Kalitan v. Alexander (Fort Lauderdale, Florida)

Dental assistant Susan Kalitan developed an injury common to those in her profession: carpal tunnel syndrome. However, unlike others who undergo surgery to eradicate the pain and discomfort associated with this condition, Ms. Kalitan ended up in a drug-induced coma and sustained a spinal cord injury in the course of what should have been a minor wrist surgery. How did Ms. Kalitan get here?

Ms. Kalitan’s attorney, Crane Johnstone (Schelesinger Firm), said that the anesthesiologist made a mistake during the procedure, and punched a hole in Ms. Kalitan’s esophagus.  The records showed that Ms. Kalitan complained of severe chest and back pain after the surgery. But instead of determining the cause of the pain, the hospital gave Ms. Kalitan pain medication and discharged her.

As a result of the hole in Ms. Kalitan’s esophagus, any food ingested risked entering not her stomach but her chest — and much of the food she consumed after being discharged did in fact end up in her chest. This led to sepsis, which brought her quickly back to the emergency room, where she underwent multiple major surgeries, eventually ended up in a drug-induced coma.

As a result of this carpal tunnel syndrome surgery gone horribly wrong, Ms. Kalitan brought this suit against the anesthesiologist, Dr. Rob Alexander, and several other defendants associated with the hospital.

Mr. Johnstone emphasized in his opening statement the damage sustained by the plaintiff over the course of the incident and since. He stated, “She was left with a feeding tube for months … She’s got major scarring all over her body. She could not eat or drink for months. To this day food hangs up in her throat. When she was lying in that hospital bed, she never got any physical therapy for the surgery on her wrist … she has been left with very serious and permanent pain in her neck and shoulders and hands.” He added that in addition to these physical injuries, as a result of the incident NAME suffered from depression and PTSD, had chronic fatigue, and could not afford to pay her debts. 

“This perforation, the evidence will show, should never have happened,” said Mr. Johnstone. “She wasn’t morbidly obese with a short neck, which makes intubation difficult. She didn’t have trauma where the airway was obstructed and there was a lot of blood you couldn’t see. There was no excuse for what happened here,” and Ms. Kalitan was never told that an anesthesiology student in her first semester of training would be practicing on her.

Defense attorney Robert Cousins (Quintairos, Preito, Wood, & Boyer)  demonstrated for the jury using tools and plastic throat models the steps involved in a rapid endotracheal intubation, concluding that it was successfully completed, and it was “extremely unlikely” that the soft, pliable tip of the endotracheal tube caused any injury or harm to the esophagus. The medical records showed that Dr. Alexander passed the tube successfully into the endotracheal area on the first attempt. If there had been an esophageal intubation it would have been noted on the records, which it was not.

An oro-gastric tube was placed through the mouth and esophagus and into Ms. Kalitan’s stomach, probably by a student, but also had a soft, flexible tube. A temperature probe was also inserted into the esophagus. The temperature probe had a more rigid tip, but was also soft and flexible. None of the devices when removed showed any signs of blood or trauma, so there was no reason for any of the caregivers to have believed that an injury had occurred.

“He was there … he supervised the case appropriately, and then he moved on to another procedure,” Mr. Cousins said. Further, even while Dr. Alexander was not present, the anesthesiologists and the certified registered nurse anesthetists followed proper hospital protocol.

Mr. Cousins told the jury that an injury during such “blind” procedures in which it was not possible to see past the vocal chords was unfortunate, but not negligent. Dr. Alexander acted reasonably, said Mr. Cousins, because Ms. Kalitan seemed fine after the procedure, and Dr. Alexander had no reason to believe that anything bad had happened.

CVN is covering Susan Kalitan v. Rob Alexander trial live.

Jewett v. R.J. Reynolds (Jacksonville, Florida).

A Jacksonville jury on Friday found that defective cigarettes manufactured by R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard were the legal cause of the death of Barbara Jewett, whose husband Thomas Jewett asserted the Engle-progeny tobacco claim.  Ms. Jewett was born in 1955 and died in 2006 as a result of complications arising from an attempted lung transplant to combat emphysema (COPD) caused by smoking.

