Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tobacco Litigation

  • Chapter
Historians as Expert Judicial Witnesses in Tobacco Litigation

Part of the book series: Studies in the History of Law and Justice ((SHLJ,volume 4))

  • 513 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines three waves of tobacco litigation from the 1950s to the present. I especially focus on the role that historians have played as expert judicial witnesses in these cases. Historians testify about whether or not the dangers of smoking were common knowledge in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and later and whether there existed a scientific controversy on the subject. Experts have to research all elements that characterize common knowledge and scientific knowledge, and the role the tobacco industry played in its construction. Subsequently, I discuss the legal strategies used by plaintiffs and defendants in tobacco litigation through basic forms of legal game theory. This chapter is also based on the results of my inquiry into the involvement of US historians in tobacco litigation between 1986 and 2014, comprising of 50 historians and 314 cases.

The aggressive posture we have taken regarding depositions and discovery in general continues to make these cases extremely burdensome and expensive for plaintiff’s lawyers. … To paraphrase General Patton, the way we won these cases was not by spending all of our money, but by making that other son of a bitch spend all his.

Michael Jordan, Attorney for R.J. Reynolds

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Miura, Marlo, Daynard, Richard, and Samet, Jonathan. 2006. The Role of Litigation in Tobacco Control. Salud Pública de México 48, 125.

  2. 2.

    Brandt, Allan. 2007. The Cigarette Century. The Rise, Fall and Deadly Persistence of a Product that Defined America. New York: Basic Books, 69.

  3. 3.

    Rutkow, Lainie, Vernick, Jon, and Teret, Stephen. 2007. Public Health Benefits of Recent Litigation Against Tobacco Industry. Journal of the American Medical Association 298, 86.

  4. 4.

    We will discuss the tobacco industry’s legal strategies in a following topic. See, Part III, Sect. 13.4. Tobacco Tactics in Court: Legal Game Theory, cfr. infra.

  5. 5.

    The first is Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. from 1966 and the second is Cipollone v. Liggett Group Inc. from 1986. Cipollone was only partially reversed on appeal by the US Supreme Court, in the end the lawsuit was withdrawn due to exorbitant costs for the individual plaintiff.

  6. 6.

    Douglas, Clifford, Davis Ronald, and Beasley, John. 2006. Epidemiology of the Third Wave of Tobacco Litigation in the United States, 1994–2005. Tobacco Control 15, 9.

  7. 7.

    For more information on the Cipollone trial see http://tobaccodocuments.org/profiles/litigation/cipollone.html. Accessed 31 Oct 2014.

  8. 8.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 251–252.

  9. 9.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 265.

  10. 10.

    See Appendix III, Table 7. Involvement of Historians in Tobacco Litigation 1986–2013, cfr. infra.

  11. 11.

    Namely, Dewey v. R.J. Reynolds, See Expert Witness Profile No. 6, John Burnham.

  12. 12.

    See Expert Witness Profile No. 8, Fred Carstensen.

  13. 13.

    See Expert Witness Profile No. 30, Kenneth Ludmerer.

  14. 14.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 403.

  15. 15.

    Hurt, Richard, Ebbert, Jon, Muggli, Monique, Lockhart, Nikki, and Robertson, Channing. 2012. Open Doorway to Truth: Legacy of the Minnesota Tobacco Trial. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 84, 446. & Brandt, as n. 2, 330.

  16. 16.

    Brant, as n. 2, 330.

  17. 17.

    Malone, Ruth, and Warner, Kenneth. 2012. Tobacco Control at Twenty: Reflecting on the Past, Considering the Present and Developing the New Conversations for the Future. Tobacco Control 21, 74.

  18. 18.

    Glantz, Staton, Slade, John, Bero, Lisa, Hanauer, Peter, and Barnes, Deborah. 1998. The Cigarette Papers. Berkeley: University of California Press, XVII.

  19. 19.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 371.

  20. 20.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 371–372.

  21. 21.

    Hurt, Richard, Ebbert, Jon, Muggli, Monique, Lockhart, Nikki, and Robertson, Channing, as n. 15, 446. The documents can be accessed integral via http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft8489p25j;brand=ucpress. Accessed 31 Oct 2014.

  22. 22.

    Glantz, Staton, Slade, John, Bero, Lisa, Hanauer, Peter, and Barnes, Deborah, as n. 18, XV.

  23. 23.

    See Expert Witness Profile No. 42, David Sansing.

  24. 24.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 371–372.

