini case that the amount of smoke in the aircraft was not enough to make someone sick, "and there are a number of studies to support this conclusion."
Today a Miami jury found that R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and other cigarette manufacturers were not liable in the case of a former flight attendant who died of lung cancer in 1996. The suit was brought by Gloria Menchini, who claimed her daughter Annette contracted lung cancer from exposure to secondhand smoke on airplanes. "After hearing and evaluating all the facts in this case, the six-member jury agreed that exposure to secondhand smoke in airplanes did not cause Annette Menchini's condition," said J. Jeffery Raborn, senior counsel for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.
Menchini Trial
*
Court: Circuit Court for the 11th Judicial District, Miami-Dade County, FL
Type of Case: Broin II Individual
Trial Start Date: November 2, 2007
Overview: This wrongful death case is brought against Philip Morris USA and other major cigarette manufacturers by Gloria Menchini, personal representative of Annette Menchini's estate. Annette Menchini was a former flight attendant, who was a member of the Broin class action. Gloria Menchini, the decedent's mother, alleges that as a result of exposure to ETS in airline cabins, her daughter developed lung cancer.
Bland Lane, an early advocate of nonsmokers' rights for airline flight attendants and passengers, and one of the founding Trustees of the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute (FAMRI) [http://famri.org/fa_history/index.php] has passed away.
Below is a death notice from the New York Times, [02/18/07]. John Banzhaf, Executive Director of ASH, mourns her passing, and hopes in this small way to recognize her remarkable achievements. . . .
The Board of Trustees of the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute FAMRI is very sad to announce the sudden and unexpected passing of our beloved Board member, Bland Lane, in San Francisco, on February 15, 2007.
Bland was an extraordinary and accomplished woman, who struggled to lead an active and productive life, while suffering from COPD that developed from working as a nonsmoking flight attendant for 48 years in smoke-filled airline cabins.
In recent years, Bland, along with fellow nonsmoking flight attendants, Patty Young, Lani Blissard and Leisa Sudderth, was a dedicated member of FAMRI's Board of Trustees, a court-approved, not-for-profit foundation that supports scientific research to combat the many diseases caused from exposure to tobacco smoke.
The Florida Supreme Court has cleared the way for more than 3,000 flight attendants to seek compensatory damages against tobacco companies for claims that they suffered respiratory illnesses from secondhand cigarette smoke aboard U.S. airline flights.
The ruling leaves in place a crucial decision by the state's 3rd District Court of Appeal that each litigant does not have to reprove strict liability by the tobacco companies for introducing a dangerous product onto the market. All the flight attendants must show, the panel said, was that they were exposed to secondhand smoke and that the exposure led to their health problems.
On Nov. 28, the Florida Supreme Court refused to hear the companies' appeal of a judgment in favor of Lynn French, a former flight attendant who said she suffered health problems while working aboard planes during the days when travelers could still smoke.
"[The Supreme Court's decision] now gives us the green light to move these cases forward after these years of delay, and it establishes what the issues are that remain to be litigated," said Miami solo practitioner Joel Perwin, who authored an answer brief opposing consideration by the state's high court.
A Florida Supreme Court decision could clear the way for trials on up to 3,000 secondhand smoking claims against the tobacco industry by flight attendants, a plaintiffs' lawyer said Tuesday.
The justices, citing lack of jurisdiction, refused Monday to consider an appeal by tobacco companies against a $500,000 award to former TWA flight attendant Lynn French. She suffers from respiratory illnesses and chronic sinusitis that she blames on secondhand smoke inhaled while working in airliner cabins.
French's case interpreted a $349 million settlement reached in 1997 between the tobacco industry and nonsmoking flight attendants in a class action lawsuit.
A series of mini-trials will decide whether individual flight attendants are entitled to additional damages and, if so, how much each should receive. Most of those trials have been on hold pending the outcome of French's case.
"Now, they have a road map as to how the cases are supposed to be tried," said Rhonda Weinstein, one of French's lawyers.
There will be no further appeal, said John Sorrells, spokesman for Altria
Today a Miami jury found that R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and other cigarette manufacturers were not liable in the case of a flight attendant seeking compensation for a form of chronic sinusitis she claimed was caused by exposure to secondhand smoke on airplanes. The suit was filed by Lorraine Swaty, a flight attendant for US Airways.
"After hearing all the facts in this case, the six-member jury unanimously agreed that exposure to secondhand smoke in airplanes did not cause Ms. Swaty's condition," said Anthony Upshaw of the Miami office of Adorno & Yoss LLP, who represented R.J. Reynolds and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation.
Swaty is the eighth flight attendant case to go to trial since 2001.
Sales and employment at Massachusetts restaurants and bars grew slightly during the first six months of a statewide smoking ban, disproving predictions that the prohibition would inflict serious damage on the hospitality industry, Harvard researchers are scheduled to report today.
As part of the study, analysts from the Harvard School of Public Health tested the air in 27 bars and restaurants both before and after the ban went into effect last July 5. The result: Dangerous cancer-causing toxins plummeted by 93 percent once cigarettes, cigars, and pipes were banished.
The findings arrive as the campaign to eliminate smoking from its last indoor public havens gains momentum not just nationally but globally . . .
an increasing body of evidence also suggests that what's good for the health of workers and patrons may also boost the bottom line of businesses.
