Tobacco.org

• Appeals court: New trial for flight attendant against big tobacco 

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.

Jump to full article »

• Florida Judge Orders New Secondhand Smoke Trial 

A Miami-Dade Circuit Court judge rebuked tobacco industry attorneys for misleading her with regard to evidentiary law and granted a new trial in a secondhand smoke case that had resulted in a tobacco victory.

The Wednesday ruling gives new life to the case of former American Airlines flight attendant Suzette Janoff, who sued Philip Morris, Lorillard Tobacco, R.J. Reynolds and Brown & Williamson, claiming that secondhand smoke she inhaled while working aboard airliners caused her chronic sinusitis. The tobacco companies prevailed in a jury trial that ended in September.

In her order, Judge Leslie B. Rothenberg stated that granting a new trial is a "warning to lawyers who argue positions to the court that they knew or should have known was contrary to the law." . .

In a notable instance of judicial candor, Rothenberg said she told the attorneys during the trial that she had limited knowledge of the evidentiary issue and sought their input.

Rothenberg said the tobacco attorneys had presented her with an argument that had been rejected in a similar secondhand-smoke flight attendant case. Rothenberg, who has been on the civil bench for less than a year after nine years in criminal court, wrote that the attorneys knew or should have known their argument was wrong.

"These same lawyers had made similar arguments to an experienced civil judge, the Hon. Fredricka Smith, prior to the trial before the court and were not permitted to do that which they argued to this court was permissible," wrote Rothenberg. . .

According to Hunter, Janoff's new trial could be held as early as March, but he expects Rothenberg's ruling to be appealed to the 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Jump to full article »

These same lawyers had made similar arguments to an experienced civil judge, the Hon. Fredricka Smith, prior to the trial before the court and were not permitted to do that which they argued to this court was permissible.
Judge Leslie B. Rothenberg, whose ruling grants a new trial in the Janoff secondhand smoke case.

[The ruling granting a new trial in the Janoff case is a] warning to lawyers who argue positions to the court that they knew or should have known was contrary to the law.
Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Leslie B. Rothenberg.

• September 2002 Verdict for Tobacco Industry in Secondhand Smoke Lawsuit Is Overturned Due to 'Highly Prejudicial' Evidence That Was Improperly Admitted 

Dade County, Florida, Circuit Court Judge Leslie B. Rothenberg on Wednesday granted the plaintiff's motion for a new trial in the case of a former American Airlines flight attendant, Suzette Ahrendt Janoff, who had sued the major tobacco companies after she suffered from chronic sinusitis and other ailments attributable to her on-the-job exposure to secondhand smoke. Judge Rothenberg concluded that counsel for the tobacco defendants had misled the Court concerning Florida law on the use of authoritative texts, thereby introducing evidence to bolster the opinions rendered by their medical experts.

The Court ruled on January 8 that "almost immediately during direct examination the Defendants began introducing inadmissible testimony to bolster the opinions" formed by the industry's expert witness, Dr. Anderson. . .

Judge Rothenberg concluded that this evidence from Dr. Anderson, who denied that secondhand smoke causes the illness (chronic sinusitis and other injuries Ms. Janoff contends were caused by her on-the-job exposure to secondhand smoke) at issue in the case, was "highly prejudicial.

Jump to full article »

Flight Attendant Gets New Tobacco Trial 

A state judge has ordered 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.

Circuit Judge Leslie Rothenberg agreed with Suzette Janoff's attorneys that testimony by an expert witness for cigarette makers was unfairly prejudicial and did not follow state rules.

The judge also had harsh words for tobacco lawyers during Wednesday's ruling, saying they argued a position they should have known was wrong.

The jury in Janoff's case agreed last September that she suffered from sinusitis, rhinitis, allergies and other ear, nose and throat problems but concluded her on-the-job exposure to smoke was not the cause. The tobacco expert rejected secondhand smoke as a cause of sinusitis despite evidence presented by Janoff that it does.

Jump to full article »

• Tobacco Companies Face Trial in Flight Attendant Suit (Update1) 

Philip Morris Cos. and other U.S. tobacco companies will face a new trial in a lawsuit brought by a former flight attendant who claims she suffers breathing problems from her exposure to secondhand smoke on airlines.

A Miami jury in September cleared the cigarette makers of liability after Suzette Janoff had sought damages that claimed more than a dozen years of working for AMR Corp.'s American Airlines caused her chronic sinusitis. Miami-Dade County Judge Leslie Rothenberg ordered a new trial after finding that inadmissible testimony was presented to the jury.

Janoff's attorneys claimed the tobacco companies misled the judge and improperly introduced evidence to bolster the testimony of an expert witness.

``The court, in granting the plaintiff a new trial does so due to the highly prejudicial nature of the improperly admitted evidence requiring a retrial and as a warning to lawyers who argue positions to the court that they knew or should have known was contrary to the law,'' Rothenberg wrote. . .

``Ms. Janoff deserves to have her case decided after a fair trial,'' said Edward Sweda, a senior attorney with Northeastern University's Tobacco Products Liability Project, an anti-smoking group. ``The tobacco companies clearly benefited from a verdict that was skewed by reliance on testimony that was both highly prejudicial and improperly presented to the jury.''

Jump to full article »

• Misled judge orders new trial ($$) 

A Miami-Dade Circuit Court judge rebuked tobacco industry attorneys for misleading her with regard to evidentiary law and granted a new trial in a secondhand smoke case that had resulted in a tobacco victory.

Jump to full article »