Make your own free website on Tripod.com

DANGEROUS TOBACCO:
EVIDENCE FROM
SMOKERS' RIGHTS CASES

The Right to A Safe Product That Does Not Injure
or Kill When Used As Manufacturer Intends
Product Liability Cases: Saving Taxpayers' Money

The right to not be killed, without being first found guilty of wrongdoing, after notice of charges, due process, and a jury trial, goes back to the Magna Carta (1215).

The right not to be killed without due process, is a constitutional right. This right, unlike some, cannot be waived; many precedents exist that people cannot consent to significant self-harm. Smokers' rights -- yes, that's the right to sue their pusher who's killing them! (in additional to pertinent law typically enforced by government.)

Smokers, like all consumers, have a right to a safe product. A safe product is one that is not harmful when used as the manufacturer intends it to be used. Above all, it must not kill [reason: no due process]. Tobacco companies, according to smokers themselves, violate this smokers' right, this constitutional right we all have.

"'Every regular cigarette smoker is injured . . . Cigarette smoking kills some, makes others lung cripples, gives still others far more than their share of illness and loss of work days. Cigarette smoking is not a gamble; all regular cigarette smokers studied at autopsy show the effects.'" (Referenced, The FTC Report 1968, cited in A. A. White (Law Prof, Univ of Houston), "Strict Liability of Cigarette Manufacturers and Assumption of Risk," 29 Louisiana Law Rev (#4) 589-625, at 607 n 85 (June 1969).

"Research funded by Defendants themselves provided evidence confirming the public health authorities' warnings that nonsmokers' exposure to cigarette smoke was a health hazard." United States v Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F.Supp.2d 1, 708-709 (D.D.C. 2006), aff'd 556 F.3d 1095 (CA DC, 2010), cert den, 130 S. Ct. 3501 (2010). "The district court found that dating back to the 1970s, Defendants' own research and analysis revealed the hazards of secondhand smoke." United States v Philip Morris USA Inc., 556 F.3d 1095, 1126 (CA DC, 2010), cert den, 130 S Ct 3501 (2010).

Tobacco companies have a record of suing to prevent government inspectors from finding out what is in tobacco. See cases

  • as long ago as Turner v State of Maryland, 107 US 38; 2 S Ct 44; 27 L Ed 370 (Md, 1883);

  • Felsenheld / Merry World Tobacco v U S, 186 US 126; 22 S Ct 740; 46 L Ed 1085 (1902);

  • and as recent as Philip Morris, et al v Reilly, Atty Gen, Massachusetts, ___ F3d ___ (CA 1, 16 Oct 2001) (upholding Massachusetts Tobacco Ingredients and Nicotine Yield Act against tobacco company opposition to disclosure).
  • So the question is, what are tobacco companies hiding? What are they afraid will be found out?

    An early exposé of cigarette adulteration occurred accidentally in the case of Latimer v United States, 223 US 501; 32 S Ct 242; 56 L Ed 526 (PR, 19 Feb 1912). That case was a tax case, wherein a surprising truth came out:

    tobacco sweepings from off-the-floor
    being used in cigarettes!

    The @#*%&$@ taxman saw, and wanted to tax them! and the pushers 'doth protest too much,'! and the truth (tobacco sweepings from off-the-floor) came out!!! published nationwide, like all Supreme Court decisions!!!


    For more cigarette tax / evasion cases, click here.

    And see also the 1850's incident of 'Havana cigars' actually having no tobacco at all in them!

    These are clues that tobacco pushers may have something to hide!

    It is unlawful to take concerted action, engage in conspiracy, to violate federal legal rights, as per laws such as 18 USC § 241. See also 18 USC § 242.

    Let's look at the medical facts, then see what tobacco users themselves say about tobacco companies violating their right to a safe product, meaning, violating the right to due process of law before one can be killed.

    Cigarettes contain and emit toxic chemicals. The nature and effect is at the ultrahazardous level. The foreseeable "natural and probable consequences" to millions of people is an "increased risk of death." Nonetheless, some people say that claims of a hazard are new! And that litigation against tobacco companies is new. Such pro-tobacco apologists invoke 1990's so-called "politically correct" concepts to ridicule action against tobacco hazards.

    This site refutes their myths by providing data showing tobacco hazard issues and cases (smokers' rights cases, seeking the same right to a safe product all other consumers have, thus ending the danger to both smokers and nonsmokers) long before the 1990's. Here are some of the many examples:

    In 1555, "The French writer, André Thevet [1502-1590], described the serious effect of tobacco on the sexual system in the year 1555."

    In 1602, Thomas Bushell published Work for Chimny-sweepers, or, A warning for Tabacconists Describing the Pernicious Vse of Tabacco (London: T. Este, 1602).

    In 1603, Oxford University (England) sponsored information on the tobacco hazard in brain-impact terms.

    In 1604 James Stuart (King James) published A Counterblaste to Tobacco (London: R. Barker, 1604).

    In 1665, Dr. Simon Paulli [1603-1680] published Commentarius de abusu tabaci Americanorum veteri, et herbae thee Asiaticorum in Europa novo (Argentorati: Sumptibus, 1665).

    In 1671, there was "scientific study of tobacco and its effects on the body," "when the Italian biologist, Francesco Redi, published an account of the lethal effects of the 'oil of tobacco.'"—Susan Wagner, Cigarette Country: Tobacco in American History and Politics (New York: Praeger, 1971), p. 64.

    In 1699, Dr. Guy Crescent Fagon [1638-1718] and Claude Berger [1679-1712] published Quaestio Medica ... An ex Tabaci Usu Frequenti Vitae Summa Brevior? (Parisiis: Apud Franciscum Muguet, 1699)

    In 1792, "Tobacco amblyopia, as a recognised disease, has an ancestry which dates from the year 1792, when attention was first drawn to it . . . ." This fact from 1792 was already ancient history when cited by Professor Dr. Hugh Percy Dunn to his ophthalmology students, in his "Post-Graduate Lecture on Tobacco Amblyopia," Vol 2, The Lancet (Issue #4344) pp 1491-1493 (1 Dec 1906).

    In 1797, Rev. Adam Clarke published a book against tobacco, A Dissertation on the Use and Abuse of Tobacco (London: G. Whitfield, 1797).

    In 1798, Benjamin Rush, M.D., Observations Upon the Influence of Habitual Use of Tobacco upon Health, Morals and Property (1798), reported adverse effects on the stomach, nerves, and oral cavity, and the now well-established tobacco-alcoholism link. Rush was one of the "Founding Fathers," having been a signer of the Declaration of Independence. He was also Surgeon General under George Washington!

    In 1828, occurred the discovery of nicotine.

    In the 1830's, Virginia tobacconist Benjamin J. Harris showed that a tobacconist could indeed commit murders, and not be convicted, Commonwealth v Harris, helping set the stage for the long-time pusher attitude of being 'above the law.'

    In 1833, Orin S. Fowler [1791-1852] published A Disquisition on the Evils of Using Tobacco and the Necessity of Immediate and Entire Reformation (Providence: S. R. Weeden, 1833).

    In 1836, a medical survey of nicotine poisoning deaths was published. "Death occurred in nearly all of the cases of nicotine poisoning within a few minutes to a few hours . . . ."—Julia Fontanelle, 2 Jour. de Chimie Med. 652 (1836).

    Also by 1836, it was well-established "that thousands and tens of thousands die of diseases of the lungs generally brought on by tobacco smoking. . . . How is it possible to be otherwise? Tobacco is a poison. A man will die of an infusion of tobacco as of a shot through the head." —Samuel Green, New England Almanack and Farmer's Friend (1836).

    1836, also, Dr. William A. Alcott published an exposé, Tobacco: Physical, Intellectual, and Moral Effects.

    In 1844, Bertrand Boussiron published De l'Action du Tabac sur la Santé et de son Influence sur le Moral et l'Intelligence de l'Homme (Paris: B. Dusillion, 1844).

    In 1845, Rev. Benjamin Lane [1797-1875] published a book about tobacco dangers, The Mysteries of Tobacco (New York: Wiley and Putnam, 1845).

    In 1847, the lawsuit of Commonwealth v Thompson, 53 Mass 231 (1847) recognized the fire hazard. Massachusetts had been a leader before; in the 1630's, it had banned tobacco sales and public smoking.

    In 1848, John Burdell, D.D.S., published Tobacco: Its Use and Abuse (New York: Fowler and Wells, 1848).

    In 1849, eighty-seven conditions were identified as tobacco-linked, by Dr. Joel Shew, Tobacco: Its History, Nature and Effects on the Body and Mind (New York: Fowlers and Wells, 1849).

    In 1853, Dr. Elisha Harris [1824-1884] published Tobacco: The Effects of its Use as a Luxury on the Physical and the Moral Nature of Man: A Prize Essay (New York: Wm. Harned, 1853).

    In 1855, Russell Thacher Trall [1812-1877] published Tobacco: Its History, Nature, and Effects. With Facts and Figures for Tobacco-Users (New York, Fowlers and Wells, 1855).

    In 1858, there was an exposé of tobacco adulterations: Henry P. Prescott, Tobacco And Its Adulterations (London: John Van Voorst Pub, 1858).

    In 1859, cancer of the lip was found to be 100% tobacco-correlated in a study by French Dr. Bouisson (1859). His was a "well-documented clinical study of the matter."—E. Cuyler Hammond, "The Effects of Smoking," 207 Scientific American (#1) 39-51 (July 1962). (Details).

    Also in 1859, Dr. John Lizars published The Use and Abuse of Tobacco (Edinburgh, 1859).

    In 1862, Dr. Reuben D. Mussey published "Tobacco--Influence Upon Life and Health" (Boston: Gould & Lincoln, 1862).

    In 1875, the "association between excessive smoking and deafness was noted by de LaCharrière—S. L. Shapiro, MD, "Are You Smoking More But Hearing Less?" 43 Eye Ear Nose Throat Monthly 96-100 (1964).

    In 1876, Dr. Hippolyte Adéon Dépierris [1810-1889] published Physiologie Sociale: Le Tabac, Qui Contient Le Plus Violent des Poisons, La Nicotine Abrége-t-il l'Existence? Est-il Cause de la Dégénérescence Physique et Morale des Sociétés Modernes? (Paris: E. Dentu, 1876).

    In 1878, Dr. J. Blanchet published Cri d'alarme: Du Tabac au Point de Vue Médeical (Paris: Delahaye Pub, 1878) on tobacco dangers. Rev. B. W. Chase published Tobacco: Physical, Mental, Moral and Social Influences.