In his closing argument, Woody Wilner (Wilner Hartley) told the jury, “You’re bound by the class determination that they were negligent…Their negligence is the way they designed the product, that it was addictive, that it caused disease. Their negligence is their failing to be honest about it…It’s another one of those legal causes. We don’t say that it’s the only cause; we say that it’s a contributing cause, along with other causes…The same thing for strict [products] liability…If there’s any question about what the defect is…cigarettes are defective because it’s one of the few consumer products that is both extremely dangerous and also addictive. Caffeine may be addictive but it isn’t dangerous.“

On comparative fault, Mr. Wilner said, “This is interesting. Because here we have something that maybe in all of civil justice is very unusual. We have a manufacturer who wants to blame their customer for buying their product. They want to say you’re negligent for believing us.” However, Mr. Wilner said that he was willing to accept on Barbara Jewett’s behalf a fair percentage of the blame for starting to smoke in the first place, or not trying harder to quit. But Mr. Wilner urged the jury in allocating fault to keep in mind that it was “weird” for a manufacturer to blame its customer for buying the product, Ms. Jewett was only 13 when she started to smoke, and once you start using this product, sometimes the exit gate is not there.

In his closing argument on behalf of R.J. Reynolds, Peter Biersteker invoked a bridge metaphor to suggest to the jury that the plaintiff had not adequately established causality. Coincidentally, or not, Mr. Biersteker’s use of the bridge metaphor was similar to that used on RJR’s behalf in another closing argument in another Engle trial on the same day, but 350 miles north in Jacksonville, by Carlton Fields’ Ben Reid in Reese v. RJR. “I submit that plaintiff did not build that bridge in this phase of the case,” said Mr. Biersteker, “and I think  Mr. Wilner sort of said as much in his part of the closing…He wanted to talk about the public at large. That’s not good enough, ladies and gentlemen…They have to show it was the legal cause of the injury to Mrs. Jewett. To Mrs. Jewett! That’s what they’ve got to show.” Mr. Biersteker went to explain why Mrs. Jewett’s choices to start smoking, to become a regular smoker, and to continue smoking until 2001 were the legal cause of her injury.

On behalf of Lorillard, Roger Geary (Shook Hardy Bacon) urged the jury to consider that there was no evidence that Ms. Jewett had relied on any of Lorillard’s deceptive statements. Instead, it was the health warnings that were on the packs themselves that Ms. Jewett certainly saw, and that health warning was on every pack of Lorillard’s Old Gold that she smoked.

Moreover, said Mr. Geary, Ms. Jewett’s emphysema did not result from any defect in a Lorillard cigarette. The Old Golds Ms. Jewett smoked were filtered, were not particularly high in tar, and had no added nicotine or ammonia, nor was their pH modified.

The jury found liability on a defective products theory, and assigned 70% fault to Ms. Jewett, 20% to R.J. Reynolds, and 10% to Lorillard. The jury awarded special damages of $692,981 to the estate of Barbara Jewett, and general damages of $400K to Thomas Jewett. The jury found that punitive damages were not warranted.

Liggett, represented by Kasowitz Benson’s Kelly Luther,  was present at the start of Phase 2, but was no longer in the case by the time of closing argument. Ms. Luther had argued that Ms. Jewett did not in fact smoke any cigarettes manufactured by Liggett. The contrary evidence, according to Ms. Luther, was nothing but speculation and flat-out wrong.

Mr. Wilner’s win last week comes on the heels of a loss in March to Kelly Luther and Liggett in Blitch v. RJR.

CVN webcast the Jewett tobacco trial live.

Julie Reese v. R.J. Reynolds (Miami, Florida)

Julie Reese had her first cigarette in 1939 at age 10, and was a pack-a-day smoker of Camel and Kool cigarettes by the time she was 16. In 1994 she was diagnosed with laryngeal cancer and COPD.

After showing the jury television commercials and print advertisements from the period when Ms. Reese started smoking and switched brands, plaintiff attorney Jeffrey Sloman of the Ferraro firm said, “I agree, if somebody, with all the information out today and all the public service announcements, everything that’s out today — somebody who starts smoking now, really, would have a lot of gall to come in and blame the tobacco companies. But this was a different world then. And when Julie Reese started to smoke, [pro-tobacco messaging] was commonplace.“

“What’s unbelievable,” said Mr. Sloman, “At this time, R.J. Reynolds and the other tobacco companies know in their internal documents that smoking causes cancer. They know. You heard Dr. Proctor pin the date to about 1955. They know, and they’re putting commercials out about the fun of smoking, reassuring the public that everything’s all right, creating controversy, instilling doubt. That’s what makes this case so incredibly outrageous.“

Mr. Sloman described how Julie Reese visited a doctor in 1967 who told her that smoking was dangerous. But then, said Mr. Sloman, Ms. Reese sees an ad like the one he then displayed [reproduced below] claiming that a particular brand was reliably lower in tar, according to the US government. 

