Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
Attorneys for Louisiana smokers and the nation's biggest tobacco companies will square off in a hearing today on a case that made headlines in 2004 when a Civil District Court jury ruled that the firms should pay $519 million to help Louisianians kick the smoking habit for conspiring to mislead the public about tobacco's effects.
Retired Civil District Judge Richard Ganucheau, who presided over the trial that led to the jury's verdict, scheduled the hearing to help him decide where the two sides in the case stand in light of a state appeals court's move last fall to slash the jury award to $279 million.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeal ruling, which the state and U.S. Supreme Courts have let stand, also limited participation in the smoking cessation programs the jury ordered to people whose claims for such assistance accrued before Sept. 1, 1988, the effective date of the Louisiana products liability act.
Jump to full article »
Attorneys for Louisiana smokers and the nation's biggest tobacco companies will square off in a June 30 hearing on a case that made headlines in 2004 when a Civil District Court jury ruled that for conspiring to mislead the public about tobacco's effects, the firms should pay $519 million to help Louisianians kick the smoking habit.
Retired Civil District Judge Richard Ganucheau, who presided over the trial that led to the jury's verdict, scheduled the hearing to help him decide where the two sides in the case stand in light of a state appeals court's move last fall to slash the jury award by more than half, to $279 million.
On the 7th day of January, 2008, the following action was taken by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in the cases listed below: . . .
WRIT APPLICATIONS DENIED: . . .
2007-C -0654 GLORIA SCOTT AND DEANIA M. JACKSON, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INC.; AMERICAN BRANDS, INC.; R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY; RJR NABISCO, INC.; BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION; BATUS, INC.; BATUS HOLDINGS, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS COMPANIES, INC.; ET AL. (Parish of Orleans) TRAYLOR, J., recused.
2007-C -0662 GLORIA SCOTT AND DEANIA M. JACKSON, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INC.; AMERICAN BRANDS, INC.; R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY; RJR NABISCO, INC.; BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION; BATUS, INC.; BATUS HOLDINGS, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS COMPANIES, INC.; ET AL. (Parish of Orleans) TRAYLOR, J., recused.
Relators filed this supervisory writ to challenge, once again, the jury selection process in the ongoing, complex tobacco litigation. Relators contend that the district court first erred by “preparing” the jurors for the
voir dire questions that would be asked and relators contend that this advance preparation essentially told the prospective jurors how to answer the questions if they wanted to be selected for the jury panel. Additionally, relators assert that the district court erred in failing to grant their cause challenges relative to five (5) prospective jurors on the basis of the prospective juror having family members who are smokers and/or former smokers and the prospective juror evidenced an interest in having the family member receive the medical monitoring and/or cessation programs if awarded against defendants. Relators argue that based on the recent (9/25/01) Louisiana Supreme Court opinion, see attached, which addressed this precise issue when it came up last fall, the jurors at issue here should have been excused for cause as challenged by the defendants.
Although the defendants initially sought a per se rule to exclude any prospective juror having a family member who is a potential class member, the supreme court declined to impose such a bright line rule for the jury selection process in this case. The supreme court noted:
Despite defendants’ argument to the contrary, there is nothing in La. Code Civ. P. art. 1765(3) which would suggest the lesiglature intended a “bright line” rule which would automatically exclude a prospective juror for cause merely because that prospective juror may be influenced by a family relation. Rather, that article, which is phrased in permissive language, provides that a juror may be challenged for cause if the juror’s blood relations are such that it must be reasonably believed that they would influence the juror in coming to a verdict: . . . . (emphasis in original). . . .
For the aforementioned reasons the defendants’ assignments of error are denied as to Jurors ## 15, 16, 18, 20, Q, S, and T. Additionally, the district court’s ruling as to Juror #21 is reversed and Juror # 21 is dismissed for cause.
Sharply amending a Civil District Court jury's landmark 2004 verdict ordering the nation's big tobacco firms to fork over $591 million to help Louisiana smokers kick the habit, a state appeals court based in New Orleans pared the award Wednesday by more than half, said the remaining money can pay only for traditional stop-smoking aids and limited the number of smokers eligible for assistance.
The decision is the first major development in the case since the jury ruled for the plaintiffs after concluding the tobacco firms had conspired for more than 50 years to distort public knowledge about the effects of smoking.
Wednesday's 51-page decision issued by five-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeal drew predictably differing responses from lawyers on opposite sides of the case. . . .