    In 1879, Dr. Emile Decaisne published "Les femmes qui fument," 1 Rev d'hyg Paris 914-922 (1879) on tobacco dangers. Dr. James Jackson published Tobacco and Its Effect upon the Health and Character.

    Beginning in 1879, three cases, Carver v State, 69 Ind 61; 35 Am Rep 205 (Nov 1879), Mueller v State, 76 Ind 310; 40 Am Rep 245 (May 1881), and State v Ohmer, 34 Mo App 115 (5 Feb 1889) recognized that tobacco delivers a dangerous addictive drug, nicotine.

    In 1881, the Wisconsin Board of Health had a Report on the Use of Tobacco from Dr. G. F. Witter. Dr. Hippolyte Adéon Dépierris [1810-1889] published La Tabac et la Famille: Il Cause la Rareté et la Sterilité des mariages, la Débilité Native et la Mortalité des Enfants, la Dépopulation des Pays (Paris: E. Dentu, 1881).

    In 1882, books on tobacco effects were published by Meta Lander (The Tobacco Problem); and Dr. John Hinds (The Use of Tobacco).

    In 1883, in the case of Turner v State of Maryland, 107 US 38; 2 S Ct 44; 27 L Ed 370 (1883), the Supreme Court, over tobacco company objection, upheld a state tobacco inspection law. People who make safe products hardly object to independent verification! People who plan, premeditate, to do what comes next, would of course object:

    In 1884, the first warning that the cigarette formula had been changed, was issued. The formula change was to add coumarin, for rat poison, to cigarettes as a revenge measure by unreconstructed Confederate tobacco farmers, against the hated "d--n Yankees."

    In 1884, Dr. Lamartine G. Hardman [1856-1937] issued "Tobacco Poisoning," 1 Atlanta Med & Surg Journal 648-650 (1884-5).

    In 1886, A. Rouillard published Effects du Tabac sur l'Intelligence (Paris: 1886).

    In 1889, the Michigan House of Representatives recognized that tobacco is deleterious to youths as cited by the 1889 Michigan House Committee on the subject.

    In 1889 also, Dr. G. W. Jacoby's medical journal article reverified tobacco-caused brain damage: "Autopsies have revealed large foci of softening in the brain, hemorrhages into the meninges, and capillary apoplexies in the brain substance." See G. W. Jacoby, 50 New York Medical Journal 172 (17 August 1889).

    Also in 1889, Rev. John Wight published Tobacco: Its Use and Abuse. He noted that many southern tobacco farmers grow separately, for themselves, p 34. See also "Rat poison added to tobacco for 'flavor'" (18 August 1999), saying, e.g., that "tobacco companies, by their own published admission in their trade publications, introduce a deadly pesticide-rodenticide called Warfarin or coumarin into the tobacco as a "flavoring." They call it a "flavoring" in order to cover up its true identity -- that is Rat Poison!"

    In 1890, the City of New Orleans, due to the second-hand smoke aspect violating the right to "fresh and pure air," deemed TTS deleterious to nonsmokers, State v Heidenhain, 42 La Ann 483; 7 So 621; 21 Am St Rep 388 (21 April 1890). A smoker challenged the smoking ban. Louisiana courts upheld the City of New Orleans Ordinance No 4, and said:

    "Whereas the custom of permitting in the street-cars of the this city is a most vile and objectionable one to the majority of our citizens . . . ; and whereas, this alone, of all the cities of the Union, allows such a discomfort to those of its citizens who ride in the public cars: Be it resolved that . . . smoking in any street-car of this city is hereby prohibited . . . and any one so offending . . . shall be fined . . . or imprisoned not less than five days, or more than thirty days.

    "A nuisance belongs to 'that class of wrongs that arise from the unreasonable, unwarrantable, or unlawful use by a person of his own property . . . or from his own improper, indecent, or unlawful personal conduct, working an obstruction of or injury to a right of another, or of the public, and producing such material annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort, or hurt that the law will presume a consequent damage' . . . .

    There is no doubt that smoking . . . caused to a great majority of the people . . . material annoyance, inconvenience, and discomfort. . . . There is not only discomfort, but positive danger to health, from the contaminated air . . . ."

    "The city council . . . had authority . . . to provide for the public health. It can therefore require . . . that there shall be ventilation for a supply of fresh air . . . and, in pursuance of the same power, it can, in order to preserve pure and fresh air . . . prohibit smoking . . . It is essential to health and to comfort to have pure air . . . ."

    In 1892, WCTU members during the term of Francis Willard, M.S., M.A., LL.D. (1879-1898) sent Congress thousands of petitions for banning cigarettes, citing the already then-known fact that cigarettes were "causing insanity and death to thousands" of youths.

    In 1897, both Iowa and Tennessee banned cigarettes due to the known danger.

    June 1898 high school graduates were better educated than people nowadays, both in terms of general education, and in terms of tobacco effects.

    In 1898, in the Spanish-American War, the Army refused to enlist smokers, as the bad health effects were already that obvious. Teddy Roosevelt would have no smokers in the "Rough Riders."

    The Tennessee Supreme Court in 1898, deemed cigarettes deleterious to smokers themselves, Austin v State, 101 Tenn 563; 48 SW 305 (22 Dec 1898), affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court at 179 US 343, 21 S Ct 132; 45 L Ed 224 (19 Nov 1900).

    In 1902, in the case of Felsenheld / Merry World Tobacco v U S, 186 US 126; 22 S Ct 740; 46 L Ed 1085 (1902), the Supreme Court, over tobacco company objection, agreed that tobacco can be banned for containing anything other than tobacco.

    Also in 1902, "Ballantyne had found an increase in the abortion rate in French and Austrian women working in tobacco factories." (Details).

    In 1907, Dr. L. P. Clark's medical journal article reverified tobacco-caused brain danage: "Ecchymosis occurs in the pleura and peritoneum. Hyperemia of the lungs, brain, and cord is found. . . . Coarse lesions have been found in the brain and spinal cord." See L. P. Clark, 71 Medical Record (#26) 1073 (29 June 1907).

    In 1909, Michigan banned manufacture and sale of deleterious and adulterated cigarettes. Dr. Charles E. Slocum published Tobacco and Its Deleterious Effects.

    In 1911, Dr. Pieter K. Pel published "Un cas de psychose tabagique," XIX Ann. med. Chir. 171 (1911).

    In 1912 occurred the lawsuit revealing that tobacco leaves falling on factory floors were not discarded, but instead swept up, cleaned and used in cigarettes. This "secret" might never have been revealed except for the tax implications! (and tobacco companies' century-long penchant for tax litigation). Latimer's full-text is at Latimer v United States, 223 US 501; 32 S Ct 242; 56 L Ed 526 (PR, 19 Feb 1912).

    In 1912 also, Dr. Lothar von Frankl-Hochwart [1862-1914] published Die nervösen Erkrankungen der Tabakraucher (Wien, Germany: A. Hölder, 1912).

    In 1913, Dr. Abel Gy published L'Intoxication par le Tabac (Paris: Masson et Cie, 1913).

    In 1914, Thomas Edison identified cigarettes' acrolein as dangerous. Henry Ford reprinted that letter in his widely-circulated 1914 anti-tobacco book.

    The basic reason for product liability is clear. "We need not recanvass the reasons for imposing strict liability on the manufacturer. They have been fully articulated [in the past].

    "The purpose of such liability is to insure that the costs of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by the manufacturers that put such products on the market rather than by the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves. . . . Implicit in the [product's] presence on the market . . . was a representation that it would safely do the jobs for which it was built. . . .

    "To establish the manufacturer's liability it was sufficient that plaintiff proved that he was injured while using the [product] in a way it was intended to be used . . . ." Greenman v Yuba Power Products, Inc, 59 Cal 2d 57; 27 Cal Rptr 697; 377 P2d 897 (1962).


    We can supplement this wise court analysis by the fact that cigarette-caused costs should obviously not be borne by nonsmokers—whether directly or by increasing their taxes and their insurance premiums. But that is what happens when the cost of dealing with the cigarette-caused injuries (medical conditions, accidents, fires, etc.) is not paid by the manufacturer.

    In 1915 was an early tobacco user lawsuit, Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co v Cannon, 132 Tenn 419; 178 SW 1009; LRA 1916A 940; Ann Cas 1917A 179 (25 Aug 1915).

    Pillars v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 117 Miss 490, 497-498; 78 So 365 (15 April 1918) is an early case in the direction of smokers' rights. The tobacco user asked for the right to a safe product, the same right all other consumers have. Other products do not harm when used as intended. Tobacco companies discriminate against tobacco buyers, making them the only consumers regularly sold a product that causes harm, even death, when used as the manufacturer intends. In this early tobacco-users' rights case, the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld their right to a safe product against tobacco company objection, i.e., it upheld a jury award of damages to a tobacco chewer who had sued

    "for damages resulting . . from chewing a piece of Brown Mule tobacco in which was concealed a decomposed human toe. . . . [it] caused him to foam at the mouth, while he was getting 'sicker and sicker.' . . .

    "We refrain from detailing the further harrowing and nauseating details. . . . a physician . . . testified that appellant exhibited all of the characteristic symptoms of ptomaine poison. The physician examined the toe and identified it as a human toe in a state of putrefaction, and said, in effect, that his condition was caused by the poison generated by the rotten toe. . . .

    "If poisons are concealed in [ingested items] death or the impairment of health will be the probable consequence. . . .

    "Anything taken in to the mouth . . . should be free of those elements which may endanger the life or health of the user."

    Loftin v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 99 So 13 (Miss, 25 Feb 1924), a tobacco chewer won an award of $500 damages

    "for an illness . . . from . . . chewing tobacco . . . is imbedded the partially decomposed body of a small snake."

    R J Reynolds Tobacco Co v Stringer, 103 So 5 (Miss, 2 March 1925), was another tobacco users' rights case, a product liability case, upholding the right to a safe product. This time, a poisonous snake in tobacco, resulted in the tobacco user's illness.

    In 1928, concern about the tobacco danger was expressed thus, that it was so dangerous as to affect even animals! See H. Marsh and Clawson, "Wild Tobacco Toxic for Horses, Cattle and Sheep," 9 North American Veterinarian 30 (June 1928).

    In 1929, doctors wrote about concern for smokers' rights. See A. Winterstein and E. Aronson, "Legal Protection of Smoker Against Manufacture of Cigarettes Containing Too Large Percentage of Nicotine," 59 Schweiz Med Wehnschr 550-552 (25 May 1929).