“Now you’re an addicted smoker,” said Mr. Sloman, “and you see something like that and you’re faced with a choice — Hey, my doctor told me to quit, but wait a minute. This is lower in tar than the best-selling filter king. Maybe I’ll just stay smoking. And Julie’s testimony was that the longer she smoked, the more addicted she got…So if she had any chance to quit smoking, it would have been earlier on…when if the tobacco companies had been straight and said, you know, we’re selling an addictive product, we agree with the medical authorities that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer…but they did just the opposite. So they give an addicted smoker a psychological crutch to continue smoking.“

For R.J. Reynolds, Carlton Fields’ Ben Reid focused on causation, urging the jury not to find that addiction caused Ms. Reese to smoke, or that RJR’s concealment of information caused Ms. Reese to smoke, or that that smoking caused Ms. Reese throat cancer or COPD.

According to Mr. Reid, Mrs. Reese smoked by choice, not due to addiction. Her COPD might have resulted from asthma, and her laryngeal cancer from alcohol use. Finally, RJRs concealment could not have had an impact on Ms. Reese’s decisions because she had actual knowledge of the risks that RJR concealed. Therefore, said Mr. Reid, the plaintiffs could not cross the “bridge of causation” that connected Ms. Reese’s claims and the recovery she sought.

The jury found that Ms. Reese was addicted to cigarettes; that her addiction was the legal cause of her throat cancer and COPD; that the statute of limitations did not bar a claim for either of the two injuries; and that RJR was liable on all four theories of recovery: negligence, products liability, concealment, and agreement to conceal.

However, the jury assigned 70% of the fault to Ms. Reese, and found that punitive damages were not warranted, which significantly limited RJR’s liability. The jury found that Ms. Reese had suffered past harm of approximately $3M, and would suffer future harm of almost $600K, for a total damage award of just under $3.6M, of which RJR would be liable for approximately $1M (30%).

It was a strong start for Mr. Sloman, trying his first Engle case. Mr. Reid was previously seen in two Engle cases webcast by CVN, supporting Jones Day in Buonomo v. RJR and as lead defense counsel Koballa v. RJR. [Coincidentally, or not, the Koballa jury also assigned 30% fault to RJR.]

CVN webcast Reese v. Reynolds live.

Hargroves v. R.J. Reynolds (Tampa, Florida)

Jones Day slam-dunked the plaintiff today with a quick win in the Hargroves v. RJR engle-progeny tobacco trial. Today’s verdict was the 44th Engle verdict. Although the defense has frequently succeeded in limiting the damages awarded in Engle trials, today’s win was only the 14th complete victory for the Tobacco companies, as compared to 30 wins for the Engle plaintiffs.

Debra Hargroves was born in 1954, and began to smoke at age 9, in 3rd or 4th grade. She developed lung cancer at age 49, and died from it a year later, in June 2005.

In his closing argument, plaintiff attorney Howard Acosta told the jury, “What you’re going to hear probably from the defense is offense…What they do is they come in and they are going to talk all about Deborah Hargroves, and her ‘choice’. But you have to consider that she was nine years old…when she started to smoke, and medical records indicate that she smoked a pack a day since then.”

The tobacco companies had a choice, too, said Mr. Acosta. In 1953 they could have shared with the public what they knew about the dangers of smoking. Instead, said Mr. Acosta, they made the wrong choice. They continued to assert that cigarettes caused cancer for almost sixty more years, and they did it so they could make more money at the expense of people who smoked, according to Mr. Acosta.

For R.J. Reynolds, Stephanie Parker (Jones Day) said, “Our society, fully aware of all these health risks Mr. Acosta has been talking about, our society has decided that nevertheless, people are aware of the health risks of smoking, and cigarettes should be a legal product.”

Deborah Hargroves knew the risk the whole time, said Ms. Parker. Her husband had testified that for the whole time he knew her, Ms. Hargroves knew that cigarettes were bad for her health, bad for the environment, and bad for everything. She knew that smoking could cause lung cancer, and there was no question that she knew that smoking was bad for her health. “There’s just no dispute in this case,” said Ms. Parker, “that Mrs. Hargroves — the only person this case is about! — Mrs. Hargroves knew the whole time that smoking was bad for her, and could cause death.”

Said Ms. Parker, “Mr. Acosta acts like because Mrs. Hargroves tried her first cigarette at age 9, that that was the end of it…that she became an addict and that set the rest of her life…That’s just not right.” According to Ms. Parker, Ms. Hargrove knew the dangers back from the start, and didn’t become a regular smoker until later than age 9, perhaps age 13. And by the time Mrs. Hargroves was 13 years old, it was illegal to sell cigarettes to minors, and every pack of cigarettes came with a warning. “You’ve got to ask yourself,” said Ms. Parker, “How is Reynolds responsible for that?”