  25. 25.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 371–372. & For more information on Horton v. American Tobacco Co. see http://tobaccodocuments.org/profiles/litigation/horton.html. Accessed 31 Oct 2014. For a fictional work on the tobacco industry’s jury tampering skills read John Grisham’s The Runaway Jury.

  26. 26.

    See Appendix III, Table 7. Involvement of Historians in Tobacco Litigation 1986–2013, cfr. infra.

  27. 27.

    All expert witness profiles can be found in Appendix I & Appendix II, Table 7. Involvement of Historians in Tobacco Litigation 1986–2013, cfr. infra.

  28. 28.

    See the systematic overview of the expert witnesses in Appendix II & See Expert Witness Profile No. 6, John Burnham.

  29. 29.

    See Expert Witness Profile No. 1, Stephen Ambrose.

  30. 30.

    See Expert Witness Profile No. 30, Joan Hoff.

  31. 31.

    See Expert Witness Profile No. 17, Otis Graham.

  32. 32.

    See Part II, Sect. 7.3.6.2. The Frye Standard, cfr. supra.

  33. 33.

    See Part II, Sect. 7.3.6.3. The Daubert Standard: Popper & the Judge as Gatekeeper, cfr. supra.

  34. 34.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 365.

  35. 35.

    Hurt, Richard, Ebbert, Jon, Muggli, Monique, Lockhart, Nikki, and Robertson, Channing, as n. 15, 446–447.

  36. 36.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 365.

  37. 37.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 366. For more information see http://senate.ucsf.edu/tobacco/executives1994congress.html. Accessed 31 Oct 2014. & http://tobaccodocuments.org/profiles/waxman_henry.html. Accessed 31 Oct 2014.

  38. 38.

    Henningfield, Jack, Rose, Christine, and Zeller, Mitch. 2006. Tobacco Industry Litigation Position on Addiction: Continued Dependence on Past Views. Tobacco Control 15, 27–36.

  39. 39.

    This is what Sloan et al., called the strength of the oligopolistic structure of the industry. See Sloan, Frank, Trogdon, Justine, and Mathews, Carrie. 2005. Litigation and the Value of Tobacco companies. Journal of Health Economics 24, 427–447. See Part III, Sect. 10.2.4. The Oligopolistic Structure of the Tobacco Industry, cfr. supra.

  40. 40.

    Alderman, Jess, and Daynard, Richard. 2006. Applying Lessons from Tobacco Litigation to Obesity Lawsuits. The American Journal of Preventive Medicine 30, 82.

  41. 41.

    “Ron Motley’s mother had recently died of emphysema-a long and painful death.” See Brandt, as n. 2, 409.

  42. 42.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 409.

  43. 43.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 413–414.

  44. 44.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 414.

  45. 45.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 415.

  46. 46.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 416.

  47. 47.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 417.

  48. 48.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 418.

  49. 49.

    Hurt, Richard, Ebbert, Jon, Muggli, Monique, Lockhart, Nikki, and Robertson, Channing, as n. 15, 446.

  50. 50.

    For Mr. Wigand’s deposition see http://www.jeffreywigand.com/pascagoula.php. Accessed 31 Oct 2014.

  51. 51.

    For more on the 60 Minutes episode, see http://www.jeffreywigand.com/60minutes.php. Accessed 31 Oct 2014. For the episode itself, see http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7377558n. Accessed 31 Oct 2014.

  52. 52.

    Cummings, Michael, Brown, Anthony, and Douglas, Christopher. 2006. Consumer Acceptable Risk: How Cigarette Companies Have Responded to Accusations that Their Product are Defective. Tobacco Control 15, 85.

  53. 53.

    Russell Crowe plays Jeffrey Wigand, Al Pacino plays an investigator from 60 Minutes see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0140352/?ref_=sr_1. Accessed 31 Oct 2014. The Insider was nominated for seven Oscars. Tobacco litigation was also a storyline in the popular television series The West Wing, (Season 2, episodes 20–22, 2000). In 2006 another Hollywood movie addressed tobacco’s public campaign relations campaign on the health issues, entitled Thank You for Smoking. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944. Accessed 31 Oct 2014.

  54. 54.

    Kluger, Richard. 1997. Ashes to Ashes: America’s Hundred-Year Cigarette War, the Public Health, and the Unabashed Triumph of Philip Morris. New York: Vintage Books, 811.

  55. 55.

    Appendix III, Table 7. Involvement of Historians in Tobacco Litigation 1986–2013, cfr. infra.

  56. 56.

    See Expert Witness Profile No. 30, Kenneth Ludmerer. & See Expert Witness Profile No. 1, Stephen Ambrose. & See Expert Witness Profile No. 7, Augustus Burns.