    In Foley v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 136 Misc 468; 241 NYS 233, 234-236 (1 April 1930), the earliest smokers' rights case cited, a smoker sued

    "to recover damages for personal injuries resulting . . . from the partial consumption of . . . tobacco . . . which was found, on smoking, to contain mutilated fragments of a dead mouse. [The court said the smoker could produce] evidence . . . to show that smoke arising from tobacco which contains decayed animal matter is poisonous and extremely dangerous when taken into the human system, and the manufacturer is aware thereof."

    The fact that the case is published shows that the tobacco company fought against smokers' rights to a safe product, a pattern of reaction to smokers' asking for the right to a safe product, still being followed today.

    In Weiner v D. A. Schulte, Inc, 275 Mass 379; 176 NE 114 (26 May 1931), the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld an award of damages to a tobacco chewer who had sued and won because when

    "he bit the plug he broke a front tooth and found that a nail was imbedded in the tobacco."

    In Rankin v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 246 Ky 65; 54 SW2d 612 (18 Nov 1932), the Kentucky Appeals Court upheld an award of damages to a tobacco chewer who bought at Kroger Grocery a

    "plug of tobacco [with] a portion of a wooly worm . . . with many stingers on it [which became] imbedded in his mouth, lips, tongue, and gums . . . his mouth became very much inflamed from the poison in the stingers . . . He suffered much pain."

    Tobacco Company Documents Site With
    More Information on Worms in Tobacco

    In Corum v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 205 NC 213; 171 SE 78, 79-80 (11 Oct 1933), the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld an award of damages to a tobacco chewer who had been injured

    "when a fishhook which was embedded in the plug [of chewing tobacco] 'stuck on the inner side of his lip and came out on the outside' [with] a piece of string about two inches long . . . that some other foreign substance had been found in the same brand of tobacco within two months preceding the injury; and that the foreman of the machine room had previously had complaints that other foreign substances had been left in the manufactured product." Corum "suffered pain, antitoxin to prevent tetanus, had difficulty in opening and closing his mouth, and complained of stiffness in his jaw and neck." The court traced the history of prior such adulterated tobacco cases.

    In Wallace v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 69 SW2d 857 (Tex Civ App, 1 March 1934), the Texas Appeals Court upheld an award of damages to a tobacco chewer who had been injured when he

    "took a chew . . . and upon getting it in his mouth he found there was some foreign substance, other than tobacco, in his mouth; whereupon he immediately took the tobacco from his mouth and upon examination found an enormous quantity of small metal particles resembling steel filings or bits of small wire sticking in his tongue and mouth, which caused a burning sensation and severe pain.

    "[Wallace] immediately went to see a physician . . . the physician worked for some time extracting these tiny metal particles from [his] mouth and tongue . . . necessary to scrape [his] tongue and the inside of his mouth . . . some of the metal particles were swallowed by him . . . his mouth, tongue and throat became inflamed, swollen and sore; . . . he suffered intense and excruciating pain . . . a high fever . . . frequent and severe spells of vomiting."

    The court traced the history of prior such adulterated tobacco cases. The bottom line is that the court said that the manufacturer is liable for the defective product; products must be safe for intended use. Nowadays, pushers and their accomplices are objecting to this concept, pretending that it is a new and unprecedented notion! More tobacco pusher fraud!

    Keith v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 207 NC 645; 178 SE 90 (28 Jan 1935) (injury due to big green bug embedded in tobacco)

    In Nieman v Dow Drug Co, 57 Ohio App 190; 13 NE2d 130 (17 Feb 1936), another early smokers' rights case opposed by the tobacco company, the Ohio Appeals Court upheld an award of damages to a cigar smoker who had been injured when a cigar

    "exploded, causing substantial physical injury. . . . The evidence shows that the explosion was caused by a firecracker that was inside the cigar . . . there was evidence of negligence in the manufacture . . . In fact, the evidence indicates that it was the intention to make it defective as a cigar by the insertion of a firecracker in it." The court traced the history of prior such adulterated tobacco cases.

    In Meditz v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 167 Misc 176; 3 NYS2d 357, 359 (29 Jan 1938), a New York court awarded damages to a cigarette smoker who had been injured when she

    "smoked the cigarette about half way through when an explosion occurred . . . like a firecracker, and burned both her cheeks, nose, and eyebrows." The court traced the history of prior such adulterated tobacco cases. The verdict was upheld on appeal, 25 NYS2d 315 (1938).

    In Liggett & Myers Tobacco v DeLape, 25 F Supp 1006 (D SC Cal, 17 Jan 1939), a federal district court awarded damages to a cigarette smoker who had been injured when

    "'tiny sparks and blue or greenish blue flame came right out of the end of the cigarette and ran up the man's (plaintiff's) nostrils.' . . . Its action was like that of a 'whizzer' firecracker. 'It was a flash.' The plaintiff hurriedly took the cigarette out of his mouth, but before he was able to lay it down flared up again more extensively than at first, and caused further burns on plaintiff's face. . . . the foreign and injuriously inflammable material in the cigarette which directly caused the injury . . . was in the cigarette when it left the factory." The verdict was upheld on appeal, 109 F2d 598 (CA 9, 1940).

    In Webb v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co, 121 W Va 115; 2 SE2d 898 (14 March 1939), the West Virginia Supreme Court upheld an award of damages to a tobacco chewer who had been injured when

    "that part of the plug from which the chew was taken contained a dead worm or moth from which extended numerous fine stickers or stingers, hard and penetrating in their nature, and each about one-eighth of an inch in length. When [Webb] placed the chew in her mouth, these stingers, in large number, penetrated the lining and tissues of the mouth." The court traced the history of prior such adulterated tobacco cases."

    Liggett & Myers Tobacco v DeLape, 109 F2d 598 (CA 9, 26 Jan 1940) upheld the lower court verdict.

    In Lindner v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 23 NYS2d 923 (10 Dec 1940), a New York court had a smokers' rights case (the right to a safe product) case in which Lindner

    "was smoking cigarettes . . . it suddenly exploded and injured one of his eyes . . . it exploded because of a foreign explosive substance negligently permitted by the [factory] to be contained in the cigarette."

    In 1943, Dr. Jesse Mercer Gehman published Smoke over America (East Aurora, N.Y.: Roycrofters, 1943).

    In the case of In the Matter of R. L. Swain Tobacco Co, Inc, 41 FTC 312 (28 Nov 1945), the Federal Trade Commission found a tobacco company guilty of "unfair and deceptive acts and practices" "to the prejudice of the public."

    In American Tobacco Co v United States, 328 US 781; 66 S Ct 1125; 90 L Ed 1575 (10 June 1946), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding conviction of tobacco companies (American Tobacco Co, Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, and officials thereof)

    "on four counts
  • (1) Conspiracy in restraint of trade,
  • (2) monopolization,
  • (3) attempt to monopolize, and
  • (4) conspiracy to monopolize. . . .
    Each petitioner was fined . . . $15,000 . . . and a total of $255,000."
  • In 1947, "Dr. Benton E. Clover [did] tell the Anti-Cigarette League at their annual meeting on November 8, 1947, how

    "there came to [his health facility] one time a patient, a man named Duke. The Duke family are the stockholders of the tobacco company. Duke said it was not tobacco that caused his trouble. Duke was surprised to learn anybody would think he would use tobacco. He said he made Duke's Mixture, knew what was in it, and wouldn't use it."—Prof. Pryns Hopkins, Ph.D., Gone Up in Smoke: An Analysis of Tobaccoism (Culver City, CA: The Highland Press, 1948), pp 220-221.

    In P Lorillard Co v Federal Trade Commission, 186 F2d 52 (CA 4, 29 Dec 1950), the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an FTC order directing a tobacco company to cease and desist false, misleading, and deceptive advertising.

    United States v 46 Cartons . . . Fairfax Cigarettes, 113 F Supp 336 (D NJ, 10 June 1953) (decision upholding a seizure of cigarettes on a charge of misbranding, and, pursuant to accompanying health claim literature, finding cigarettes to be drugs)

    Pritchard v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 134 F Supp 829 (D WD Pa, 2 Aug 1955)

    Cooper v RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, 234 F2d 170; 80 ALR 675 (CA 1, Mass, 24 May 1956)

    Cooper v RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, 158 F Supp 22 (D Mass, 26 Dec 1957)

    Ross v Philip Morris and Co, 164 F Supp 683 (WD Mo, 24 April 1958)

    Cooper v RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, 256 F2d 464 (CA 1, 12 June 1958)

    United States v 354 Bulk Cartons . . . Trim Reducing-Aid Cigarettes, 178 F Supp 847 (D NJ, 30 Nov 1959) (cigarettes seized as a drug, upheld, under the circumstances of weight-reducing claims)

    Mitchell v American Tobacco Co, 183 F Supp 406 (MD Pa, 27 April 1960)

    Mitchell v American Tobacco Co, 33 FRD 262 (MD Pa, 19 July 1961). SCB: 183 F Supp 406

    Pritchard v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 295 F2d 292; 22 NCCA3d 421 (CA 3, 12 Oct 1961)

    ("On the question of awareness of the danger, the plaintiff offered the testimony of several expert witnesses. Dr. Kremer testified that knowledge of the connection between smoking and epidermoid cancer was being disseminated many years prior to 1953. Dr. Kaunitz testified that he noted a relationship between heavy smoking and lung cancer as early as 1946, while Dr. Cameron said that literature on the relationship between smoking and lung cancer was available half a century ago. He himself became interested in the relationship in the mid 1930's. Dr. Overholt testified that he became suspicious that a connection existed between heavy smoking and lung cancer in the early 1940's . . . Dr. Levin started research on the relationship between smoking and lung cancer in 1939 after reading a German article dealing with the subject. In addition, there was evidence that in 1952 defendant conducted "tests admittedly to determine the effects of smoking Chesterfields on the nose, throat and accessory organs." The court also referred to "plaintiff's witnesses who testified as to causation. Each of the doctors testified that in his opinion plaintiff's cancer was caused by long continued smoking."). SCB: 134 F Supp 829

    Mitchell v American Tobacco Co, 28 FRD 315 (D MD Pa, 12 Oct 1961). SCB: 183 F Supp 406; 33 FRD 262

    Green v American Tobacco Co, 304 F2d 70 (CA 5, 2 May 1962)

    RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co v Hudson, 314 F2d 776 (CA 5, 14 March 1963)

    Lartigue v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co and Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, (1st part) 317 F2d 19 (CA 5, 19 April 1963) (the court said to treat tobacco as subject to rules on other items for human consumption, requiring it to be safe for human consumption)

    Lartigue v RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co and Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, (Last part) 317 F2d 19 (CA 5, 19 April 1963)

    Green v American Tobacco Co, 154 So 2d 169 (Fla, 5 June 1963)

    Green v American Tobacco Co, 325 F2d 673 (CA 5, 11 Dec 1963)

    Ross v Philip Morris and Co, 328 F2d 3 (CA 8, 26 Feb 1964). SCB: 164 F Supp 683 (affirming lower court decision, stating at 13-14, that per factual evidence, the "manufacturer [must be deemed] held as an [expert] absolute insurer [of safety] against knowable dangers [as per action to] keep abreast of scientific knowledge." A "manufacturer is held to the skill of an expert, is charged with superior knowledge [above the buyer's] of the nature and qualities of its products, and is obligated reasonably to keep abreast of scientific information, discoveries, and advances." The result of these legal duties and responsibilities is that cigarettes are harmful in law if harm is foreseeeable from scientific and medical data, i.e., if "any ingredient in a cigarette was known or could have been known to be an irritant or deleterious substance that could cause cancer.") Of course, this has long been known, long prior to this decision.

