The Tobacco Verdict: Jury Saw Smoking as a Personal Choice
By Donald P. Baker
Washington Post Service

JACKSONVILLE, FloridaThe jury that ruled in a closely
watched smoker's liability case here accepted the arguments of the R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. that the secondlargest American tobacco
company was not responsible for the lung cancer death of a longtime
customer.
The sixmember jury deliberated eight hours before returning
the unanimous verdict in a case that could influence the mounting legal
challenges to the tobacco industry and the negotiations to settle those
cases out of court.
The verdict prompted praise from the tobacco industry and
disappointment from antismoking advocates. But analysts predicted
the decision would have little impact on tobacco litigation overall and
might help push both sides toward a negotiated settlement.
"I thinkthis is a plus for the settlement talks," said Diana
Temple, a tobacco analyst for Salomon Brothers Inc. The verdict
should help even the strength of the negotiating positions of the two
sides by slowing the momentum of antismoking advocates, she said.
The panel of three nonsmokers, two former smokers and a
lone, occasional smoker found that R. J. Reynolds was not negligent
and that its Salem cigarettes were not "unreasonably dangerous and
defective and a legal cause of the death" of Jean Connor, who smoked
two to three packs of Salem cigarettes a day for more than two
decades.
Mrs. Connor's family, which pursued the suit she filed six
months before her death on Oct. 1, 1995, at age 49, sat in stunned
silence as a clerk read the verdict. Later, outside the courtroom, family
members said they were bitterly disappointed.
"It's like watching her die all over again," said Dana Raulerson,
Mrs. Connor's sister, fighting back tears. "And there's still an industry
that doesn't care that she's dead because of their product. I don't know
how they sleep at night."
After reading their verdict, members of the jury told Judge
Bemard Nachman that they did not want to discuss their decision with
reporters. They were escorted from the packed courtroom to their cars
by unifommed sheriff's deputies.
A lawyer for Reynolds, Paul Crist, said the verdict meant that
"cigarette smoking, no matter what label is applied, is very much a
matter of personal choice."
Daniel Donahue, the top Reynolds executive at the trial,
credited the outcome to the aggressive posture the company displayed
by emphasizing that the dangers of smoking are common knowledge
and that individuals continue to use cigarettes at their own peril.
Miss Temple predicted that the verdict would discourage other
smokers from suing cigarette manufacturers and that the industry would
prevail in a classaction suit scheduled for trial June 2 in Miami. That
case was filed by flight attendants against several tobacco companies
over the effects of secondhand smoke.
Melissa Ronan, a consultant to the Wall Street tobacco analyst
Gary Black of Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., said that while lawyers for
Mrs. Connor "presented a strong case and proved what they had to
provethat their client died of lung cancer caused by cigarette
smoking," the jurors sided with Reynolds because Mrs. Connor "didn't
try to quit."
"People believe in personal choice," she said.
Nuss Ronan, an observer throughout the monthlong trial,
added that "people were wrong" when they thought a $750,000
verdict last year in the same courthouse against Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp. represented "a sea change in attitude toward cigarette
companies. She predicted that plaintiffs will win "maybe one in five
times" in future cases against tobacco companies. "It's a huge victory,"
said David Adelman, a tobacco industry analyst with Dean Witter
Reynolds. "It means the world hasn't changed, and jurors are still
reluctant to give money to someone who is, quoteunquote, too
addicted to quit."
One difference between the Reynolds case and the verdict last
year was the smoking behavior of the plaintiffs.
Mrs. Comnor, in videotaped testimony taken shortly before
her death, admitted that she "knew smoking was hazardous" to her
health. She never tried to quit smoking until three weeks before she
went for a physical examination in preparation for plastic surgery and
was told she had cancer.
In contrast, Grady Carter, the air traffic controller who sued
Brown & Williamson, testified that his addiction to cigarettes was so
strong he had tried everything from hypnosis to a nicotine patch to
stop smoking.