(Lung Cancer)
in
Federal District Court,
WD Michigan
(20 July 2000)
| Cigarettes contain deleterious ingredients. Bad effects including lung cancer result. |
 | 
| |
| To prevent effects such as this, Michigan passed a safe cigarettes smokers' rights law, MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216. Said law bans manufacturing and selling deleterious cigarettes (the only kind there are). However, manufacturers and sellers make / sell deleterious cigarettes anyway.
This site has the text of the lawsuit by a woman harmed and killed as a result of the manufacturing and selling of deleterious cigarettes. The text of the lawsuit is also online. |
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN CORINE WENDLING, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:00-CV-534
R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Richard A. Enslen
Defendants.
-1- COMPLAINT NOW COMES Plaintiff, CORINE WENDLING, by and through his attorneys, FIEGER, FIEGER. SCHWARTZ and KENNEY. P.C., and for her Complaint against these Defendant tobacco companies, states as follows: 1. Plaintiff, CORINE WENDLING, resides at 1757 Lenore Lane, City of Haslett, County of Ingham, State of Michigan. 2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Honorable Court pursuant to 28 USC § 1332(a) because there is complete diversity of citizenship and the matter in controversy exceeds Seventy Five Thousand ($75,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest, costs and attorney fees. 3. This Court is the proper venue for this cause of action because the cause of action arose within the Western District of Michigan, and all Defendants named are doing business within the Western District of Michigan, pursuant to 28 USC §1391(a) and (c). 4. Defendants, PHILLIP MORRIS, INC., and PHILLIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL, INC., are wholly owned subsidiaries of Defendant, PHILLIP MORRIS COMPANIES, INC., a foreign corporation, (hereinafter referred to as Defendant PHILLIP MORRIS COMPANIES), with its principle place of business located at 120 Park Avenue, City of New York, State of New York. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant PHILLIP MORRIS COMPANIES, have been engaged in the design, manufacturing, testing, selection, advertising, marketing, sale and distribution of various tobacco products, including cigarette brand names: Mariboro, Virginia Slims, Benson & Hedges, Merit, Eve and Basic. 6. At all relevant times, Defendant BROWN AND WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION, (hereinafter referred to as Defendant BROWN/WILLIAMSON), is and was a Delaware Corporation, with its principle place of business located within the State of Kentucky. 7. At all relevant times, Defendant BROWN/WILLIAMSON, was doing business in the Western District of Michigan, and engaged in the design, manufacture, testing, selection, advertising, marketing, sale and distribution of various tobacco products, including the Kool brand cigarettes. 8. At all relevant times, Defendant, R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, was a foreign corporation, and wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant, R.J. REYNOLDS HOLDING (hereinafter referred to as Defendant REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANIES), and were doing business throughout the Western District of Michigan, and were engaged in the design, manufacture, testing, selection, advertising, marketing, sale and distribution of various tobacco products, and the cigarette brands: Doral, Winston, Salem and Vantage. 9. At all relevant times, Defendant, TOBACCO INSTITUTE, is and was an Industry Trade Organization with its principle place of business in Washington, D.C. At all times, Defendant TOBACCO INSTITUTE disseminated misinformation on its own behalf and in concert and on the behalf of each of the tobacco manufacturing Defendants, falsely claiming the absence of deleterious affects of cigarette products of these Defendants in order to preserve profits. 10. The foregoing Defendants, shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as the "TOBACCO DEFENDANTS" and "TOBACCO INSTITUTE". 11. At all relevant times, the DEFENDANTS, and each of them, acted through their agents and employees, who were acting within the course and scope of their employment and agency and with the express knowledge and consent of the manufacturing TOBACCO DEFENDANTS. 12. On or after January 24, 2000, Plaintiff, CORINE WENDLING, was first diagnosed with lung cancer which was solely caused by the consumption of the products manufactured and distributed by Defendants TOBACCO COMPANIES and TOBACCO INSTITUTE. 13. Plaintiff was a life-long smoker of Defendant TOBACCO COMPANIES' cigarette products including, but not necessarily limited to, the cigarette brand names: Winston, Marlboro, Merit, Benson and Hedges, Kool, Salem, Eve, Vantage and Basic, as well as other cigarette products designed, manufactured, tested, marketed and sold by these Defendant TOBACCO COMPANIES and TOBACCO INSTITUTE. 14. The sole proximate cause of Plaintiff's lung cancer and damages was the violation of Michigan Law, negligence, gross negligence, reckless conduct of these Defendants, misrepresentations, intentional misrepresentations, and breach of warranties, express and implied, by Defendants, TOBACCO COMPANIES and TOBACCO INSTITUTE. 