  57. 57.

    See Expert Witness Profile No. 3, Hyman Berman.

  58. 58.

    See Expert Witness Profile No. 18, George Green.

  59. 59.

    Most consultants are active in first stages of the preparation of the expert reports as data finders. See Part II, Sect. 3.3.1. Consulting. & See Expert Witness Profile No. 13, John Drobny.

  60. 60.

    See Expert Witness Profile No. 42, David Sansing. & See Expert Witness Profile No. 30, Kenneth Ludmerer.

  61. 61.

    See Expert Witness Profile No. 29, Charles Lowery.

  62. 62.

    See Expert Witness Profile No. 46, John Ray Skates.

  63. 63.

    See Expert Witness Profile No. 30, Kenneth Ludmerer. & See Expert Witness Profile No. 37, Michael Parrish.

  64. 64.

    See Expert Witness Profile No. 44, Michael Schaller.

  65. 65.

    See Expert Witness Profile No. 35, Wayne Morgan.

  66. 66.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 420.

  67. 67.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 422.

  68. 68.

    Blanke, Douglas, and Humphrey III, Hubert. 2006. Putting Truth into Action: Using the Evidence for Justice. Tobacco Control 15, 1.

  69. 69.

    Blanke, Douglas, and Humphrey III, Hubert, as n. 68, 1.

  70. 70.

    Blanke, Douglas, and Humphrey III, Hubert, as n. 68, 1.

  71. 71.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 422–424.

  72. 72.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 424.

  73. 73.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 427.

  74. 74.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 427–428.

  75. 75.

    Givel, Michael, and Glantz, Staton. 2004. The “Global Settlement” With the Tobacco Industry. American Journal of Public Health 94, 222.

  76. 76.

    Seffrin, John. 2004. Commentary: The Master Settlement Agreement in Historic Context. Health Promotion Practice 5, 18.

  77. 77.

    Seffrin, as n. 76, 18.

  78. 78.

    See the whole Master Settlement Agreement at http://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/master-settlement-agreement.pdf. Accessed 31 Oct 2014.

  79. 79.

    For more information on these settlements see: Hurt, Richard, Ebbert, Jon, Muggli, Monique, Lockhart, Nikki, and Robertson, Channing, as n. 15, 446–448, table 1.

  80. 80.

    Seffrin, as n. 76, 19.

  81. 81.

    For a comparative analyses of the two settlements see Givel, Michael, and Glantz, Staton as n. 75, 219–221, 223, table 1–4.

  82. 82.

    Givel, Michael, and Glantz, Staton as n. 75, 221.

  83. 83.

    Givel, Michael, and Glantz, Staton as n. 75, 218.

  84. 84.

    Hurt, Richard, Ebbert, Jon, Muggli, Monique, Lockhart, Nikki, and Robertson, Channing, as n. 15, 446. & Douglas, Clifford, Davis Ronald, and Beasley, John, as n. 6, 10.

  85. 85.

    Hurt, Richard, Ebbert, Jon, Muggli, Monique, Lockhart, Nikki, and Robertson, Channing, as n. 15, 448.

  86. 86.

    Givel, Michael, and Glantz, Staton as n. 75, 220.

  87. 87.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 432.

  88. 88.

    Ibrahim, Jennifer, Tsoukalas, Theo, and Glantz, Staton. 2004. Public Health Foundations and the Tobacco Industry: Lessons From Minnesota. Tobacco Control 13, 228–229.

  89. 89.

    Ibrahim, Jennifer, Tsoukalas, Theo, and Glantz, Staton, as n. 88, 299–234.

  90. 90.

    Ibrahim, Jennifer, Tsoukalas, Theo, and Glantz, Staton, as n. 88, 231–232, 234.

  91. 91.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 445.

  92. 92.

    Givel, Michael, and Glantz, Staton as n. 75, 222.

  93. 93.

    Seffrin, as n. 76, 19.

  94. 94.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 434–435, 440.

  95. 95.

    Rutkow, Lainie, Vernick, Jon, and Teret, Stephen, as n. 3, 87.

  96. 96.

    For more information on US v. Philip Morris et al. see http://tobaccodocuments.org/profiles/litigation/us_vs_pm.html. Accessed 31 Oct 2014. & http://www.justice.gov/civil/cases/tobacco2/index.htm. Accessed 31 Oct 2014. & Brandt, as n. 2, 496. And see Part III, Chap. 14: United States v. Philip Morris et al., cfr. infra.