Nevertheless, Herman said, the 4th Circuit decision opens the way for the case to go back to civil court, where a judge will administer the money in a trust fund to underwrite a wide array of assistance to help people quit smoking and set up centers to research and provide training in new ways to stop smoking.
Philip Morris attorney Phil Wittmann took a much different view, saying first that the cost of smoking cessation assistance to a reduced pool of smokers will be far less than $279 million.
Philip Morris USA, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and other U.S. cigarette makers must pay to fund quit-smoking programs in Louisiana, an appeals court ruled.
The state appeals court in New Orleans today upheld part of a $591 million jury verdict, saying the companies must pay for a 10-year program including nicotine gum and patches, medications and telephone quit lines. The ruling limits the plan to Louisiana residents who began smoking before 1988, when the state passed a new law governing product-liability suits.
``The majority finds that the pre-1988 smokers were entitled to damages,'' wrote Judge Leon Cannizzaro in a separate opinion agreeing with the 4-1 ruling.
The decision upholds some aspects of the 2004 jury verdict, the first ever to require cigarette makers to pay to help smokers quit. It also reversed at least half the amount in damages assessed by the jury and sent the case back to the trial court.
The Louisiana 4th Circuit Court of Appeal today issued its ruling in the Scott class action, a suit brought by smokers in the state against cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.
"The court reduced the amount of potential damages by at least 70 percent," said Jeff Raborn, senior counsel for R.J. Reynolds. "We are certainly pleased with that, but we remain convinced that the class should be decertified and the case completely reversed."
Raborn added R.J. Reynolds will seek further review of the case.
Two major cigarette makers on Wednesday said they plan to appeal a Louisiana court ruling ordering them to fund a program to help people quit smoking, although the decision reduced the amount of damages they faced.
The 4-1 decision by the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal came nearly three years after a jury ordered tobacco firms to pay $591 million to fund a 10-year program to help the state's smokers kick the habit.
Philip Morris USA, a unit of Altria Group Inc. , and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a unit of Reynolds American Inc. , said the decision should be reversed. . . .
Known as the Scott case -- for lead plaintiff Gloria Scott -- the nearly 11-year-old lawsuit differed from many other tobacco cases because the plaintiffs did not claim harm from smoking, but instead said the defendants caused their addiction to tobacco, and that cessation programs would help them quit. . . .
The appeals court rejected the tobacco firms' argument that the case did not deserve class-action status.
The nation's largest tobacco companies tried Wednesday to persuade five state appeals court judges to undo a landmark decision ordering the cigarette makers to pay $591 million for a 10-year effort to help Louisiana smokers kick the habit.
When their turn came to address the 4th Circuit Court of Appeal panel, attorneys for the smokers' class of about 505,000 people argued that the 2004 verdict by a New Orleans jury, and retired Civil District Court Judge Richard Ganucheau's judgment enforcing it, are well-grounded and should stand.
Speaking for his client, Philip Morris USA Inc., and three other tobacco firms, New Orleans attorney Phil Wittman said Ganucheau's judgment should be overturned because he did not let the cigarette makers put on a defense or require proof that class members got addicted to cigarettes after relying on the companies' assurances that the products were safe. . . .
But the tobacco companies are still liable to the class of smokers for damages, he added, because the jury found the firms acted intentionally over more than a half-century to distort the body of public knowledge about the effects of smoking.
"There's your causation," said Herman, adding that tobacco industry representatives told Congress under oath in 1994 that cigarettes aren't addictive and there was no evidence they cause cancer.At the trial, Herman said, the plaintiff class produced testimony and documents showing that thousands of Louisiana smokers have died from lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart disease. In fact, he said, Louisiana's rate of death from such illnesses is higher than of any other state.
-The tobacco industry on Wednesday attacked a landmark jury verdict ordering cigarette makers to pay $590.9 million for nicotine patches, telephone hot lines and other programs to help Louisiana smokers kick the habit, saying the trial that lead to the decision had "enough reversible error for 10 cases."
A state district court jury found in July 2003 that cigarette makers had deceived the public with an addictive product and schemed to market cigarettes to children. The trial lasted more than a year.
Following the trial's second phase, in the spring of 2004, the jury rejected calls from class-action plaintiffs for medical monitoring of present and former smokers, but said the industry should provide free quit-smoking programs. Attorneys on both sides said it was the first time a jury had ordered such programs, rather than awarding monetary damages to smokers.
Before a five-judge panel of the state 4th Circuit Court of Appeal, Phillip Wittmann, an attorney for tobacco company R.J. Reynolds, said Wednesday the trial should have ended - in the industry's favor - when the jury ruled that cigarette makers had not manufactured a defective product as spelled out under Louisiana's products liability law. . . .