    The manufacturer, pp 12-13, in defending itself against a charge of causing harm, is "required to offer evidence affording proof that no one, not even the most renowned scientist or the most eminent medical authority in the world, could have foreseen the cancer-producing danger that smoking cigarettes can—-under certain circumstances—-apparently create."

    Fine v Philip Morris, Inc, 239 F Supp 361 (D SD NY, 26 Oct 1964) (issue of multiple causes of action arising from tobacco smoke harm)

    Pritchard v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 350 F2d 479 (CA 3, 26 July 1965)

    Pritchard v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 370 F2d 95 (CA 3, 22 Dec 1966)

    Green v American Tobacco Co I, 391 F2d 97 (CA 5, 24 Jan 1968)

    Green v American Tobacco Co II, 409 F2d 1166 (CA 5, 8 April 1969)

    Robinson v Lorillard Corp, 319 F Supp 835 (D MD NC, 12 March 1970)

    In Robinson v American Broadcasting Companies, 328 F Supp 421, 422, 424-426 (D ED Ky, 1 June 1970), a tobacco taboo case, a U.S. District Court rejected pro-tobacco restrictions on freedom of speech against smoking. The case involved

    "growers of burley tobacco [who] complain [of words] which announce, directly, or by innuendo, that the smoking of cigarettes will kill those persons who smoke them . . . . cigarette advertising . . . has been directed to young persons . . . medical or scientific body undertaking a systematic review of the evidence has reached conclusions opposed to those of the Surgeon General's. . . ."

    "The doctrine of clean hands requires this Court . . . to avert further injury to the public, by the continued retardation and erosion of public awareness of the hazards of smoking . . . the mere fact that information is available, or even that it is actually heard or read, does not mean that it is effectively understood. A man who hears a hundred 'yeses' for each 'no,' when the actual odds lie heavily the other way, cannot be realistically deemed adequately informed."

    "Any time the uncleanness of . . . hands . . . comes to the attention of the Court . . . the Court is required to act sua sponte . . . on account of the public interest . . . for the advancement of right and natural justice."

    Hudson v RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, 427 F2d 541 (CA 5, 3 June 1970)

    In Robinson v American Broadcasting Companies, 441 F2d 1396, 1399 (CA 6, 30 April 1971), the Sixth Circuit upheld 328 F Supp 421 above, and said:

    "although it was constitutional to require that anti-smoking commercials be broadcast, it does not follow that an injunction prohibiting the broadcast of the same commercials would likewise be constitutionally permissible."

    Robinson v Lorillard Corp, 444 F2d 1396 (CA 6, 30 April 1971)

    In Larus & Brother Co v F.C.C., 447 F2d 876, 880 (CA 4, 20 Aug 1971), the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said that "it is now reasonable . . . to assume that the detrimental effects of cigarette smoking on health are beyond controversy."

    Albright v RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, 350 F Supp 341 (D WD Pa, 23 Oct 1972)

    Albright v RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, 485 F2d 678 (CA 3, 25 Oct 1973)

    Albright v RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, 463 F Supp 1220 (D WD Pa, 22 Jan 1974)

    Albright v RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, 531 F2d 132 (CA 3, 13 Feb 1976)

    Action on Smoking and Health v Harris, 210 US App DC 123; 655 F2d 236 (CA DC, 19 Dec 1980)

    Cipollone v Liggett Group, Inc I, 593 F Supp 1146 (D NJ, 20 Sep 1984)

    Cipollone v Liggett Group, Inc, 106 FRD 573 (D NJ, 17 July 1985)

    Melancon v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co, 621 F Supp 567 (WD Ky, 7 Nov 1985) (case alleging smoker injury from rolled tobacco lacking warning label)

    Roysdon v RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, 623 F Supp 1189 (D ED Tenn, ND, 18 Dec 1985)

    Cipollone v Liggett Group, Inc II, 785 F2d 1108 (CA 3, 12 March 1986)

    Cipollone v Liggett Group, Inc II, 789 F2d 181 (CA 3, 7, 18 April 1986)

    Palmer v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co I, 633 F Supp 1171 (D Mass, 25 April 1986)

    Marsee v United States Tobacco Co, 639 F Supp 466; 20 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1245 (D WD Oklahoma, 25 June 1986) (re toxic tobacco, issue of tobacco-induced cancer, specifically snuff, with court rejecting notion that tobacco addiction is a novel, undefined, or speculative concept, though the facts have been developed since the 1520's)

    Cipollone v Liggett Group, Inc, 644 F Supp 283; CCH Prod Liab Rep ¶ 11171 (D NJ, 25 Sep 1986)

    Cipollone v Liggett Group, Inc, 802 F2d 658 (CA 3, 29 Sep 1986) (issue of bias in judge on tobacco case who had previously been a tobacco company lawyer)

    Cipollone v Liggett Group, Inc, 113 FRD 86; 7 FR Serv 3d 982 (D NJ, 12 Nov 1986) (censorship issue)

    Cipollone v Liggett Group, Inc, 649 F Supp 664 (D NJ, 9 Dec 1986)

    Dewey v RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, 216 NJ Super 347; 523 A2d 712 (22 Dec 1986)

    American Tobacco Co v Evans, 508 So 2d 1057; 2 USPQ2d 1866; 75 ALR4th 997; 36 ALR5th 541, 564 (Miss, 29 April 1987) (censorship issue arising pursuant to company policy of seeking secrecy)

    Cipollone v Liggett Group, Inc, 822 F2d 335; 7 FR Serv 3d 1438 (CA 3, 8 June 1987). SCB: 113 FRD 86

    Dewey v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 108 NJ 198; 527 A2d 1391 (9 June 1987)

    Stephen v American Brands, Inc, 825 F2d 312 (CA 11, 21 Aug 1987)

    Palmer v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co II, 825 F2d 620 (CA 1, 24 Aug 1987)

    Gunsalus v Celotex Corp, 674 F Supp 1149; CCH Prod Liab Rep ¶ 11724; 5 UCCRS2d 1389 (D ED Pa, 23 Nov 1987) (strict liability claim due to inadequate warning of tobacco effects)

    Herlihy v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, CCH Prod Liab Rep ¶ 11852 (DC Mass, 1988) (tobacco is "bad" when it contains toxic or carcinogenic ingredients)

    Dewey v RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, 109 NJ 201; 536 A2d 243 (1 Feb 1988)

    Miller v Brown and Williamson Tobacco Co, 679 F Supp 485 (D ED Pa, 10 Feb 1988)

    Gianitsis v American Brands, Inc, 685 F Supp 853; CCH Prod Liab Rep ¶ 11941 (D NH, 4 April 1988)

    Forster v RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co I, 423 NW2d 691 (Minn App, 3 May 1988)

    Kotler v American Tobacco Co, 685 F Supp 15 (D Mass, 21 and May 1988)

    Dewey v RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, 225 NJ Super 375; 542 A2d 919 (23 May 1988)

    Roysdon v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 849 F2d 230 (CA 6, 14 June 1988) ("The normal use of cigarettes is known by ordinary consumers to present grave health risks . . .'tobacco has been used for over 400 years . . . [k]nowledge that cigarette smoking is harmful to health is widespread and can be considered part of the common knowledge.'")

    Semowich v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 86-CV-118, US Dist LEXIS 9102 (D ND NY, 17 Aug 1988)

    Rogers v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 761 SW 2d 788; CCH Prod Liab Rep ¶ 12003 (Tex App, 6 Oct 1988) (family sued re death of mother from smoking; one issue was whether she'd have quit earlier but for tobacco company non-admission of the hazard)

    Marsee v United States Tobacco Co, 866 F2d 319; CCF Prod Liab Rep ¶ 12023 (CA 10, Okla, 10 Jan 1989). SCB: 639 F Supp 466; 20 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1245 (re toxic tobacco, issue of tobacco-induced cancer, specifically snuff)

    American Tobacco Co v Superior Court, 208 Cal App 3d 480; 255 Cal Rptr 280; CCH Prod Liab Rep ¶ 12120 (6 Feb and 8 March 1989) (special interest legislation case, law exempted tobacco company from liability!!)