15. Plaintiff, CORINE WENDLING's cause of action arose within three years of the filing of this Complaint, and Plaintiff could not have known that her cause of action arose more than six months prior to the filing of the this Complaint. COUNT I INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN'S PENAL CODE 16. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs as stated in one through 15, as though fully set forth herein. 17. At all relevant times, and in fact for Plaintiff, CORINE WENDLING'S entire adult life, Plaintiff consumed quantities of Defendant TOBACCO COMPANIES's cigarettes which contained ingredients which Defendant TOBACCO COMPANIES and TOBACCO INSTITUTE, knew were deleterious to Plaintiff's health, and to the health of all known users of these products, and contained materials which were foreign to tobacco, and known to be deleterious to health when consumed in the manner and form intended by Defendants. 18. At all relevant times, it was illegal in Michigan for Defendant TOBACCO COMPANIES to manufacture or sell or give to any person any cigarette containing ingredients deleterious to health or foreign to tobacco. MCL 750.27. 19. At all relevant times, Defendant TOBACCO COMPANIES did nothing but manufacture and sell and distribute cigarettes within the state of Michigan which contained ingredients which were known by Defendants to be deleterious to health, and foreign to tobacco, at the time they were manufactured and sold by Defendants TOBACCO COMPANIES and TOBACCO INSTITUTE. 20. At all times, Defendant TOBACCO COMPANIES, and each of them, knowingly manufactured and sold and distributed illegal tobacco products in violation of Michigan Law and Criminal Statutes MCL 750.27. 21. At all times, Defendant TOBACCO COMPANIES knew that they were acting illegally within the State of Michigan by selling cigaiettes which were known to contain dangerous and deleterious ingredients, as well as literally of hundreds of ingredients which where known to be foreign to tobacco, and deleterious to health, when consumed in the manner and form intended by these DefendantTOBACCO COMPANIES and TOBACCO INSTITUTE. 22. Defendants, and each of them, are presumed to have acted negligently and/or grossly negligently by intentionally violating Michigan Law pertaining to the adulteration of cigarettes pursuant to MCL 750.27. 23. The sole proximate cause of Plaintiff's lung cancer and damages as set forth herein was the negligence, gross negligence, reckless conduct, illegal acts, misrepresentation and violation of warranties by Defendants. 24. Plaintiffs' damages caused exclusively by the illegal acts and omissions of Defendant TOBACCO COMPANIES and TOBACCO INSTITUTE include, but are not limited to, the following: b. Mental and emotional injuries including fright, shock, embarrassment, humiliation, mortification and other injuries; c. Scarring and disfigurement; d. Lung cancer and shortened life expectancy; e. Permanent disability; f. Lost wages, lost earnings, lost benefits and lost earning capacity, past and future; g. Multiple medical procedures and surgeries; i Punitive damages, j. Exemplary damages; k. Costs and attorney fees; 1. Other injuries and damages compensable under applicable law and statutes.
GROSS NEGLIGENCE, RECKLESSNESS AND KNOWLEDGE OF DEFECT 25. Plaintiff incorporates by referenced paragraphs one through 24, as though fully set forth herein. 26. At all relevant times, Defendants TOBACCO COMPANIES and TOBACCO INSTITUTE, knew that Defendants' tobacco products were dangerous and defective, and contained hundreds of ingredients deleterious to health, and foreign to tobacco, and likely to cause injury or death to others, especially consumers of their products like Plaintiff, CORINE WENDLING. 27. At all times, Defendants, and each of them, designed, manufactured, tested, marketed, advertised, sold and distributed the tobacco products complained of herein in a condition which were known to be dangerous and defective and likely to cause injury to others at the time they left the control of Defendant TOBACCO COMPANIES. 28. Defendant TOBACCO COMPANIES, and each of them, were grossly negligent, and acted recklessly, and in willful disregard of others, and breached each and every one of their express and implied warranties, in one or more of the following ways: a. Knowingly designing, manufacturing, testing, marketing, advertising, selling and distributing tobacco products which were then known to be unreasonably dangerous and addictive and not reasonably fit for their intended use; b. Knowingly failing to warn consumers of their products of known defects, but instead misrepresenting the dangers associated with Defendant TOBACCO COMPANIES' products and chemically enhancing them to be more addictive than tobacco; c. Knowingly failing to recall their tobacco products when Defendants knew same to be dangerous and defective and chemically altered; d. Knowingly withholding information from Plaintiff and the appropriate governmental agencies; e. Knowingly violating Michigan Common Law and Statute including the Michigan Penal Code, MCL 750.27, and Michigan Product Liability Statutes, MCL 600.2945, et seq., and the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. MCL 440.231, 445.903 and 445.911. f. Failing to warn the users and consumers of their products' of known defects, but instead misrepresenting Defendant's knowledge concerning the dangers associated with cigarette smoking; g. Other breaches of duty and defects which were known to Defendants at the time the respective tobacco products left their custody and control. 