  97. 97.

    The Supreme Court only reviews a small number of cases within its jurisdiction. A party can appeal to the Supreme Court to issue a writ of certiorari. The court accepts or denies the certiorari. For more information on this legal term see http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/certiorari. Accessed 31 Oct 2014.

  98. 98.

    For an article announcing the final verdict from Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/us-usa-tobacco-idUSBRE8AQ18A20121127?fb_action_ids=4497202801467&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=246965925417366. Accessed 31 Oct 2014.

  99. 99.

    United States of America v. Philip Morris USA INC. Final Opinion, 2006, 1683. Consulted via http://www.library.ucsf.edu/sites/all/files/ucsf_assets/FinalOpinion_full_version.pdf. Accessed 31 Oct 2014.

  100. 100.

    See Part III, Chap. 14: United States v. Philip Morris et al., cfr. infra.

  101. 101.

    Class action suits are suits were the plaintiffs have suffered from the same injuries from the defendants and lets those plaintiffs file a case as a group. For more information see http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/class_action. Accessed 31 Oct 2014.

  102. 102.

    See Appendix II and Appendix III, cfr. infra.

  103. 103.

    Rutkow, Lainie, Vernick, Jon, and Teret, Stephen, as n. 3, 87.

  104. 104.

    General information on Engle see http://tobaccodocuments.org/profiles/litigation/engle.html. Accessed 31 Oct 2014.

  105. 105.

    Harris, J. B. 2012. Engle v. Liggett: Has Big Tobacco Finally Met Its Match? The Florida Bar Journal 86, 16–17.

  106. 106.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 412. It is still being continued today.

  107. 107.

    Harris, J. B., as n. 105, 17.

  108. 108.

    Harris, J. B., as n. 105, 18.

  109. 109.

    Harris, J. B., as n. 105, 18–19.

  110. 110.

    Harris, J. B., as n. 105, 19.

  111. 111.

    Rutkow, Lainie, Vernick, Jon, and Teret, Stephen, as n. 3, 87.

  112. 112.

    Res judicata is a legal term that signifies that certain facts have been judged and cannot be judged again in the same trial. For more information on the legal term of res judicata see http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/res_judicata. Accessed 31 Oct 2014. & Harris, J. B., as n. 105, 19–21.

  113. 113.

    Rutkow, Lainie, Vernick, Jon, and Teret, Stephen, as n. 3, 88.

  114. 114.

    Harris, J. B., as n. 105, 21.

  115. 115.

    Van Voris, Bob. 2013. Florida Top Court Affirms Ruling Enabling Tobacco Suits. Bloomberg News, March 14. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-14/florida-top-court-affirms-ruling-enabling-tobacco-suits.html. Accessed 31 Oct 2014.

  116. 116.

    See the article on the verdict in The Washington Post: Palazzolo, Joe. 2014. R.J. Reynolds Loses $23.6 Billion Verdict. The Washington Post, July 20. http://online.wsj.com/articles/r-j-reynolds-loses-23-6-billion-verdict-1405898753. Accessed 31 Oct 2014. Historian Robert Proctor was an expert witness for the plaintiffs in this case, see Expert Witness Profile No. 39, Robert Proctor.

  117. 117.

    Palazzolo, as n. 116.

  118. 118.

    We will return to this subject in Part III, Sect. 16.2. Litigation as a Solution, cfr. infra.

  119. 119.

    See Appendix II, Table 2. Active in In re: Engle Progeny Cases, cfr. infra.

  120. 120.

    Rutkow, Lainie, Vernick, Jon, and Teret, Stephen, as n. 3, 88.

  121. 121.

    See Expert Witness Profile No. 39, Robert Proctor & See Expert Witness Profile No. 26, Louis Kyriakoudes.

  122. 122.

    For a good overview see: Douglas, Clifford, Davis Ronald, and Beasley, John, as n. 6, 11–14, tables 1–5.

  123. 123.

    Douglas, Clifford, Davis Ronald, and Beasley, John, as n. 6, 14.

  124. 124.

    Mosher, James. 2009. Litigation and Alcohol Policy: Lessons from the US Tobacco Wars. Addiction 104, 28.

  125. 125.

    Sloan, Frank, Trogdon, Justine, and Mathews, Carrie, as n. 39, 427–428.

  126. 126.

    Sloan, Frank, Trogdon, Justine, and Mathews, Carrie, as n. 39, 439.

  127. 127.

    For a concluding discussion on the economics of tobacco litigation, see Part III, Sect. 16.2. Litigation as a Solution, cfr. infra.