In rebuttal, Mr. Acosta listed the many choices that the cigarette companies made that encouraged their customers to smoke, and the things that Ms. Hargroves did not know when she made her choices, but that the cigarette companies did know. “You know,” said Mr. Acosta, “when a cigarette company tells you some things, they have an obligation to tell you the whole truth…There’s a little grain of truth in a lot of what they had to say, but they didn’t say the whole truth. The reason for that is because they needed to deceive people…as long as they could.”

The jury found that neither a negligent nor defective cigarette design was a legal cause of Deborah Hargrove’s death.

Ms. Parker had prior Engle wins in Gelep v. Philip Morris (2009)  and Rohr v. RJR (2010)

Mr. Acosta had a prior Engle win in Douglas v. Philip Morris (2010)

CVN webcast the Hargroves Engle tobacco trial live. 

Etheredge v. Walt Disney World (Orlando, Florida)

When Jalayna Jones Etheredge was 15 years old, a 4th of July trip to see fireworks at Disneyland was abruptly cut short when she stepped into a storm drain, severely injuring her ankle, while crossing the street from the parking lot to the park itself. For several years following the accident, Etheredge suffered from injuries both ankles, after harm to the one led to overuse of the other — and her physician has suggested she may need an ankle transplant.

Jack Nichols (Law Offices of Jack B. Nichols), the plaintiff’s attorney, argued that Disney’s negligence resulted from the design of the parking lot as well as the fact that a Disney employee signaled for Miss Etheredge to cross the street. “There was a Disney employee out there, waving her across the street,” he said. “Her eyes were focused on that employee. Her eyes were also focused whether or not the cars were coming … She had no reason to believe there was a storm drain where she was being instructed to cross the street.”

John Smith (Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A), the defendant’s attorney, argued that the design of the parking lot was completely reasonable and according to local codes and that Disney was not responsible for the accident. “There was no violation of any code or standard involved in this entire situation,” he said. “She simply wasn’t looking down … she wasn’t paying attention to the curb.”   

The jury found that Disney was not negligent.

Watch the Etheredge v. Walt Disney World CVN court video.

Anderson v. Gypsum Express (West Palm Beach, Florida)

Niven Anderson alleged that Matthew Moore, a truck driver for Gypsum Express, while taking a hairpin curve, struck Anderson’s truck, causing damage to the truck and exacerbating existing medical injuries to Anderson’s back and neck. Moore disputed the evidence, arguing that he never hit Anderson’s truck and that the damage to the truck was caused by a third party.

Plaintiff attorney Jack Hill (Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley PA), brought accident reconstruction and medical experts to argue that the evidence, including marks on Anderson’s vehicle consistent with Moore’s truck tires and damage to the road barrier, proved that Moore did in fact hit Anderon’s vehicle and thereby caused the subsequent exacerbation of Anderson’s injuries. “Right up to the bitter end,” Hill said. “Gypsum Express and Matthew Moore are refusing to accept the responsibility for Mr. Moore’s conduct and refusing to accept the responsibility for the consequences of that conduct.”

Anthony DiMattio (Gaebe, Mullen, Antonelli & DiMatteo), the defendent’s attorney, argued that the plaintiff was overreaching and that the evidence was inconclusive regarding both the cause of the damage to Anderson’s vehicle and the cause of the exacerbation of his injuries. He further argued that the plaintiffs were inconsistent in their presentation of evidence, noting that Anderson did not mention his prior neck and back injuries in 2007, the time of the accident. “That’s the mindset of the plaintiff,” he said. “You don’t have to be accurate, you don’t have to tell the whole truth, see if they figure it out. That seems to be the mindset and the theme, catch me if you can.” 

The jury found negligence on the part of Moore and awarded Anderson medical damages amounting to $712,611.02. In addition, the jury awarded Anderon’s wife, Betty Anderson, $8,000 in damages relating to their finding that Anderson suffered a permanent medical condition as a result of the accident.

Watch CVN’s webcast of Anderson v. Gypsum Express.

Jewett v. R.J. Reynolds (Jacksonville, Florida)

A Jacksonville jury ruled yesterday that Barbara Jewett’s addiction to cigarettes containing nicotine was the cause of her COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), and Ms. Jewett’s COPD was the cause of her death. The jury also rejected the cigarette maker’s affirmative defense that Ms. Jewett should have known before May 5, 1990, that she had COPD.

