Liability Claim in Smoker’s Death Rejected

A Superior Court jury here Monday rejected the claims of the family of a man who died after 54 years of smoking, voting 9 to 3 that the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. is not liable for the man’s death.

The verdict came on the second day of deliberations in a case that was closely watched by the $60-billion tobacco industry and by many personal injury lawyers. It was the first of about 45 product liability lawsuits filed against tobacco companies to reach a jury.

The 12-member jury, which included one smoker, deliberated about nine hours before deciding against the family of John Galbraith, a Santa Barbara man who died in 1982 at age 69 of heart disease, lung cancer and other ailments. He had smoked up to three packs a day of Camels, Winstons and other cigarettes produced by Reynolds.

Majority Not Convinced

According to jury forewoman Stacie Proft, the jury majority simply was not convinced that Galbraith died of smoking-related causes or that he was addicted to smoking.

“We agreed that smoking is harmful . . . that it is bad for you,” she said. “But in this case, the evidence just wasn’t there.”

However, juror Toni McCarty, who voted in the minority, said she believed that smoking was a “substantial contributing factor” to Galbraith’s death.

“The defect in cigarettes, besides causing cancer, is their addictive quality,” she said. “I feel that the evidence in the courtroom showed scientifically that cigarettes are highly addictive drugs . . . and the tobacco companies don’t take responsibility or warn you of that.”

The jury verdict left both sides claiming victories of sorts.

John Strauch, an attorney who is coordinating all of Reynolds’ product liability cases, said the company “takes a lot of comfort” in the verdict.

“People said we’re in a new era, a new ballgame, and somehow, things have changed,” Strauch said. “But we said personal responsibility is still the issue.”

Paul Monzione, who represented the plaintiffs, along with Melvin Belli, said the split vote--only nine jurors are required to agree on a verdict in a civil case--and the length of the jury’s deliberations were “encouraging.” They had asked the jury for $300,000 in damages.

“A lot of people thought this was a ridiculous case,” Monzione said. “But the actions of the jury showed this kind of case is not an alien concept any longer.”

Monzione said he plans to appeal the case.

The tobacco companies have never lost a product liability case or paid any damages, in or out of court. Earlier this month, a federal judge in Knoxville, Tenn., threw out a $55-million liability suit against Reynolds, because, he said, the plaintiff failed to show the jury that “the defendant’s product was defective and unreasonably dangerous.”

Still, Reynolds left little to chance, marshaling enormous resources for the Santa Barbara trial. During closing arguments last week, for example, Reynolds had eight attorneys sitting at the defense table or directly behind it and several public relations representatives in Santa Barbara, along with a troop of paralegal aides, secretaries and office assistants.

Even one successful lawsuit against a tobacco company might have had a far-reaching impact on the tobacco industry, perhaps triggering millions of dollars in claims against it, as well as liability suits against producers of a variety of products that are linked to health problems.

Effect on Stocks

After the jury verdict was announced, a representative from a New York investment firm raced out of the court to telephone the results to brokers concerned about the verdict’s effect on tobacco stocks.

As a result of the publicity about the various lawsuits, tobacco stocks had suffered during the past few months, although they have rebounded in recent weeks. On Monday, in trading on the New York Stock Exchange, R. J. Reynolds closed up 1 3/4 at 33.

Belli had emphasized in his closing statement that the case was like any product liability suit. The cigarette companies make a dangerous product, he said, and do not adequately warn consumers of the dangers.

Galbraith started smoking, Belli said, before there were any warnings on cigarette packages and by the time he was aware of the health hazards, he was too addicted to quit. To show Galbraith was addicted, Belli’s witnesses testified that even after he suffered from severe emphysema and lung cancer, he occasionally removed oxygen tubes from his nose to sneak a smoke.

Lung Cancer

Belli also attempted to prove that smoking causes lung cancer and that cigarettes are lethal. About 90% of all people who have lung cancer, Belli said, are heavy smokers.

Reynolds attorneys offered another statistic, however, to show that there is no definitive link between lung cancer and smoking. About 95% of all smokers never contract lung cancer, said Thomas Workman, Reynolds’ lead attorney in the case.

Galbraith smoked, Workman said, because he “liked the taste and he loved to smoke.” About 35 million Americans have already quit smoking, Workman said, which proves it is not addictive. If it was dangerous for Galbraith to smoke, he should have known, because several doctors suggested that he quit and he was well-educated and well-read, Workman added.

Reynolds attorneys attempted to show that Galbraith had a disastrous health history, was genetically predisposed to heart disease and that his health problems had nothing to do with smoking. He was treated for tuberculosis as a young man and was later hospitalized for a spinal break suffered in an auto accident, for the removal of part of his stomach because of an ulcer and for heart and lung problems.

Test Case

Monzione acknowledged Monday in an interview that Galbraith was not the best test case of the pending lawsuits against tobacco companies. However, he said, if the jury deliberated for two days and could not come to a unanimous verdict in a case that “wasn’t as strong as some other cases,” others who plan to bring suit against tobacco companies should be encouraged.

Belli was under fire for not being properly prepared in the case. At one point during the trial, Monzione spent several minutes leafing through a deposition to buttress a point he was trying to make with Superior Court Judge Bruce Dodds.

However, the judge angrily interrupted and said Monzione and Belli rushed the case to trial without proper preparation.

“This is another example that this case was not ready to proceed to trial,” Dodds had said. “And for reasons outside the case, it was pushed to trial sooner than it was appropriate.”

Belli denied that he had rushed the case in order to garner publicity from being the first of the current batch of pending cigarette suits to go to trial. He claimed that he was simply hamstrung by a number of the judge’s rulings.

Revised Warning

Monzione said their grounds for appeal will include Dodds’ restricting their use of the U.S. surgeon general’s reports on cigarette smoking, the judge’s refusal to allow them to mention cigarette company advertising and Dodds’ refusal to allow them to discuss the implications of the recently revised surgeon general’s warnings on cigarette packages.

Smoking will be banned at the UCLA Medical Center hospital and clinics. Part II, Page 1.