  128. 128.

    Sloan, Frank, Trogdon, Justine, and Mathews, Carrie, as n. 39, 430. Or as one tobacco spokesman put it in Thank You for Smoking: “We sell cigarettes. And there are cool, and available, and addictive. The job is almost done for us.” This quote is comparable to the real life quote by Warren Buffet defending his takeover of R.J. Reynolds: “I’ll tell you why I like the cigarette business. It costs a penny to make. Sell it for a dollar. It’s addictive.”, which I mentioned earlier. See Proctor, Robert. 2012. Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 42.

  129. 129.

    Sloan, Frank, Trogdon, Justine, and Mathews, Carrie, as n. 39, 440–441.

  130. 130.

    Picker, Randal. 1993. An Introduction to Game Theory and the Law. Case Lecture Series, The University of Chicago Law School, 25. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/node/1306. Accessed 31 Oct 2014. & Posner, Eric. 2002. Law and Social Norms. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 7.

  131. 131.

    Picker, as n. 130, 2–3.

  132. 132.

    The most famous example is The Prisoner’s Dilemma. Picker, as n. 130, 4.

  133. 133.

    Posner, Richard. 1972. A Theory of Negligence. Journal of Legal Studies 1, 29–96.

  134. 134.

    Posner, as n. 133, 32. For more information on the legal term of negligence see http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence. Accessed 31 Oct 2014.

  135. 135.

    For a discussion of the Hand rule, see Posner, Richard. 1998. The Economic Analysis of Law. New York: Aspen Law and Business.

  136. 136.

    Posner, as n. 133, 33.

  137. 137.

    Blanke, Douglas, and Humphrey III, Hubert, as n. 68, 1.

  138. 138.

    Miura, Marlo, Daynard, Richard, and Samet, Jonathan, as n. 1, 126.

  139. 139.

    Hurt, Richard, Ebbert, Jon, Muggli, Monique, Lockhart, Nikki, and Robertson, Channing, as n. 15, 446.

  140. 140.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 403.

  141. 141.

    Rutkow, Lainie, Vernick, Jon, and Teret, Stephen, as n. 3, 88.

  142. 142.

    Alderman, Jess, and Daynard, Richard, as n. 40, 82–83.

  143. 143.

    Douglas, Clifford, Davis Ronald, and Beasley, John, as n. 6, 10.

  144. 144.

    For more information on class action see http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/class_action. Accessed 31 Oct 2014.

  145. 145.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 231–234.

  146. 146.

    Francis, John, Shea, Amy, and Samet, Jonathan. 2005. Challenging the Epidemiologic Evidence on Passive Smoking: Tactics of Tobacco Industry Expert Witnesses. Tobacco Control 15, 70–74.

  147. 147.

    Francis, John, Shea, Amy, and Samet, Jonathan, as n. 146, 73.

  148. 148.

    Francis, John, Shea, Amy, and Samet, Jonathan, as n. 146, 74. As we have seen in Part III: See Sect. 7.1. The Tobacco Controversy: A Careful Construction, cfr. supra.

  149. 149.

    Rutkow, Lainie, Vernick, Jon, and Teret, Stephen, as n. 3, 88.

  150. 150.

    See Part III, Sect. 13.1. The First Wave: Cipollone v. Liggett Group, cfr. supra.

  151. 151.

    Miura, Marlo, Daynard, Richard, and Samet, Jonathan, as n. 1, 125.

  152. 152.

    See the failure of the Mc Cain bill: Part III, Sect. 13.2.2. The Master Settlement Agreement, cfr. supra.

  153. 153.

    United States of America v. Philip Morris USA Inc., Final Opinion, 2006, 1501. http://www.library.ucsf.edu/sites/all/files/ucsf_assets/FinalOpinion_full_version.pdf . Accessed 31 Oct 2014.

  154. 154.

    See Part III, Sect. 13.3.1. Engle, cfr. supra.

  155. 155.

    See for the archives managed by the tobacco industry itself http://tobaccoarchives.com. Accessed 31 Oct 2014. Cummings, Michael, Brown, Anthony, and O’Conner, Richard. 2007. The Cigarette Controversy. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 16, 1071.

  156. 156.

    Hurt, Richard, Ebbert, Jon, Muggli, Monique, Lockhart, Nikki, and Robertson, Channing, as n. 15, 450.

  157. 157.

    Cullen, Doris, Wayne, Geoffrey, Connoly, Gregor, and Koh, Howard. 2005. A Guide to Deciphering the Internal Codes Used by the Tobacco Industry. Tobacco Control 14, 429.