29. Defendants' acts and omissions, independently and in concert, constitute gross negligence, willful and wanton misconduct by Defendant, an intentional violation of Michigan Law at the time of the manufacturer and distribution of Defendants' tobacco products. 30. At all relevant times, Defendants, and each of them, had actual knowledge that their tobacco products were dangerous and addictive and defective and likely to cause injury or death to Plaintiff, and all others who were exposed to their dangerous products, but willfully disregarded that knowledge, and covered up said knowledge, through fraud and misrepresentation of the dangers of cigarette smoking. 31. As the sole direct and proximate cause of Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiff, CORINE WENDLING, suffered injuries and damages, including but not limited to: a. Unimaginable pain and suffering; b. Mental and emotional injuries including fright, shock, embarrassment, humiliation, mortification and other injuries; c. Scarring and disfigurement; d. Lung cancer and shortened life expectancy; e. Permanent disability; f. Lost wages, lost earnings, lost benefits and lost earning capacity, past and future; g. Multiple medical procedures and surgeries; h. Medical expenses, past and future; i. Punitive damages; j. Exemplary damages; k. Costs and attorney fees; g 1. Other injuries and damages compensable under applicable law and statutes. VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 32. Plaintiff incorporates by referenced paragraphs one through 31, as though fully set forth herein. 33. Defendants' aforementioned conduct is unfair, unconscionable and deceptive, and is otherwise illegal and in violation of Michigan' Consumer Protection Act, MCL 445.903, et seq., in one or more of the following ways: a. By causing a probability of confusion or misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval or certification of goods or services pursuant to MCLA 445.903, Sec. 3 (a); b. By using deceptive representations or deceptive designations of origin in connection with goods or services pursuant to MCLA 445.903, Sec. 3 (b); c. By representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, uses, benefits or qualities that they do not have pursuant to MCLA 445.903, Sec. 3 (c); d. By representing that goods are new if they are deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, used or secondhand or otherwise inferior pursuant to MCLA 445.903, Sec. 3 (d); e. By representing that goods are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model if they are of another pursuant to MCLA 445.903, Sec. 3 (e); f. By causing a probability of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the legal rights, obligations, or remedies of a party to a transaction pursuant to MCLA 445.903, Sec. 3 (-f); g. By fraudulently disclaiming or limiting the implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for use pursuant to MCLA 445.903, Sec. 3 (m); h. By failing to reveal a material fact, the omission of which tends to mislead or deceive the consumer, and which fact was not reasonably known by the consumer pursuant to MCLA 445.903, Sec. 3 (s); i. By entering into a consumer transaction in which the consumer mistakenly waives or purports to waive a right, benefit, or immunity provided by law pursuant to MCLA 445.903, Sec. 3 (t); j. By making a representation of fact or a statement of fact material to the transaction such that the consumer reasonably believes the represented or suggested state of affairs to be other than it actually is pursuant to MCLA 445.903, Sec. 3 (bb); and k. By failing to reveal facts which are material to the transaction pursuant to MCLA 445.903, Sec. 3 (cc); 34. As the sole direct and proximate result of Defendants' violations of Michigan Law, including the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Plaintiff, COREIGN WENDLING suffered injuries and damages, including but not limited to: b. Mental and emotional injuries including fright, shock, embarrassment, humiliation, mortification and oilier injuries; c. Scarring and disfigurement; d. Lung cancer and shortened life expectancy; e. Permanent disability; f Lost wages, lost earnings, lost benefits and lost earning capacity, past and future; g. Multiple medical procedures and surgeries; h. Medical expenses, past and future; i. Punitive damages; j. Exemplary damages; k. Costs and attorney fees; 1. Other injuries and damages compensable under applicable law and statutes. COUNT IV FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION AND
35. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs one through 34 above, as though fully set forth herein. 36. At all relevant times, Defendants, and each of them, warranted, expressly and impliedly, that their tobacco products were reasonably fit for their intended use. 37. At all relevant times, Defendants, and each of them, expressly warranted that their products were not dangerous and were not defective and were not deleterious to health and did not cause lung cancer. 38. Defendants, and each of them, breached their express and implied warranties, and knew their tobacco products were dangerous and defective and addictive and deleterious to health, but falsely denied same publically, and through their advertising, and in the media. 39. Defendants, and each of them, individually and in concert, made false and material misrepresentations to the public at large, and to Plaintiff in particular, by publically denying what they privately knew, that their products were dangerous, defective, deleterious to health, and likely to cause injury and death to Plaintiff and others. At all times, Plaintiff relied upon these misrepresentations to her detriment. 40. Defendants, and each of them, individually and in concert, made false representations in the media, through advertising, and through marketing efforts, to falsely portray their products are reasonably fit, when Defendants knew they were not. 41. As the sole direct result of Defendants' acts and omissions, including fraud and breach of warranties, express and implied, Plaintiff, CORINE WENDLING, suffered horrendous injuries and damages including, but not limited to, the following: b. Mental and emotional injuries including fright, shock, embarrassment, humiliation, mortification and other injuries; c. Scarring and disfigurement; d. Lung cancer and shortened life expectancy; e. Permanent disability; f. Lost wages, lost earnings, lost benefits and lost earning capacity, past and future; g. Multiple medical procedures and surgeries; h. Medical expenses, past and future; i. Punitive damages; j. Exemplary damages; k. Costs and attorney fees; 1. Other injuries and damages compensable under applicable law and statutes. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CORINE WENDLING, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment against these Defendants, and each of them, jointly and severally, in whatever amount she is found to be entitled in excess of Seventy Five Thousand ($75,000) Dollars, plus interest, costs, actual attorney fees, as well as punitive and exemplary damages for Defendants' willful and wanton conduct. DATED: July 21, 2000 NOW COMES Plaintiff, CORINE WENDLING, by and through her attorneys, FIEGER, FIEGER, SCHWARTZ and KENNEY, P.C, and hereby demand a trial by jury. DATED: July 21, 2000 |
| Ed. Note: Casey N. Booth became Personal Representative of the Estate of Corine Wendling, after Ms. Wendling died soon after filing this case. The case was thus adjudicated as Booth v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, et al., 2001 WL 1837830; Prod Liab Rep (CCH) P 16,265 (WD Mich, 20 Nov 2001). The decision, unconscionably, shocking-to-the-conscience, denied relief.
Pursuant to pusher-friendly state-budget-busting "tort reform," the decision's illogic and errors included:
See proper analyses, e.g., of Ill-reasoned decisions treating cigarettes under standard business practices law for legal products, disregarding their brain-damaging effects, disregarding their illegality, their being an illegal product, their murderous holocaust characteristic, obstruct justice and continue the holocaust of tobacco effects and costs impacting all of us. In other areas of law, competent decisions make proper distinctions. For example, notice the case of Freeman v Kelvinator, Inc, 469 F Supp 999 (ED Mich SD, 1979). The issue was deliberate vs accidental harm. The defendant argued that its deliberate actions should be reviewed under the accidents law!! which would of course mean the plaintiff would get nothing! The competent judge said NO to that, at p 1002, note 2: "In discussing exclusivity of workmen's compensation, Larson notes another reason not to relegate the plaintiff to the compensation bureau; discrimination is not accidental. Workmen's compensation is designed to compensate [unintended] accidents." Likewise here in the Wendling-Booth case, the judge should have ruled that product liability law is for honest unintended manufacturer accidents/defects, whereas tobacco is deliberately intended to kill, as a natural and probable consequence, hence, should be dealt with under murder subject matter laws, e.g., 18 USC § 1961 et seq. Due to this "tort-reformist" decision, cigarettes continue(d) to be sold illegally in Michigan, building up more and more effects, and health care costs soon leading to Michigan's budget deficit. Such costs are the 'tip of the iceberg' of the $37 billion annual economic devastation wreaked on Michigan by "tort reform" and the ongoing refusal to enforce MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216. "Tort reform" politicians spouting / mouthing crocodile tears concern for the economy and business, as a manipulation tactic, instead deal it (the economy) a vicious devastating permanent multi-billions blow, including massively increased adverse medical effects and costs. |
Related Sites
Related Comments
by
Michigan Officials
Attorney General's Letter DCH Support Letter # 1 Anti-Cigarette Smuggling Finding DCH Support Letter # 2 Governor's Overview |
Other States In That Era
With Similar Anti-Cigarette Laws
Tennessee's 1897 Cigarette Sales Ban |
Early Michigan Activists
John H. Kellogg, M.D. |
Related News Article
Interview With Webmaster
Pletten, That Led Family
To the Cigarette Law
by Mark Puls, The Detroit News, Tuesday, 29 Dec 1998 |
Related Michigan Citizen Cases
For Smoke-Free Air
Perkins v Ford Motor Co, Wayne County Circuit Court, Case No. 86-633018-CZ (25 Nov 1986) |
Request For Your Input
Action Request
And write to federal officials (representatives, senators, and president) asking for a nationwide-cigarette manufacturing ban. |