Judge Refuses to Halt Suit in Smoker Death : Finds Evidence of ‘Devious’ Conspiracy by Cigarette Industry

A judge refused today to dismiss a widower’s suit against the cigarette companies he blames for his wife’s death by lung cancer, ruling there is credible evidence the tobacco industry engaged in a “devious” conspiracy to hide the dangers of smoking.

U.S. District Judge H. Lee Sarokin ruled that the 3-month-old trial of the case may go on, but did throw out some of the claims made against three cigarette manufacturers by lawyers for Antonio Cipollone.

The couple filed suit before Rose Cipollone’s death in 1984 against Liggett Group Inc., Lorillard Inc. and Philip Morris Inc., manufacturers of the brands of cigarettes she smoked for 40 years.

Cipollone’s lawyer, Marc Z. Edell, has used corporate and tobacco trade group documents, many brought to light for the first time, in an attempt to convince the jury that until they were legally required to do so the companies knowingly refused to warn smokers that smoking is hazardous.

Sarokin ruled that Edell’s evidence, unless it is refuted by defense witnesses, allows a jury to conclude that the companies failed to do research on the dangers of smoking, presented false health claims, failed to issue warnings on risks they knew about, deliberately misrepresented and denied facts about smoking and suppressed information on a safer cigarette for legal reasons.

Evidence of Conspiracy

“The evidence presented also permits the jury to find a tobacco industry conspiracy, vast in its scope, devious in its purpose and devastating in its results,” the judge said. “The jury may reasonably conclude that defendants were members of and engaged in that conspiracy with full knowledge and disregard for the illness and death it would cause, and that Mrs. Cipollone was merely one of its victims.”

Alan Darnell, a member of Cipollone’s legal team, hailed the judge’s ruling as a victory.

“I’ve never before read a decision from a trial judge in a tobacco and health case concluding that a reasonable juror could make a decision that the defendants were guilty of outrageous conduct,” he said.

Charles Wall, a lawyer for Philip Morris and Lorillard, said the opinion includes “flourishes of the judge’s pen that went beyond the evidence.”

“We regret that the court did not dismiss the few remaining claims and remain confident that we will prevail once all the evidence is in,” he said.

The judge’s ruling on a defense motion for a directed verdict leaves all three companies in the suit as defendants.