  158. 158.

    For the guide see http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/resources/harvard_monograph.pdf. Accessed 31 Oct 2014.

  159. 159.

    Proctor, as n. 128, 689.

  160. 160.

    Proctor, as n. 128, 682.

  161. 161.

    Proctor, as n. 128, 684.

  162. 162.

    Davis, Ronald, Douglas, Clifford, and Beasley, John. 2006. The Tobacco Deposition and Trial Testimony Archive (DATTA) Project: Origins, Aims and Methods. Tobacco Control 15, 4–6.

  163. 163.

    Hurt, Richard, Ebbert, Jon, Muggli, Monique, Lockhart, Nikki, and Robertson, Channing, as n. 15, 450.

  164. 164.

    The LTDL can be visited here http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu. Accessed 31 Oct 2014.

  165. 165.

    Hurt, Richard, Ebbert, Jon, Muggli, Monique, Lockhart, Nikki, and Robertson, Channing, as n. 15, 450.

  166. 166.

    Hurt, Richard, Ebbert, Jon, Muggli, Monique, Lockhart, Nikki, and Robertson, Channing, as n. 15, 446.

  167. 167.

    Oreskes, Naomi, and Conway, Eric. 2010. Merchants of Doubt. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

  168. 168.

    Another book which addresses this theme is: Michaels, David. 2008. Doubt is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. New York: Oxford University Press.

  169. 169.

    Proctor, as n. 128, 28.

  170. 170.

    Brandt, Allan. 2012. Inventing Conflicts of Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics. American Journal of Public Health 102, 64.

  171. 171.

    Proctor, Robert, and Schiebinger, Londa. 2008. Agnotology. The Making & Unmaking of Ignorance. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1.

  172. 172.

    Proctor, Robert, and Schiebinger, as n. 171, 9.

  173. 173.

    Proctor, Robert, and Schiebinger, as n. 171, 10.

  174. 174.

    Proctor, Robert, and Schiebinger, as n. 171, 11–18.

  175. 175.

    Edelman, D. 1987. FOTAB ETS-Project: The Overall Plan. 12/03/1987, 14. LTDL. Bates Number: TI02550938/0951. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bau30c00. Accessed 31 Oct 2014.

  176. 176.

    Proctor, Robert, and Schiebinger, as n. 171, 17. Proctor refers to an tobacco industry scientist of the Academy for Tobacco Studies in the Hollywood motion picture Thank You For Smoking, cfr. supra, who could “disprove gravity.”

  177. 177.

    For a list of statements on the causality of smoking and disease see: Cummings, Michael, Brown, Anthony, and O’Conner, Richard, as n. 155, 1073, table 2.

  178. 178.

    Brown & Williamson. Smoking and Health Proposal. s.d., 3–4. LTDL. Bates Number: 690010951–690010959. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zqy56b00. Accessed 31 Oct 2014.

  179. 179.

    We discussed this earlier in Chap. 12. See Part III, Sect. 12.1. The Tobacco Controversy: A Careful Construction, cfr. supra.

  180. 180.

    Hill & Knowlton. 1953. Report of Conversation Between Carl Thompson and Judge Barnes. 31/12/1953, 3. http://tobaccodocuments.org/ness/3796.html. Accessed 31 Oct 2014.

  181. 181.

    Brandt, as n. 171, 64.

  182. 182.

    For a discussion on the Daubert rules, see Part II, Sect. 7.3.6.3. The Daubert Standard: Popper & the Judge as Gatekeeper, cfr. supra.

  183. 183.

    Friedman, Lissy, Daynard, Richard, and Banthin, Christopher. 2005. How Tobacco-Friendly Science Escapes Scrutiny in the Courtroom. American Journal of Public Health 95, 16–19.

  184. 184.

    Viscusi, Kip. 2006. False Claims in Tobacco Litigation Junk Science Article. American Journal of Public Health 96, 767.

  185. 185.

    Chapman, Simon. 2005. Research from tobacco industry affiliated authors: need for particular vigilance. Tobacco Control 14, 218.

  186. 186.

    Chapman, as n. 185, 217–218.

  187. 187.

    Francis, John, Shea, Amy, and Samet, Jonathan, as n. 146, 75.

  188. 188.

    Parascandola, Marc. 2005. Science, Industry, and Tobacco Harm Reduction: a Case Study of Tobacco Industry Scientists’ Involvement in the National Cancer Institute’s Smoking and Health Program, 1964–1980. Public Health Chronicles 120, 338.