    Forster v RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co II, 437 NW2d 655 (Minn, 14 April 1989) (issue of manufacturer intentional misrepresentations and untruths, regarding what manfuacturer had chosen to say about the product)

    Pennington v RJ Reynolds & American Tobacco Co, 876 F2d 414 (CA 5, 28 June 1989)

    Cipollone v Liggett Group, Inc, 893 F2d 541; CCH Prod Liab Rep ¶ 12329; 10 UCCRS2d 625 (CA 3, NJ, 5 Jan 1990). SCB: 693 F Supp 208 (design defect claim))

    Kotler v American Tobacco Co, 731 F Supp 50 (Mass, 12 Jan 1990)

    Hite v RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, 396 Pa Super 82; 578 A2d 417 (12 July 1990)

    Kyte v Philip Morris, Inc, 408 Mass 162; 556 NE2d 1025; CCH Prod Liab Rep ¶ 12607; 36 ALR5th 541, 570 (25 July 1990) (business practices case alleging pattern of unlawful sales to minors)

    Dewey v RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, 121 NJ 69; 577 A2d 1239; CCF Prod Liab Rep ¶ 12548 (26 July 1990) (issues of defective design of cigarettes; advertising fraud and misrepresentation; and failure to warn of tobacco effects)

    Baker v Liggett Group, Inc, 132 FRD 123 (D Mass, 31 July 1990) (issues included whether smoker knew the risk)

    Rogers v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 557 NE2d 1045; CCF Prod Liab Rep ¶ 12572 (Ind App, 31 July 1990)

    Gilboy v American Tobacco Co, 572 So 2d 289 (La App, 14 Nov 1990)

    Kotler v American Tobacco Co, 926 F2d 1217 (CA 1, Mass, 19 Dec 1990). SCB: 685 F Supp 15; 731 F Supp 50

    Gilboy v American Tobacco Co, 573 So 2d 1128 (La, 31 Jan 1991)

    McSorley v Philip Morris, Inc, 170 App Div 2d 440; 565 NYS2d 537 (4 Feb 1991) app dism 77 NY2d 990; 571 NYS2d 915; 575 NE2d 401 (9 May 1991) (allegation of practice of failure to warn of foreseeable tobacco-caused harm (blindness, deafness, and mental retardation) to unborn fetus) (analysis by Novello, "Health Hazards of Cigarette Use," Trial [March 1992], p 46)

    Carlisle v Philip Morris, Inc, 805 SW2d 498 (Tex App, 6 Feb 1991)

    Gilboy v American Tobacco Co, 582 So 2d 1263; 36 ALR 5th 899 (La, 21 June 1991) (issue of cigarettes as unreasonably dangerous per se)

    In re Manguno, 961 F2d 533; CCH Prod Liab Rep ¶ 13185; 22 FR Serv 3d 993 (CA 5, La, 26 May 1992) (concurrent causes, asbestos-cigarette, allegation ok in court, even if medically, cigarettes are the cause alone)

    Kotler v American Tobacco Co, 981 F2d 7; 141 ALR Fed 737; CCH Prod Liab Rep ¶ 13347; 24 FR Serv 3d 384 (CA 1, Mass, 4 Dec 1992). SCB: 685 F Supp 15; 731 F Supp 50; 926 F2d 1217; 112 S Ct 3019; 120 L Ed 2d 891

    Butler v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 815 F Supp 982 (SD Miss, 18 March 1993)

    Smith v RJ Reynolds & American Tobacco Co 267 NJ Super 62; 630 A2d 820 (9 Aug 1993)

    Paugh v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 834 F Supp 228 (ND Ohio, 29 Sep 1993) (allegations of tobacco company fraud by widow product liability case)

    Broin v Philip Morris Cos, Inc, 19 Fla L Weekly D588; 641 So 2d 888 (15 March 1994) (second-hand smoke injury case; aka the flight attendants' class action case re TTS injury to traveling workers (stewardesses) due to others' ultrahazardous activity of smoking on the job violating the right to "fresh and pure air") (Amicus Curiae Brief by ASH)

    Brown v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 852 F Supp 8 (ED La, 13 April 1994) (no alternative design)

    Action on Smoking & Health v Department of Labor, Case 92-1661, 307 US App DC 295; 28 F3d 162 (CA DC, 12 July 1994) (due to cigarette hazards, seeking OSHA action to enforce regulation 29 CFR § 1910.1000 re cigarettes' toxic chemicals)

    A 20 July 1994 Philip Morris (PM) confidential inter-office correspondence reports on contaminants found in PM's cigarettes after investigation of consumer complaints.

    Contaminants found in the cigarettes included machine oils (used to lubricate the cigarette manufacturing machines), chemicals traceable to rubber bands and rubber manufacturing belts, tax stamp ink solvents, "residual solvents from promotion tags," airborne contamination picked up by cigarettes stored in "inappropriate places" like gas stations and freshly-painted warehouses, waterless hand cleaners, varnishes or lacquers used on the pack, plasticizers and polymers (including those used "as a carriers in insect repellant formulations"), glass fiber, plastic, rubber, and blood.

    In the case of the rubber contamination, the paper says, "The complaints covered four brands, three different factory locations, all three shifts and manufacturer over a time span from October 1993 to April, 1994."

    More people take cigarette products into their bodies every day than even FDA-approved pharmaceuticals like aspirin. If contaminants such as blood, rubber or lacquers turned up in a product like aspirin, most likely the manufacturer be required to notify the public about the contamination and recall the product.

    Smokers apparently receive no such protection.

    To see the document, click here. For PDF version, click here. For the TDO site copy, click here.

    Allman v Philip Morris, Inc, 865 F Supp 665 (SD Cal, 22 Sep 1994)

    Castano v American Tobacco Co, 870 F Supp 1425 (ED La, 22 Sep and 15 Nov 1994) (citing denial of opportunity to respond; issue involved express warranty claims, as manufacturers must do as they warrant they'll do; injured persons can sue via negligence and strict liability laws, pursuant to manufacturers duty to not market cigarettes with manufacturing defects, and duty to use safer alternative design)

    Grinnell v American Tobacco Co, 883 SW2d 791 (Tex App, 29 Sep 1994)

    Mannell v American Tobacco Co, 871 F Supp 854 (ED Va, 12 Oct 1994)

    Michael v Shiley, Inc, Case 94-0959, 46 F3d 1316 (CA 3, ED Pa, 24 Oct 1994) cert den 516 US 815; 116 S Ct 67; 133 L Ed 2d 29 (preemption with cigarette law 15 § 1331, et seq., compared, claim of fraudulent promotion of product not preempted) (legal definitions)

    Quillen v American Tobacco Co, 874 F Supp 1285 (MD Ala, 25 Jan 1995)

    Castano v American Tobacco Co, 160 FRD 544 (ED La, 17 Feb 1995)

    Burton v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 884 F Supp 1515 (D Kans, 10 March 1995) (a product liability case by a smoker with vascular disease, based on allegations of misrepresentation and concealment, conspiracy to commit fraud, and violation of the Consumer Protection Act banning deceptive advertising practices)

    Castano v American Tobacco Co, 879 F Supp 594 (ED La, 14 March 1995)

    Brown v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 52 F3d 524 (CA 5, La, 5 May 1995)

    Castano v American Tobacco Co, 162 FRD 112 (ED La, 15 May 1995) (stay pending appeal)

    Castano v American Tobacco Co, 889 F Supp 904 (ED La, 23 June 1995)

    Griesenbeck v American Tobacco Co, 897 F Supp 815 (D NJ, 13 July 1995)

    Castano v American Tobacco Co, 896 F Supp 590 (ED La, 27 July 1995) (censorship request denied)

    Collins v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 901 F Supp 1038 (D SC, 14 Sep 1995)

    Castano v American Tobacco Co, 908 F Supp 378 (ED La, 18 Dec 1995)

    Robinson v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 909 F Supp 824 (Colorado, 29 Dec 1995)

    R J Reynolds Tobacco Co, et al v Engle, 672 So 2d 39 (Fla App, 31 Jan 1996 corr 11 June 1996) cert den 682 So 2d 1000 (Fla, 2 Oct 1996) (smokers' rights class action case, reduced due to tobacco company opposition, from all U.S. smokers, to only those in Florida)

    Burton v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 916 F Supp 1102 (D Kans, 12 Feb 1996) (issue of manufacturer fraud, knowing but concealing tobacco's role in cancer and vascular disease)

    Kearney v Philip Morris, Inc, 916 F Supp 61; CCH Prod Liab Rep ¶ 14636 (Mass, 16 Feb 1996) (cigarette caused house fire case, court said the danger is obvious)

    Braun v Lorillard Inc, Case 95-4094, 84 F3d 230 (CA 7, ND Illinois, 17 March 1996) cert den 519 US 992; 117 S Ct 480; 136 L Ed 2d 375 (18 Nov 1996) (product liability case in cigarette-caused death, unqualified expert witness)

    Sackman v Liggett Group, Inc, 920 F Supp 357 (ED NY, 19 March 1996) (tobacco taboo case, re crime-fraud exception, release secret tobacco documents)

    Joiner v General Electric Co, et al, 78 F3d 524 (CA 11, 27 March 1996) (smoker lung cancer case)

    Wilks v Am Tobacco Co, 680 So2d 839, CCH Prod Liab Rep ¶ 14743 (Miss, 12 Sep 1996) (lung cancer, dangerous tobacco case, no assumption of risk by smoker, when tobacco companies deny it). SCB: 1993 WL 325136

    Allgood v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 80 F3d 168; CCH Prod Liab Rep ¶ 14656; 29 UCCRS 2d 496 (CA 5, Tex, 16 April 1996) cert den 519 US 930; 117 S Ct 300; 136 L Ed 2d 218 (15 Oct 1996)

    Burton v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 167 FRD 134 (D Kans, 1 May 1996) (discovery issue, court would do in camera review to determine whether the crime-fraud exception applies to documents allegedly covered by attorney-client privilege)

    Todd v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 924 F Supp 59 (WD La, 9 May 1996) (tobacco dangerousness is obvious)

    Castano v American Tobacco Co, 84 F3d 734 (CA 5, La, 23 May 1996). SCB: 160 FRD 544 (refusing class action status)

    Sackman v Liggett Group, Inc, 167 FRD 9 (ED NY, 25 May 1996) (re crime-fraud exception, release secret tobacco documents). SCB: 920 F Supp 357

    Sonnenreich v Philip Morris, Inc, 929 F Supp 416; CCH Prod Liab Rep ¶ 14647; 9 FLW Fed D 814 (SD Fla, 29 May 1996)

    Caruso, Gauthier, Pappion, Perret, Porteous, and Vagianos v Philip Morris Inc, 959 F Supp 340 (ED La, 31 Oct 1996)

    Scott v American Tobacco Co, 959 F Supp 340 (ED La, 31 Oct 1996)

    Chustz v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 961 F Supp 143 (MD La, 25 Nov 1996)

    Action on Smoking & Health v Department of Labor, Case 95-1615, 100 F3d 991; 323 US App DC 268 (26 Nov 1996) (due to cigarette hazards, seeking OSHA action to enforce regulation 29 CFR § 1910.1000 re cigarettes' toxic chemicals). SCB: 307 US App DC 295; 28 F3d 162

    Ryder v Philip Morris, Inc, 946 F Supp 422 (ED Virginia, 27 Nov 1996)

    Lacey v Lorillard Tob Co, Inc, 956 F Supp 956 (ND Ala, 31 Jan 1997) (failure to disclose ingredients)

    Burton v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 170 FRD 481 (D Kans, 3 Feb 1997)

    Marks v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 965 F Supp 857 (WD La, 4 Feb 1997)

    Castano v American Tobacco Co, 961 F Supp 953 (ED La, 21 Feb 1997)

    Arnold v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 956 F Supp 110 (D RI, 26 Feb 1997)

