Court Rules Against Tobacco Companies

Court Alerts

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a tobacco industry request to intervene in a lawsuit by over a thousand West Virginia smokers.

The justices declined to examine a trial procedure in which a jury first determines whether smokers as a group are entitled to punitive damages before establishing whether any single smoker is entitled to compensation.

Later, a new jury addresses issues unique to each alleged smoking victim who sued.

West Virginia courts are allowing the approach, which has been used in other types of lawsuits, including claims for asbestos exposure.

The second phases of such trials rarely occur, because the two sides usually settle once they know the value of the case.

Tobacco companies oppose use of the legal device, which lawyers call "reverse bifurcation."

The tobacco industry said a jury doesn't know until later in a case whether any smoker was actually harmed or how serious any injury was; which defendants if any were responsible; or the amount of compensatory damages any defendant owes to smokers.

In addition to helping resolve suits over asbestos exposure, reverse bifurcation has been applied to claims against makers of the dangerous diet drug fen-phen.

In asking the justices not to take the case, lawyers for the smokers said further delay would mean that most of their clients would die before their cases could be tried, "thus affording the defendants a free pass" for their alleged misconduct.

The smokers say the companies secretly agreed not to market a truly safer cigarette while publicly proclaiming the safety of their own particular brands.

The first phase of the trial was scheduled to begin March 18.

The case is Philip Morris USA v. Accord, 07-806.

Related listings

  • Court Rules Against Tobacco Companies

    Court Rules Against Tobacco Companies

    Court Alerts 02/25/2008

    The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a tobacco industry request to intervene in a lawsuit by over a thousand West Virginia smokers.The justices declined to examine a trial procedure in which a jury first determines whether smokers as a group are enti...

  • Court victory for correction officers reversed

    Court victory for correction officers reversed

    Court Alerts 02/24/2008

    A federal appeals court has reversed a correction officers union's U.S. District Court win against Nassau County, saying the lag payroll procedure imposed on the union members by county officials did not violate the Constitution. The decision Friday ...

  • Supreme Court allows prosecution of NASSCOM chief

    Supreme Court allows prosecution of NASSCOM chief

    Court Alerts 02/22/2008

    The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the prosecution of Chief of the National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM), Som Mittal, for not providing adequate security to a female employee who was raped and murdered in 2005. “If you ...

New York Commercial Litigation Law Firm - Woods Lonergan PLLC

Founded in 1993 by Managing Partner James F. Woods, Woods Lonergan PLLC has built a strong reputation as a resourceful and industrious firm that provides clients with clear, concise, and straightforward answers to their most challenging legal issues. Partner Lawrence R. Lonergan, who joined the firm in 2008, has been a friend and colleague to Mr. Woods for over 40 years and shares the same business philosophy. Woods Lonergan PLLC’s collective experience and expertise enables the firm to expeditiously and effectively analyze the increasing challenges clients face in an evolving business and legal world, in many instances, avoiding unnecessary time and expense to our clients. Our mission is simple: provide cutting-edge expertise and sound advice in select areas of the law for corporate and business clients. We thrive on providing each client with personalized attention, forceful representation, and a collaborative team effort that embraces collective knowledge.

Business News

New York & New Jersey Family Law Matters We represent our clients in all types of proceedings that include termination of parental rights. >> read