  189. 189.

    Blanke, Douglas, and Humphrey III, Hubert, as n. 68, 2.

  190. 190.

    Brandt, as n. 2, 234.

  191. 191.

    Brownell, Kelly, and Warner, Kenneth. 2009. The Perils of Ignoring History: Big Tobacco Played Dirty and Millions Died. How Similar is Big Food? The Milbank Quarterly 87, 266.

  192. 192.

    Brandt, as n. 170, 70.

  193. 193.

    See Part III, Sect. 13.3.1. Engle, cfr. supra.

  194. 194.

    Proctor, Robert, and Schiebinger, as n. 171, 13.

  195. 195.

    Cummings, Michael, Brown, Anthony, and Douglas, Christopher, as n. 52, 85. Cummings et al. give an overview of the tobacco industry’s defence strategies in several cases: see tables 1–2, 86–87.

  196. 196.

    Balbach, Edith, Smith, Elizabeth, and Malone, Ruth. 2006. How the Health Belief Model Helps the Tobacco Industry: Individuals, Choice, and ‘Information’. Tobacco Control 15, 37.

  197. 197.

    Balbach, Smith, and Malone, as n. 196, 38–39.

  198. 198.

    Balbach, Smith, and Malone, as n. 196, 42.

  199. 199.

    Goldberg, Marvin, Davis, Ronald, and O’Keefe, Anne Marie. 2006. The Role of Tobacco Advertising and Promotion: Themes Employed in Litigation by Tobacco Industry Witnesses. Tobacco Control 15, 55–56.

  200. 200.

    Goldberg, Marvin, Davis, Ronald, and O’Keefe, Anne Marie, as n. 199, 56.

  201. 201.

    Milberger, Sharon, Davis, Ronald, Douglas, Clifford, Beasley, John, Burns, David, Houston, Thomas, and Shopland, Donald. 2006. Tobacco Manufacturers’ Defense Against Plaintiffs’ Claims of Cancer Causation: Throwing Mud at the Wall and Hoping Some of it Will Stick. Tobacco Control 15, 19–23.

  202. 202.

    Milberger, Sharon, Davis, Ronald, Douglas, Clifford, Beasley, John, Burns, David, Houston, Thomas, and Shopland, Donald, as n. 201, 17.

  203. 203.

    Henningfield, Jack, Rose, Christine, and Zeller, Mitch, as n. 38, 27–36.

  204. 204.

    Goldberg, Marvin, Davis, Ronald, and O’Keefe, Anne Marie, as n. 199, 56.

  205. 205.

    See Part III, Sect. 12.1. The Tobacco Controversy: A Careful Construction, cfr. supra.

  206. 206.

    See Part III, as n. 205.

  207. 207.

    See Part III, Sect. 10.2.7. Mass-Marketing Techniques, cfr. supra.

  208. 208.

    For the industry’s denial of a causal link between smoking habits and health hazards see Part III, Sect. 11.1. The Discovery of Tobacco Health Hazards, cfr. supra.

