Tobacco Firms Lose in Louisiana

A New Orleans jury ruled Monday that tobacco companies were guilty of fraud and should offer programs to at least 1 million Louisiana smokers to help them quit.

But in a split decision, the state court jury also rejected demands that cigarette makers fund regular medical monitoring to give plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit early warning of smoking-related illnesses.

The verdict, which followed a six-month trial, marked the first time the industry had been ordered to pay costs for customers trying to quit.

Defendants in the case were the top four U.S. manufacturers: Philip Morris USA, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. and Lorillard Tobacco Co.

There will be additional hearings to iron out details and costs, likely to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. No compensatory or punitive damages were sought for members of the class.

“We feel fabulous,” said plaintiffs’ lawyer Russ Herman, adding that he thought the ruling would save lives and result in the filing of more smoking-cessation class actions.

Industry lawyers took solace in the jury’s rejection of the more expensive remedy of medical monitoring, which could have cost the companies billions of dollars. Jurors also agreed that cigarettes were not a defective product.

Otherwise, the 12-member panel delivered a strong rebuke to the industry.

The jury found that tobacco companies conspired to distort public knowledge about the risks of smoking and consciously sought to addict consumers. Jurors also found that the disinformation campaign contributed to class members starting and continuing to smoke.

Cigarette makers had argued that the suit should not have been granted class-action status. They are likely to appeal.

“This case should never have gone to trial,” said William S. Ohlemeyer, vice president and associate general counsel of Philip Morris USA.

“The vast majority of class-action cases involving cigarettes have ended far short of trial because most courts have recognized that smoking decisions and smoking behavior are almost uniquely personal and cannot be fairly considered in a class-action trial.”

Filed in 1996, the case is one of only several anti-tobacco class actions to be tried, and just the second seeking payment for medical monitoring. The industry won a case in West Virginia in November 2001, in which the jury also was not convinced that medical monitoring for smoking-related diseases was effective and safe. The West Virginia case did not include a demand for programs to help smokers quit.

Lawyers for the Louisiana class sought regular medical tests for four smoking-related diseases: lung cancer, bladder cancer, emphysema and heart disease.

They said detection in the latent phase would cause smokers to kick the habit and provide a better chance of recovery.

But the industry said the tests were frequently inaccurate, often producing false positives that led to unnecessary risks from invasive follow-up procedures.

The jury agreed that “the technique for medical monitoring right now isn’t up to snuff,” Herman, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, said.

The trial began in January. Jury selection lasted more than a year, largely because of a series of challenges by the industry to appellate panels and the state Supreme Court.