The judges asked only a few questions during the two hours of arguments and did not indicate when they would rule. If the tobacco industry eventually loses, and interest is applied to the verdict, the total could hit $1 billion, attorneys said.
Consumers who think they've been wronged may have a tougher time suing for damages under an initiative Congress approved Thursday. . . .
"They call it tort reform, but it's tort deform," said Maury Herman, a New Orleans attorney who is president of the organization. "It's an anti-consumer measure that has the effect of denying consumers the right to join together as a class to address what amounts to corporate greed and fraud on a grand scale."
He cited the recent verdict by a New Orleans jury that the tobacco industry pay nearly $591 million for nicotine patches, advertising and other programs to help Louisiana smokers kick the habit. That case is on appeal.
"That verdict would not have been possible under this new bill because it federalizes everything," Herman said. "The states' rights party has taken the matter completely out of the hands of the states."
A Louisiana jury today decided that Lorillard and other major tobacco companies are not responsible for funding a medical monitoring program for present and former smokers in the state. In a split verdict, the same jury found the companies liable for funding a smoking cessation program for the class of Louisiana present and former smokers.
The verdict was rendered in the class action suit, Gloria Scott. v. The American Tobacco Company . . .
"Asking the companies to fund a smoking cessation program when well over half of the plaintiff class no longer even smokes, just doesn't make sense," said Ronald Milstein. "Liability to fund smoking cessation programs should not be tried in class action lawsuits. Research has shown time and time again that willpower is the only smoking cessation aid that always works. We are confident that the appeal courts will remedy this situation,"added Milstein.
In an unusual hearing, 12 New Orleans jurors who decided that the nation's largest tobacco companies should pay $591 million to help Louisiana smokers kick their habits took the stand themselves Friday to answer questions about whether they felt pressured to reach a verdict by any deadline.
All 12 answered "no." They testified that neither presiding Judge Richard Ganucheau nor anyone on the judge's staff said anything about a deadline.
The questions arose after jury consultants for the tobacco companies began contacting jurors shortly after their May 21 verdict. The tobacco companies say at least two jurors in the statewide class-action trial said they were told the jury had to reach a verdict by noon on May 21. But Ganucheau barred the defense team from exploring the issue by canceling interviews it had scheduled with the jurors to get more information, according to pleadings the tobacco companies filed.
At Friday's hearing, the judge questioned the jurors himself. . . .
Charles Gay, an attorney for the tobacco companies, said he appreciated the chance to get some of the information out but also said many questions remained unanswered. The defendants, he said later, acted properly in trying to question jurors after the verdict and now have to fashion a motion for a new trial with incomplete information.
The judge in late May shut down further contact between the defendants' consultants and jurors, citing concern that the jurors were being pressured to talk. He scheduled a hearing to decide whether any ethics rules were violated.
The judge in the Civil District Court trial that yielded a $591 million jury verdict against the nation's biggest tobacco companies agreed Friday to grant The Times-Picayune's request for access to documents that were filed under seal.
Judge Richard Ganucheau ordered that lawyers must promptly hand over documents that the newspaper requests in writing. The judge also opened the way for the newspaper to obtain transcripts of hearings about the documents.
None of those documents were available by Friday evening.
But other documents filed in the case provide new insights into why tobacco lawyers are seeking to recuse Ganucheau from a portion of the case. The tobacco lawyers sought to have Ganucheau removed from presiding in a hearing to determine whether tobacco jury consultants acted improperly in questioning jurors after their May 21 verdict. The hearing was requested after Gauncheau had ordered the consultants to stop. The motion to recuse Ganucheau was denied by another judge, Ethel Simms Julien.
A judge has granted a request from The Times-Picayune for access to documents that were filed under seal in the $591 million jury verdict trial against the nation's biggest tobacco companies.
Judge Richard Ganucheau ordered lawyers to hand over the documents, helping the newspaper obtain transcripts of hearings about the documents.
Other documents show why tobacco lawyers are seeking to recuse Ganucheau from a portion of the case. . . .
The documents show that the tobacco lawyers are trying to resume questioning the jurors because they believe the jurors were told they were under a noon deadline to return their May 21 verdict. The lawyers want to resume interviewing jurors to determine why they thought there was a deadline but Ganucheau on Friday denied their motion.
According to another document, Ganucheau and his staff may have tampered with the jury before the verdict, the tobacco lawyers say.