''Now, we can tell other states considering this kind of law: 'If you implement this law, you're not only going to have a better work environment -- you don't have to affect the economics of your hospitality industry,' " said Gregory Connolly, an author of the Harvard study and former chief of the tobacco control program at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health . . .
''It caused kind of a minor blip in business at first," said Gail Anastas, director of communications for the Massachusetts Restaurant Association. ''But then they did things to attract people back. Everybody just wanted a level playing field, and when it went statewide, it made it the same for everyone." . . .
The Harvard research was underwritten by the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute
A state appeals court upheld a $500,000 award to a flight attendant who blamed secondhand smoke on airliners for her bronchitis and sinus trouble -- a decision Wednesday that could clear the way for damage trials on up to 3,000 similar claims.
The ruling for former TWA attendant Lynn French was a test case interpreting a $349 million settlement reached in 1997 between the tobacco industry and nonsmoking attendants. The flight attendants blamed their illnesses on smoke in the cabin before smoking was banned on domestic flights in 1990.
"The court agreed with us, and we're happy with it," said Marvin Weinstein, French's attorney. "Based on this, I think there are a lot more they're going to be paying."
A split appeals court supports a new trial for a former American Airlines flight attendant who lost her claim against the tobacco industry that secondhand cigarette smoke caused her sinus disease.
A three-judge panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled 2-1 in favor of a new trial Wednesday for Suzette Janoff, which Circuit Judge Leslie Rothenberg ordered after trial.
The majority agreed with Rothenberg that expert testimony for cigarette makers was unfairly "bolstered" by a defense attorney after questions by the woman's attorney punched a hole in his conclusions.
After testifying that allergies caused the woman's condition, the expert conceded that one medical group's Web site said secondhand smoke could aggravate sinus conditions.
Cigarette makers argued that Janoff's attorney, Steven Hunter, opened the door for the testimony.
Hunter called the decision a "stinging rebuke" of conduct at the September 2002 trial.
Tobacco companies continued their winning streak last month when a Miami jury found that secondhand smoke in airplane cabins did not cause a former flight attendant's lung cancer.
It was the seventh flight attendant case to reach trial against the tobacco industry and the fifth defense verdict.
But plaintiffs' attorneys believe that their cases are following the pattern of earlier tobacco litigation - losing the early cases and slowly developing more successful arguments with each trial.
Stuart R. Silver of Miami, Fla., the attorney for the plaintiff, pointed out that when tobacco litigation began nearly a half century ago, plaintiffs lost for decades before finding a formula for success.
"It took a little time before lawyers, scientists and physicians were able to evolve the case in a matter that was convincing and compelling," he explained.
Silver believes the same evolution will occur in secondhand smoke cases. . . .
Mark Gottlieb at the Tobacco Control Resource Center at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston called the latest defense victory "a missed opportunity."
"The jury actually came to the conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke can indeed cause lung cancer," he said of the Oct. 14 verdict. "But at the same time, they accepted an argument - a staple of the tobacco industry's playbook - that this particular cancer was not caused by the defendant's products.
"I think we're in the early stages of what's probably going to be a long chess match between the plaintiffs and the defendants in the flight attendant cases," he added.
A Miami jury today has rejected the claims of a flight attendant alleging personal injury from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS"), finding in favor of Lorillard and other cigarette manufacturers.
This case, brought under the terms of the settlement of the Broin class action permitting individual flight attendant suits and related compensatory damage claims to proceed, was the first flight attendant case to include a lung cancer claim. This is the third jury trial overall in which a claim that exposure to ETS caused a plaintiff's lung cancer was rejected.
The plaintiff in this case, Gail Routh, alleged her lung cancer, along with chronic sinusitis and chronic bronchitis, were a result of her ETS exposure while she worked as a flight attendant for Allegheny Airlines and US Airways for 27 years. Jurors in the Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County rejected Routh's claims in the face of overwhelming medical evidence presented to the contrary. . . .
"In this specific case, medical evidence made it clear that Ms. Routh was genetically predisposed to contract the type of cancer from which she suffers. Her exposure to ETS simply was not a contributing factor," said Ronald Milstein, Lorillard Vice President and General Counsel.
CLEBURNE, Texas — Breaking with long-standing practice, tobacco giant Philip Morris has paid $2 million to settle the case of a child who suffered disfiguring burns in a fire allegedly caused by a smoldering cigarette. . . .
The settlement, reached secretly in May, resolved a nearly nine-year legal battle over responsibility for injuries to Shannon Moore . . .
Yet relatively few cigarette fire suits have been filed, and all failed until now. The companies claimed fire-safe cigarettes were not technically or commercially feasible, and plaintiffs were unable to prove the availability of a safer alternative design.
Philip Morris essentially removed that hurdle by launching a more fire-safe version of its Merit cigarettes in 2000. . . .
in a trial, Philip Morris would have faced questions about why it didn't introduce fire-safe cigarettes sooner — and why the company still hasn't used the technology in other brands. According to Grisham, Shannon's lawyer, the Merit development "was absolutely the most crucial factor in the case." . . .
Over the course of the litigation, lawyers took dozens of depositions and Philip Morris produced more than 100,000 pages of internal documents concerning its research and lobbying activities on fire-safe cigarettes. . . .
Grisham expressed hope that the Moore settlement would contribute to creation of a national fire safety standard. "I believe it's not a matter of if it's going to happen," he said, "it's a matter of when."