Bibliography

  • Alderman, Jess, and Richard Daynard. 2006. Applying lessons from tobacco litigation to obesity lawsuits. The American Journal of Preventive Medicine 30: 82–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balbach, Edith, Elizabeth Smith, and Ruth Malone. 2006. How the health belief model helps the tobacco industry: Individuals, choice, and ‘Information’. Tobacco Control 15: 37–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanke, Douglas, and Hubert Humphrey III. 2006. Putting truth into action: Using the evidence for justice. Tobacco Control 15: 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, Allan. 2007. The cigarette century. The rise, fall and deadly persistence of a product that defined America. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, Allan. 2012. Inventing conflicts of interest: A history of tobacco industry tactics. American Journal of Public Health 102: 63–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brownell, Kelly, and Kenneth Warner. 2009. The perils of ignoring history: Big tobacco played dirty and millions died. How similar is big food? The Milbank Quarterly 87: 259–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, Simon. 2005. Research from tobacco industry affiliated authors: Need for particular vigilance. Tobacco Control 14: 217–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, Doris, Geoffrey Wayne, Gregor Connoly, and Howard Koh. 2005. A guide to deciphering the internal codes used by the tobacco industry. Tobacco Control 14: 429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, Michael, Anthony Brown, and Christopher Douglas. 2006. Consumer acceptable risk: How cigarette companies have responded to accusations that their product are defective. Tobacco Control 15: 84–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, Michael, Anthony Brown, and Richard O’Conner. 2007. The cigarette controversy. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 16: 1070–1076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, Ronald, Clifford Douglas, and John Beasley. 2006. The tobacco deposition and trial testimony archive (DATTA) project: Origins, aims and methods. Tobacco Control 15: 4–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, Clifford, Davis Ronald, and John Beasley. 2006. Epidemiology of the third wave of tobacco litigation in the United States, 1994–2005. Tobacco Control 15: 9–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, John, Amy Shea, and Jonathan Samet. 2005. Challenging the epidemiologic evidence on passive smoking: Tactics of tobacco industry expert witnesses. Tobacco Control 15: 68–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, Lissy, Richard Daynard, and Christopher Banthin. 2005. How tobacco-friendly science escapes scrutiny in the courtroom. American Journal of Public Health 95: 16–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Givel, Michael, and Staton Glantz. 2004. The “global settlement” with the tobacco industry. American Journal of Public Health 94: 218–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glantz, Staton, John Slade, Lisa Bero, Peter Hanauer, and Deborah Barnes. 1998. The cigarette papers. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, Marvin, Ronald Davis, and Anne Marie O’Keefe. 2006. The role of tobacco advertising and promotion: Themes employed in litigation by tobacco industry witnesses. Tobacco Control 15: 54–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J.B. 2012. Engle v. Liggett: Has big tobacco finally met its match? The Florida Bar Journal 86: 16–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henningfield, Jack, Christine Rose, and Mitch Zeller. 2006. Tobacco industry litigation position on addiction: Continued dependence on past views. Tobacco Control 15: 27–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurt, Richard, Jon Ebbert, Monique Muggli, Nikki Lockhart, and Channing Robertson. 2012. Open doorway to truth: Legacy of the Minnesota tobacco trial. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 84: 446–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluger, Richard. 1997. Ashes to ashes: America’s hundred-year cigarette war, the public health, and the unabashed triumph of philip morris. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malone, Ruth, and Kenneth Warner. 2012. Tobacco control at twenty: Reflecting on the past, considering the present and developing the new conversations for the future. Tobacco Control 21: 74–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, David. 2008. Doubt is their product: How industry’s assault on science threatens your health. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milberger, Sharon, Ronald Davis, Clifford Douglas, John Beasley, David Burns, Thomas Houston, and Donald Shopland. 2006. Tobacco manufacturers’ defense against plaintiffs’ claims of cancer causation: Throwing mud at the wall and hoping some of it will stick. Tobacco Control 15: 17–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miura, Marlo, Richard Daynard, and Jonathan Samet. 2006. The role of litigation in tobacco control. Salud Pública de México 48: 121–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosher, James. 2009. Litigation and alcohol policy: Lessons from the US tobacco wars. Addiction 104: 27–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oreskes, Naomi, and Eric Conway. 2010. Merchants of doubt. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palazzolo, Joe. 2014. R.J. Reynolds loses $23.6 billion verdict. The Washington Post, July 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parascandola, Mark. 2005. Science, industry, and tobacco harm reduction: A case study of tobacco industry scientists’ involvement in the ational Cancer Institute’s smoking and health program, 1964–1980. Public Health Chronicles 120: 338–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Picker, Randal. 1993. An introduction to game theory and the law, Cases lecture series. Chicago: The University of Chicago Law School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, Richard. 1972. A theory of negligence. Journal of Legal Studies 1: 29–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, Richard. 1998. The economic analysis of law. New York: Aspen Law and Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, Eric. 2002. Law and social norms. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, Robert. 2012. Golden Holocaust: Origins of the cigarette catastrophe and the case for abolition. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, Robert, and Londa Schiebinger. 2008. Agnotology. The making & unmaking of ignorance. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutkow, Lainie, Jon Vernick, and Stephen Teret. 2007. Public health benefits of recent litigation against tobacco industry. Journal of the American Medical Association 298: 86–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seffrin, John. 2004. Commentary: The master settlement agreement in historic context. Health Promotion Practice 5: 18–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloan, Frank, Justine Trogdon, and Carrie Mathews. 2005. Litigation and the value of tobacco companies. Journal of Health Economics 24: 427–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Voris, Bob. 2013. Florida top court affirms ruling enabling tobacco suits. Bloomberg News, March 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi, Kip. 2006. False claims in tobacco litigation junk science article. American Journal of Public Health 96: 767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. FWO Fellow at Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Ramses Delafontaine

Authors
  1. Ramses Delafontaine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Delafontaine, R. (2015). Tobacco Litigation. In: Historians as Expert Judicial Witnesses in Tobacco Litigation. Studies in the History of Law and Justice, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14292-0_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation