Tobacco.org

• Missouri Appeals Court finds evidence of deliberate wrongdoing by a tobacco company 

In a groundbreaking decision Tuesday, a Missouri appeals court found evidence of intentional wrongdoing by a tobacco company but ordered the case retried on the issue of punitive damages.

In setting aside a $20 million punitive verdict -- the largest ever awarded in Missouri in a smoking case -- a three-judge panel of the Missouri Court of Appeals in Kansas City nonetheless found that evidence of Brown & Williamson's wrongful conduct was sufficient to submit to a jury.

The lengthy opinion written by Judge Robert G. Ulrich noted that Brown & Williamson "had an active process of creating controversy regarding the health risks of smoking and planned to dispute every surgeon general's report, regardless of what it was based upon."

"Further," Ulrich wrote, "B&W had policies of preventing harmful information from becoming available to the public and established procedures to ensure negative information did not reach the public." . . .

The decision was noteworthy in two respects. First, the court found evidence of deliberate wrongdoing by a tobacco company. And second, the court ruled for the first time that the surviving families of tort victims can sue even if the victims had previously brought suit themselves.

Even so, the court sent the case back for a new trial on punitive damages because the basis of the jury's award was unclear.

Whether that will actually occur is somewhat uncertain because Judge James M. Smart dissented from Ulrich's opinion and exercised his prerogative to transfer the case to the Missouri Supreme Court. . . .

Although the appeals court found insufficient evidence of intentional wrongdoing sufficient to warrant punitive damages on the first two claims, it found sufficient evidence to do so on the defective product claim. But because all three claims were submitted to the jury on a single form, which made it impossible for the appeals court to determine the basis of the punitive award, it sent the case back to the jury to retry the last claim alone.

Jump to full article »

[Brown & Williamson] had an active process of creating controversy regarding the health risks of smoking and planned to dispute every surgeon general's report, regardless of what it was based upon. Further, B&W had policies of preventing harmful information from becoming available to the public and established procedures to ensure negative information did not reach the public.
Missouri Court of Appeals Judge Robert G. Ulrich, in the majority opinion in the Smith case.