    Bath Iron Works Corp v Worker Russell E. Harford, Jr. and Dir, Office of Workers' Comp Programs, 137 F3d 673 (CA 1, Maine, 21 March 1997) (c, s) (32 year smoker asbestos claim based on a few inhalation incidents, his doctor said smoking caused his lung condition, so 2-1, the court denied his claim)

    Kulbabinski, Linton, McCleary, Yost, and Zakas v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 172 FRD 474 (MD Fla, 10 April 1997)

    Derzekos, Kranz, Lawrence, Owens, Rodriguez and White v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 172 FRD 474 (MD Fla, 10 April 1997)

    Witherspoon v Philip Morris, Inc, 964 F Supp 455 (DDC, 2 May 1997) (widower product liability dangerous tobacco case)

    Williams v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 964 F Supp 2d 257 (ND Ohio, 9 May 1997) (misrepresentation allegations)

    Barreras-Ruiz v American Tobacco Co, 964 F Supp 613 (D PR, 19 May 1997)

    Smith v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 174 FRD 90 (WD Missouri, 22 May 1997) (rejecting class action status)

    Arch v American Tobacco Co, Inc, 175 FRD 469 (ED Pa, 3 June 1997) (refusing class action status)

    Perez v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 967 F Supp 920 (SD Texas, 4 June 1997) (tobacco is inherently dangerous and so known)

    Sackman v Liggett Group, Inc, 965 F Supp 391 (ED NY, 9 June 1997) (lung cancer case, issues include unlawfulness of tobacco company doing a legal act in an illegal manner). SCB: 920 F Supp 357; 167 FRD 9

    Arch v American Tobacco Co, Inc, 984 F Supp 830 (ED Pa, 17 June 1997). SCB: 175 FRD 469

    Thomas v American Tobacco Co, 173 FRD 546 (MD Ga, 20 June 1997) (prisoner case)

    Wilson v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 968 F Supp 296 (SD W Va, 27 June 1997)

    Walker v Liggett Group, 175 FRD 226 (ED W Va, 5 Aug 1997) (decision revoking prior decision granting preliminary approval to smokers' rights class action case, revoked due to tobacco company opposition)

    Masepohl v American Tobacco Co, Inc, 974 F Supp 1245 (D Minn, 8 Aug 1997)

    Burton v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 175 FRD 321 (D Kans, 14 Aug 1997) (a number of tobacco company documents not protected by attorney-client privilege)

    De La Rosa v Philip Morris Products, Inc, 975 F Supp 161 (D PR, 14 Aug 1997)

    Barnes v American Tobacco Co, Inc, 176 FRD 479 (ED Pa, 22 Aug 1997)

    State of Texas v American Tobacco Co, 14 F Supp 2d 956 (ED Tex, 8 Sep 1997)

    Barreras-Ruiz v American Tobacco Co, 977 F Supp 545 (D PR, 9 Sep 1997). SCB: 964 F Supp 613

    Crooks v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 978 F Supp 1482 (ND Ga, 6 Oct 1997)

    Toole v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 980 F Supp 419 (ND Ala, 8 Oct 1997) (re loose cigarettes)

    Barnes v American Tobacco Co, Inc, 989 F Supp 661 (ED Pa, 10 Oct 1997)

    Barnes v American Tobacco Co, Inc, 984 F Supp 842 (ED Pa, 17 Oct 1997)

    Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co, 175 Misc 2d 294, 668 NYS 2d 307 (28 Oct 1997) (smoker class action case alleging tobacco company manipulation of nicotine levels, and fraudulent concealment of addiction)

    Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co, 176 Misc 2d 413, 672 NYS2d 601 (28 Oct 1997) (denying tobacco company motion to dismiss smokers' class action case)

    Taylor v American Tobacco Co, Inc, 983 F Supp 686 (ED Mich, 3 Nov 1997) (remanded case to state court)

    General Electric Co, et al. v Joiner, 522 US 136; 118 S Ct 512; 139 L Ed 2d 508 (15 Dec 1997) (smoker lung cancer case with expert witness issue). SCB: 864 F Supp 1310; 78 F3d 524

    Burton v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 177 FRD 491 (D Kans, 23 Dec 1997). See also unpub citations, 1996 US Dist LEXIS 12931 and 1997 US Dist LEXIS 1566.

    Bath Iron Works Corp v Worker Philip Reno and Dir, Office of Workers' Comp Programs, 136 F3d 34 (CA 1, 12 Feb 1998) (smoker comp case)

    Haskin v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 995 F Supp 1437 (MD Fla, 26 Feb 1998)

    Wakeland v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 996 F Supp 1213 (SD Ala, 5 March 1998)

    City of Birmingham, Ala v American Tobacco Co, 10 F Supp 2d 1257 (ND Ala, 9 March 1998)

    Barreras-Ruiz v American Tobacco Co, 180 FRD 194 (D PR, 17 March 1998) (refusing class action status)

    West Virginia-Ohio Valley Area I.B.E.W. Welfare Fund v American Tobacco Co, 29 F Supp 2d 733 (SD W Va, 19 March 1998)

    Jones v American Tobacco Co, 17 F Supp 2d 706 (ND Ohio, 23 April 1998) (says the tobacco hazard is common knowledge after the Surgeon General Reports)

    Williams v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 17 F Supp 2d 706 (ND Ohio, 23 April 1998) (says the tobacco hazard is common knowledge after the Surgeon General Reports)

    Laborers Local 17 Health & Benefit Fund, et al v Philip Morris, Inc, et al, 179 FRD 417; RICO Bus Disp Guide (CCH) ¶ 9479 (SD NY, 7 April 1998)

    Smith v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 3 F Supp 2d 1473 (D DC, 19 May 1998)

    Buckingham v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 713 A2d 381 (NH, 29 May 1998) (involuntary smoking lung cancer case; issue of negligence by supplying others a product not made safe)

    Thomas v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 11 F Supp 2d 850 (SD Miss, 1 June 1998)

    Hollar v Philip Morris, Inc, 43 F Supp 2d 794 (ND Ohio, 7 July 1998)

    Daniels v Philip Morris Companies, Inc, 18 F Supp 2d 1110 (SD Cal, 7 Aug 1998)

    Brown v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 26 F Supp 2d 74 (D DC, 28 Sep 1998)

    Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co, 252 App Div 2d 1; 679 NYS2d 593 (29 Oct 1998) (addicted smokers class action smokers' rights case, lost due to tobacco company opposition, which succeeded in reversing the lower court pro-smokers' rights decisions). SCB: 175 Misc 2d 294, 668 NYS 2d 307; 176 Misc 2d 413, 672 NYS2d 601

    Rosabach v Lorillard, Inc., 71 F Supp 2d 221 (SD NY, 13 May 1999) (diversity)

    Barnes v American Tobacco Co, 130 F3d 765 (CA 3, )

    Barnes v American Tobacco Co, 161 F3d 127 (CA 3, 12 Nov 1998). SCB: 176 FRD 479; 984 F Supp 842; 989 F Supp 661 (cigarette case, affirming lower court dismissal of "class action" case, and citing, e.g., the running of the stutute of limitations in certain individual cases)

    Barnes v American Tobacco Co, 526 US 1114; 119 S Ct 1760; 143 L Ed 2d 791; 1999 US LEXIS 3264 (17 May 1999)

    Insolia v Philip Morris, Inc, 31 F Supp 3d 660 (WD Wisconsin, 14 Dec 1998)

    Emig v American Tobacco Co, Inc, 184 FRD 379 (D Kansas, 21 Dec 1998)

    University of South Alabama v American Tobacco Co, 168 F3d 405 (CA 11, Ala, nd)

    Wolpin v Philip Morris, Inc, 189 FRD 418 (CD Cal, 23 Feb 1999) SCB: 974 F Supp 1465 (subpoena data issue)

    Kirksey v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 168 F3d 1039 (CA 7, Ill, 25 Feb 1999). SCB: 1998 WL 381972

    Hill v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 44 F Supp 2d 837 (WD Ky, 2 April 1999) (product liability case by widow, issues include fraud and misrepresentation)

    Philip Morris Inc v Superior Court, 71 Cal App 4th 116; 83 Cal Rptr 2d 671 (5 April 1999) (in smoker's rights case, tobacco company challenging the judge issue)

    Slawomir Lubicz-Sienicki v Philip Morris (Poland, July 1999, CNN Report Transcript)

    Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co, No. 154, 94 NY2d 43; 698 NYS 2d 615; 720 NE2d 892 (NY, 26 Oct 1999) (addicted smokers class action, affirming tobacco company win against smokers' rights, which smokers had initially won at the lower court, then lost at the appellate court). SCB: 252 App Div 2d 1, 679 NYS2d 593; 175 Misc 2d 294, 668 NYS 2d 307; 176 Misc 2d 413, 672 NYS2d 601

    Thompson, et al v American Tobacco Company, Inc. et al, 189 FRD 544 (D Minn, 21 Nov 1999)

    Taylor v American Tobacco Co, et al, Civil No. 97 715975 NP (CA 3, Mich, Judge William J. Giovan, 11 Jan 2000) (denial of class action status alleging insufficient commonality, despite commonality of addiction and/or that they were all illegally sold cigarettes in violation of Michigan law). SCB: 983 F Supp 686

    Duncan v Northwest Airlines, Case No. 98-35617 (CA 9, Wash, 6 April 2000) (flight attendant second-hand smoke pulmonary injury case) cert den US S Ct, L Ed 2d, Case No. 00-404 (10 Dec 2000)

    Leslie Whiteley v Philip Morris Co and RJ Reynolds Tobacco Holdings (Calif Superior Court) (Cited by Deborah Josefson, "Tobacco companies in US to pay smoker $22m ({pound}13.8m," 320 British Med Journal (#7420) 957 (8 April 2000)

    Philip Morris Inc, et al v Engle, US, 120 S Ct 2025; 146 L Ed 2d 975 (22 May 2000). SCB: 746 So 2d 457; 672 So 2d 39; 682 So 2d 1000 (smokers' rights class action case, tobacco company effort to disqualify presiding judge, denied)

    Naegele v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 81 Cal App 4th 503; 96 Cal Rptr 2d 666 (9 June 2000) (smoker's rights lung cancer cases alleging fraud; issue of exempting tobacco companies from product safety rules other companies must obey)

    Engle v R J Reynolds Tobacco Co, et al, Fla Ct (14 July 2000) (Florida smokers' rights class action case jury verdict for $145 billion, allocated as follows: Philip Morris Inc.: $73.9 billion; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.: $36.2 billion; Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.: $17.5 billion; Lorillard Tobacco Co.: $16.2 billion; Liggett Group Inc.: $790 million. SCB: 672 So 2d 39; 682 So 2d 1000 (Civil Law Analysis) (Pertinent Legal Definitions and Criminal Law)

    Coreine Wendling v Phillip Morris Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. and the Tobacco Institute (Fed Dist Ct Case No. 1:00-CV-534, Kalamazoo, filed 7-21-00)

    (case in process, allegations they recklessly and negligently sold their products despite knowing the danger; Welding was diagnosed with lung cancer 24 Jan 2000. Case says this was "solely caused by the consumption of the products manufactured and distributed by" defendants, who, the case says, repeatedly made false statements purporting that cigarettes weren't harmful and misrepresented their potential dangers to consumers. Issues include

  • Intentionally violating Michigan's penal code by manufacturing and selling products containing ingredients that are unhealthy and foreign to tobacco.

