Bloomberg Anywhere Remote Login Bloomberg Terminal Demo Request


Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world.


Financial Products

Enterprise Products


Customer Support

  • Americas

    +1 212 318 2000

  • Europe, Middle East, & Africa

    +44 20 7330 7500

  • Asia Pacific

    +65 6212 1000


Industry Products

Media Services

Follow Us

Bloomberg Customers

Businessweek Archives

Clearing The Air Over A Key Cigarette Trial

Readers Report


In response to your article on the recent Supreme Court decision regarding tobacco industry liability ("This decision may be hazardous to tobacco's health," Top of the News, July 6): The jury award of $400,000 in the Thomas Cipollone case was reversed on appeal and remanded for a new trial because the jury was improperly instructed.

The Cipollone case was originally tried on a claim of fraud and misrepresentation similar to that which the U.S. Supreme Court said the Cipollone family can raise in a new trial. The claim was decided in favor of the defendant companies.

The federal judge in Newark, N.J. (not New York City), did not order the tobacco defendants to "hand over 1,500 pages of evidence concerning the Council for Tobacco Research . . . ." The defendants were ordered to hand over five documents (50 pages). You correctly point out that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has been asked by the defendants to reverse that order.

And finally, with regard to the statement that the judge agreed that "the industry's claim that it was sponsoring independent research was a fraud . . . ," it should be pointed out that only a jury can decide that factual determination and, as previously noted, a similar claim was rejected by the jury in the first trial.

George L. Knox


Public Affairs

Philip Morris Cos.

New York

Editor's note: Some 1,489 pages of documents were referred to a special master of the court to determine whether they met the legal test for relevance to the plaintiffs' case.

blog comments powered by Disqus