  • Gross negligence, recklessness and knowledge of defect. The suit says the companies sold addictive tobacco products knowing that they were dangerous, and rather than warn consumers, they and the Tobacco Institute instead misrepresented those dangers.

  • Violating Michigan's Consumer Protection Act by misrepresenting their products.

  • Fraud, misrepresentation and breach of express and implied warranties. The lawsuit claims that the tobacco companies falsely warranted their products to be safe and not a cause of lung cancer and other health problems.

  • Violation of Michigan law prohibiting the sale of cigarettes made with added nicotine and other harmful substances.

  • Wendling, as a result of her cigarette habit, now has a shortened life expectancy; and suffered physical, mental and emotional pain, has a permanent disability and has lost wages, benefits and earning capacity.

  • Click here for full text.
  • Estate of White v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 109 F Supp 2d 424 (D Md, 25 July 2000) (smoker's rights case, opposed by tobacco company)

    Carter v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 778 So 2d 932 (Fla, 22 Nov 2000) (upholding jury verdict in lung cancer case)

    King Faisal Cancer Specialist Hospital v Tobacco Companies (5 Feb 2001)

    Joe Battaglia v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. (Toronto, 5 June 2001) (case by a 59-year-old Toronto tobacco company salesman, re heart disease)

    Richard Boeken v Philip Morris (6 June 2001) (three billion dollar verdict)

    Grady Carter v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, US; S Ct; 150 L Ed 2d 751 (29 June 2001). (smoker's rights lung cancer case). SCB: 778 So 2d 932; 723 So 2d 833

    Selcer v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, ___ F Supp ___ (D Nev, 29 June 2001)

    Patricia Henley v Philip Morris Co, 93 Cal App 4th 824; 113 Cal Rptr 2d 494 (7 Nov 2001) (lung cancer case; $26.5 million award upheld)

    Floyd R. Kenyon v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co (Tampa, Fla., 12 Dec 2001) (lung cancer and emphysema case, defectively designed product, $165,000)

    David Burton v R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp (Kansas City, 22 Feb 2002) (peripheral vascular disease case, $198,400)

    McCabe v British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd, 2002 VSC 73 (Sup Ct of Victoria, Common Law Div, Melbourne, Australia (22 March 2002) (smoker lung cancer case) [PDF Version; News Report]

    Schwarz v Philip Morris (Multnomah County Circ. Ct., Oregon, Docket No. 0002-01376, 22 March 2002)

    Rolah A. McCabe v British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd (Sup Ct of Victoria, Common Law Div, Melbourne, Australia (11 April 2002) (smoker lung cancer case, award $375,000) [NEU Analysis; DNSA Analysis]

    John Lukacs v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 3rd District Court of Appeal (Florida, April 2002) (oral and bladder cancer case)

    Mayola Williams v Philip Morris, Inc., R J Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., Case Nos. 9705-03957; A106791; 182 Oregon App 44; 48 P3d 824 (5 June 2002) (Details)

    Lukacs v Philip Morris, Inc., et al. (Fla. Jury Award, 11 June 2002)

    Burton v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, Case No. 94-2202-JWL (Kansas, 5 July 2002) (TPLP background analysis)

    Betty Jean Myers v Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. S095213; 28 Cal 4th 828; 123 Cal Rptr 2d 40; 50 P3d 751 (5 Aug 2002). SCB: 239 F3d 1029 (decision ending tobacco pusher immunity from litigation) (TPLP Analysis)

    Betty Bullock v Philip Morris, Inc (Los Angeles County, Case No. BC 249171, 26 Sep 2002) (lung cancer case, $850,000 award) (TPLP analysis)

    John Eastman v Philip Morris and Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corps (Fla. Jury, 3 April 2003) (re tobacco-caused lung disease, $3,255,000 verdict) (TPLP analysis)

    R J Reynolds Tobacco Co v Engle, ___ So 2d ___ (Fla App, 21 May 2003). SCB: 672 So 2d 39 (TPLP Analysis)

    Richard Boeken v Philip Morris (Calif Supreme Court, 8/10/2005) ($50 million award to killed smoker's family)

    Philip Morris v Williams, ___ Ore ___; ___ P3d ___ (2 February 2006) (upheld a $79.5 million punitive damages award)

    Philip Morris v Boeken, ___ US ___; ___ S Ct ___; ___ L Ed 2d ___ (20 March 2006) (leaving intact $50 million punitive damages award). SCB

    Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., ___ Cal App ___; ___ Cal Rptr ___ (Friday, 21 April 2006) (upheld $28 million punitive damages award)

    U. S. v Philip Morris USA Inc, f/k/a Philip Morris Inc, et al, __ F Supp 2d ___ (D DC, 17 Aug 2006) (TPLP Analysis)

    Judith Berger v Philip Morris USA, Inc (Florida Federal Court Jury, 19 September 2014) ("evidence was introduced showing that 90 percent of daily cigarette smokers start smoking as teenagers and that the tobacco industry targeted youth for this very reason. . . . earlier one takes up smoking, the more likely they are to become addicted and the stronger that addiction.")

    Kenneth Kerrivan v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Philip Morris USA, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., Liggett Group LLC and Lorillard Inc. (Middle District of Florida, Jury, 20-22 October 2014) (awarded $14.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages, having targeted him as a child) (50-Year Conspiracy; Article)

    Fundamental Principles
    "The proof of the pattern or practice [of tobacco company willingness to commit harmful acts such as the above] supports an inference that any particular decision, during the period in which the policy was in force, was made in pursuit of that policy." Teamsters v U.S., 431 US 324, 362; 97 S Ct 1843, 1868; 52 L Ed 2d 396, 431 (1977).

    Violations of criminal law can indeed result in damage to private citizens. Ware-Kramer Tobacco Co v American Tobacco Co, 180 F 160 (ED NC, 1910).

    Litigants can show as part of the evidence in his/her own case, the guilt of others linked to the current defendant, in showing a pattern. Locker v American Tobacco Co, 194 F 232 (1912).

    See Also Health Care and State Cost
    Recovery Cases Due to The Danger

    During a deposition in the Mississippi case, Mike Moore, Attorney General ex rel State of Mississippi v American Tobacco Co, et al, No 94-1429. Jeffrey Wigand, Ph.D., a former Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company scientist, was a witness and testifying. During the course of his testimony, he admitted coumarin (rat poison) being added as an adulterant in tobacco.

    Tobacco company attorney Thomas Bezanson objected, not that the Wigand testimony was untrue, but that "on trade secret grounds," it should not be revealed!!! The testimony is reprinted in the book by Philip J. Hilts, Smoke Screen: The Truth Behind The Tobacco Industry Cover-Up (NY: Addison-Wesley Pub Co, 1996), pp 161-163.

    This revelation was a sensation. Dr. Wigand was interviewed repeatedly, including on 60 Minutes by Mike Wallace. Everybody seemed to think this was new information. Evidently they were misled by the false claim of Bezanson that the coumarin issue is a "trade secret." But not this web writer. I was not misled: Reason: familiarity with the pertinent literature.

    Examples of Pre-1995 Exposés of Coumarin in Tobacco
    Laurence Johnson, M.D., A Manual of the Medical Botany of North America (NY: William Wood & Co, 1884), pp 170-171
    Prof. L. H. Pammel, Ph.D., A Manual of Poisonous Plants (Cedar Rapids, Iowa: The Torch Press, 1911), p 138
    Simons, Die Cumarin (Stuttgart:
    Ferdinand Enke Pub, 1916), p 69
    Thomas S. Blair, M.D., "Coumarin and Tobacco" [Ltr],
    92 J Am Med Ass'n (#17) 1471 (27 April 1929)
    Jerome E. Brooks, The Mighty Leaf
    (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1952), pp 298-299
    Arnold Krochmal, Trilisa odoratissima,
    23 Econ Bot 185-186 (1969)
    F. A. Haskins, H. J. Gorz, and R. C. Leffel, "Form and Levelof Coumarin in Deer's Tongue Trilisa odoratissima," 26 Econ Bot (#1) 44-48 (1972)
    James A. Duke, Handbook of Medicinal Herbs
    (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1985), p 491
    Robin J. Marles, César M. Compadre, and Norman R. Farnsworth, "Coumarin in Vanilla Extracts: Its Detection and Significance," 41 Econ Bot (#1) 41-47 (1986)

    The people of Iowa and Tennessee chose not to become cigarette martyrs. So Tennessee banned cigarettes via the Laws of 1897, Chapter 30. Tennessee courts soon took official judicial notice of cigarettes' "inherent" deleteriousness, in a tobacco lobby case trying to overturn the law, Austin v State, 101 Tenn 563; 566-7; 48 SW 305, 306; 70 Am St Rep 703 (22 Dec 1898) affirmed 179 US 343; 21 S Ct 132; 45 L Ed 224 (1900).

    Michigan quickly followed Iowa's and Tennessee's example with MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, a 1909 law that forbids "any person within the state" from action that "manufactures, sells or gives to anyone, any cigarette containing any ingredient deleterious to health or foreign to tobacco . . . ."

    Such laws are essential as ". . . the immediate effect of smoking . . . is a lowering of the accuracy of finely coordinated reactions (including associative thought processes)."—John H. Kellogg, M.D., LL.D., F.A.C.S., Tobaccoism, or, How Tobacco Kills (Battle Creek, MI: The Modern Medicine Publishing Co, 1922), p 88. In other words, tobacco causes brain damage, impairing their ability to comprehend the danger one is in. This is an especially vicious thing, as pushers have a record of targeting defenseless and unsuspecting children.

    The result when laws against poisoning people either do not exist, or are unenforced can be said succinctly: "Cigarette Makers Get Away With Murder," says Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H., The Detroit News, p 4B (14 March 1993).

    Due to cigarettes' deleteriousness, "Over 37 million people (one of every six Americans alive today) will die from cigarette smoking years before they otherwise would," see DHEW National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Research on Smoking Behavior, Research Monograph 17, Publication ADM 78-581, p v (Dec 1977).

    This number constitutes a "holocaust" (referring to the then "annual death death toll of some 27,500"), see Royal College of Physicians, Smoking and Health Now (London: Pitman Medical and Scientific Publishing Co, 1971), p 9. Such deaths are "natural and probable consequences," a term defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed (St. Paul: West Pub Co, 1990), p 1026, as events happening "so frequently as to be expected [intended] to happen again." Cigarette deaths are not "accidents" ("unexpected" "unusual," "fortuitous" events), p 15.

    See Metro North Commuter Railroad Co v Buckley, 521 US 438; 117 S Ct 2113; 137 L Ed 2d 661 (23 June 1997). This case was on a lawsuit by a 15 year smoker. It alleged that re asbestos, "the exposure created an added risk of death due to cancer, or to other asbestos related diseases of either 1% to 5% (in the view of one of plaintiff's experts), or 1% to 3% (in the view of another)." Note that cigarettes are such that 37,000,000, 1/6 of the total U.S. population, is killed thereby!-a genuinely significant increase!!).

    It is essential to understand that what is at issue is an "ultrahazardous activity" as that term is defined in professional material. See an analysis of the concept by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Laird v Nelms, 406 US 797; 92 S Ct 1899; 32 L Ed 2d 499 (1972). There, sonic booms and dynamite blasting are discussed in context of "ultrahazardous activity." Each produces a spreading effect. Cigarettes do that via fires and via their toxic chemicals, superheated, moving at high speed. In contrast to sonic booms and dynamite blasting, cigarettes kill 37,000,000 in the U.S. alone, and constitute a "holocaust." This is the most ultrahazardous activity on earth. The point, in law, is that in dealing with "ultrahazardous activity," there is "strict liability" for all consequent damages, even if negligence is not proven.

    MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, follows the principle that it is unlawful to provide people the means--e.g., a deleterious substance--to injure or kill themselves, even if death is slow, People v Carmichael, 5 Mich 10; 71 Am Dec 769 (1858); People v Stevenson, 416 Mich 383; 331 NW2d 143, 145-146 (1982); and People v Kevorkian, 447 Mich 436, 494-496; 527 NW2d 714, 738-739 (1994). Thus deleterious cigarettes used as intended (to kill) cause a holocaust number of deaths.

    Hazard Known to Pushers in 1600's

    Tobacco Abuse (July 1978) gave an overview of data on smoking hazards from 1604 to the 1964 Surgeon General Report. Examples from it include:

    "In 1604, James I, the King of England, consulted with his court physicians, and issued to his subjects the following proclamation on tobacco: 'A custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs and, in the black, stinking fumes thereof, nearest resembling the horrible Stygian smoke of the hell pit that is bottomless.'" (Page 1).

    "Half a century after James I issued history's first Surgeon General's report, the French reported that tobacco smoking shortens life and produces, among other things, colic, diarrhea, ulcerations of the lungs, asthma, coughs, pains in the heart, undernourishment and impotence." (P 1).

    "the 25-year-old who never smoked regularly can expect to live another 48.6 years (8.3 years longer than the 2-pack-a-day smoker) . . . smoking is . . . producing . . . cancer of the larynx, lip, bladder, oral cavity, and esophagus, not to mention stomach ulcers . . . ." (P 3).

    "pregnant women who smoke run a greater chance of fetal growth retardation, losing their babies through stillbirth or death soon after birth, and of having children who are hyper-kinetic (which is assumed to be the result of brain damage as a result of smoking during pregnancy) . . . . poisonous lead in the fetuses of smoking mothers." (P 4).

    "Smoking is also suspected of depleting the body of its stores of certain vitamins, especially vitamin C, weakening the body's defenses against some viruses and infections." (P 4).

    "Carbon monoxide can, among other things, increase the possibility of heart disease and hardening of the arteries (which can decrease the flow of blood to the brain and kill irreplaceable brain cells) by robbing blood vessels of oxygen needed to prevent the build-up of cholesterol." (P 4).

    "The U.S. Surgeon General's Committee came to several conclusions: that smoking did cause lung cancer, that it was associated with heart disease, that it was the most common cause of chronic bronchitis, and that it substantially increased the risk of premature death. In other words, pretty much the same conclusions reached by the French some 300 years earlier." (P 2).

    Its conclusion is that: "cigarette smoking still carries its own built-in death penalty." (P 2).

    In an email message to the website author, Governor John Engler cites bold steps that he has taken to reduce tobacco usage in Michigan, including beginning enforcement of MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, by his 18 March 1992 Executive Order 1992-3 to ban smoking in state buildings, prohibit tobacco sales on state property, and to end production of cigarettes by state prisons.

    Exec Order 1992-3 Law Support Letter # 1 Anti-Cigarette Smuggling Finding Law Support Letter # 2 Governor's Overview

    For further reading, see "Products Liability: Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products," 36 ALR 5th 541-656 (1996) as annually updated (available at law libraries). The 1996 edition replaces the earlier edition, 80 ALR 2d 681 (1961) pursuant to subsequent data.

    For context, see "Emerging Issues in Toxic Torts," by John J. Delany III.

    A law review article (summarized by Action on Smoking and Health [ASH], Washington DC) has data on more recent cigarette lawsuits. Citation: Karen E. Meade, "Breaking Through The Tobacco Industry's Smoke Screen: State Lawsuits For Reimbursement of Medical Expenses," 17 Journal of Legal Medicine 113 (1996). And see ASH's list of selected law review articles.

    The ideal way to protect smokers' rights to a safe product, thus protect nonsmokers as well (via protecting everyone's common law "right to fresh and pure air") is to institutionalize the right. Tennessee, Iowa, and Michigan did this: banned cigarette sales, etc. This is prevention of the harm.

    When institutionalized prevention of harm fails, then harm actually occurs. Then courts, lawyers, juries get involved. Without institutionalization of the safe product common law right, juries become in essence the the lone tobacco watchdog.

    According to said Professor Richard Daynard of Boston's Northeastern University Law School: "This is really an extraordinary indictment of what our democracy has come to. The basic institutions of government -- the executive branch and Congress--are supposed to protect us. Unfortunately Congress is owned and operated by the tobacco industry."

    Daynard, President, Tobacco Control Resource Center, said the burden of controlling the tobacco industry is now left to the smaller courts. "We're left with the safety emergency brakes," said Daynard. "All the emphasis has moved toward the jury system. And damage cases in court are heard after the injury has already occurred."

    A Pennsylvania anti-smoking group's activist William Godshall says that in Pennsylvania, for example, the fine for selling cigarettes to minors is $25.

    "I have parking tickets that cost more," Godshall said. "And retail stores have financial incentives to sell cigarettes to 10-year-olds. Most state laws fine the minimum-wage clerks that sold the cigarettes, but the [better solution is to go] after the store owners."

    "This Congress is not going to do anything that the tobacco industry doesn't want it to do," Godshall said. "You've got three smokers on the Supreme Court--just from the oral arguments back in December, the writing was on the wall."

    "At this point the jury is the last line of defense for the public health," said Daynard.

    In March 2000, there was continuing the Engle class-action lawsuit in Miami, Florida, against the five leading cigarette manufacturers. That may deliver a record-breaking damage award amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars, according to the Orlando Sun-Sentinel. Jurors have found the cigarette makers guilty of lying to the public about the inherent risks and addictiveness of smoking.

    But would a billion-dollar verdict ease the health burden? Not according to Daynard.

    "In public health, there's an old poem about how a fence at the top of the cliff is much better than an ambulance at the bottom," Daynard said. "This is the ambulance at the bottom."

    Daynard said that hefty punitive damages could have a positive effect by forcing the tobacco industry to make changes to avoid future similar verdicts.

    So if prevention is better than treatment, are there any preventive measures left?

    One of the few restrictions still standing is the Synar amendment enacted by Congress in 1992 as part of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration Reorganization Act. The amendment requires states to sharply reduce cigarette sales to minors or risk losing substance abuse prevention and treatment block grant funding.

    "It's a pale shadow of what FDA regulations would have done," Daynard said. "It's had some effect but it's a very indirect way of keeping cigarettes from kids."

    Tobacco is a holocaust, the single most preventable cause of death. Tobacco pushers has for years targeted children before they were able to make decisions about their future. As a result, there are in the U.S. alone, 49 million nicotine addicts.

    This is the horrifying result in the absence of institutionalized protection of smokers' rights to a safe product. The abolishment of unsafe cigarettes, meaning all of them, would bring to a speedy end, the medical catastrophe the many tobacco effects. This would be an overriding medical advance of a type never seen before, as not even the ending of scourges such as the black plague, scurvy, polio, smallpox, etc., were on the massive scale of the "holocaust" level such as tobacco is.

    There would be a near end to the problem of AIDS, alcoholism, brain damage, crime, drug addiction, lung cancer, mental disorder, SIDS, and suicide,

    The immediate ending of the tobacco holocaust would be the greatest medical blessing of all time.

    Warning: Pushers and their accessories are working to undermine and subvert your rights in the jury trial system. See Carl Deal and Joanne Doroshow, "The CALA Files - The Secret Campaign by Big Tobacco and Other Major Industries to Take Away Your Rights" (2000).

    An independent bar is needed to safeguard rights. See, e.g.,

  • Kenneth C. H. Willig, "The Bar in the Third Reich," 20 Am J Legal History 1 (1976), excerpted in Law: A Ttreasury of Art and Literature, ed. Sara Robbins (New York: Hugh Lauter Levin Associates, Inc, 1990), pp 222-225.
  • Justice John Paul Stevens, Walters v Natl Assn of Radiation Survivors, 473 US 305, 371 and 371 n 24 (1985) (dissent).
  • Chief Justice E. Norman Veasey, "Response for the Court" (Delaware, 15 December 2003)
  • For Names of Lawyers Helping Smokers' Rights Against the Tobacco Cartel

    Anti-tobacco activist Dr. Judith Mackay is called by tobacco pushers "the most dangerous woman in the world."

    ASH Sites With Legal and Lawsuit Citations
    Product Liability Case List
    Child Custody Case List
    Condominium And Apartments Case Summaries
    Data on Suing Tobacco Companies

    Protecting the Right to Sue (26 July 1999)

    My Aboutcom Discussion Group: More Participants Welcome
    My Delphi Discussion Group: More Participants Welcome

    Email@Author

    Copyright © 1999 Leroy J. Pletten