In his phase 1 closing argument, attorney Jim Matthews, appearing in his first Engle-progeny trial, walked the jury through voluminous conflicting testimony as to whether Ms. Jewett knew or should have known that she had COPD before May 5, 1990 — and therefore her claim would be barred by the statute of limitations. Mr. Matthews concluded that the defense evidence could largely be attributed to poor recollections, and that  in order to believe the defense case, the jury would have to be convinced that Ms. Jewett had a condition so severe that she should have self-diagnosed, but then kept it a secret from her doctor and family for at least five years — “which probably isn’t the case.”

During his closing on behalf of the plaintiff, Wilner Hartley’s Woody Wilner argued that Ms. Jewett’s addiction could be determined not only from the evidence that Ms. Jewett wanted to quit yet did not, but also from the evidence that the Tobacco industry had a the intent and ability to get her addicted, as shown by their own confidential documents, which included statements such as, “High profits are…related tot he fact that the customer is dependent,” and “If the exit gate…should suddenly open, we could be out of business overnight,” and “A cigarette is the perfect type of pleasure…it leaves one unsatisfied…Let us..hope that they, our consumers, continue to remain uinsatisfied. All we we would want then is a larger bag to carry the money to the bank.”

On behalf of R.J. Reynolds, Peter Biersteker (Jones Day) reminded the jury that the defense did not need to prove that Ms. Jewett was diagnosed with COPD before May 5, 1990. Even if she was not diagnosed, the evidence showed that she both knew and should have known that she had COPD, including numerous statements by Ms. Jewett to her doctors nothing that she had had COPD since the 1980s, and Ms. Jewett’s own statement in an interview televised by PBS. By 1995, doctor’s characterized her COPD as “severe.” 

“This was not an isolated slip of the tongue,” said Mr. Biersteker. “There were ten different medical records from ten different medical professionals recording Ms. Jewett’s patient history over a four year period [from 2001-2005].”

Representing Lorillard, Roger Geary (Shook Hardy Bacon) told the jury that whether Ms. Jewett was addicted depended on whether she was in control of her decisions, and, according to Mr. Geary, Ms. Jewett was in control of all aspects of her life, including smoking. Ms. Jewett reduced her smoking when she wanted to, and she smoked on and off.

Phase 2 of the trial is now underway. CVN is webcasting the Jewett v. R.J. Reynolds tobacco trial live.

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Nielsen, Panelized Structures (Las Vegas, NV)

A Las Vegas jury yesterday awarded almost $20M in damages to a man who was run over by a 14,000+ pound Sky-Trak 5028 rough terrain forklift.

Tom Novick was pinned beneath one of the forklift’s tires as the driver, Floyd Nielsen, was parking the machine, which slowly rolled backward across Mr. Novick’s entire body.

Plaintiff attorney John Shook (Shook & Stone) detailed for the jury the harm suffered by Mr. Novick, including multiple catastrophic injuries, severe pain, total disability, loss of his spleen, two amputations of his right leg, permanent brain damage, and more. Mr. Shook detailed approximately $1.34M in past and future medical costs, and approximately $880K in past and future wages that Mr. Novick would have earned as a roofer. For past pain and suffering Mr. Shook suggested $1 per minute ($3.5M). For future pain and suffering, Mr. Shook suggested 50-cents per minute based on Mr. Novick’s expected life span ($8M). 

Representing plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance, Elizabeth Foley (Law Offices of Elizabeth Foley) told the jury that Panelized Structures did not have an adequate commitment to safety. For example, the forklift driver, who was the brother-in-law of Panelized Structures’ owner, was promoted to safety director after the most serious injury in company history. In addition, said Ms. Foley, Panelized Structures used temporary workers without training them, and did not respond to the accident with a proper safety alert or incident report.

For the defense, Eugene Wait (Wait Law Firm), told the jury that Mr. Novick’s recovery was remarkable — he had been walking for six years, and had been employed doing janitorial work at Walmart, working around his disabilities. Mr. Wait predicted that additional surgeries were not likely, because Mr. Novick was doing pretty well and was not a quitter. There simply was not an adequate foundation for the damages requested by the plaintiff, said Mr. Wait.

The jury awarded past medical expenses of approximately $1.5M, future medical expenses of approximately $7M, past lost earning capacity of approximatley $171K, future lost earning capacity of approximately $514K, past pain and suffering of approximately $2.6M, and future pain and suffering of approximately $7.9M. The total damage award was $19,854,217. 

The jury assigned 20% of the fault to Mr. Novick, and 80% of the fault to the forklift driver and his employer, Panelized Structures.

CVN webcast Thomas Novick and Liberty Mutual v. Floyd Nielsen and Panelized Structures.

Guillermo v. Kia Motors (Los Angeles, California)

Fabian Guillermo claimed that his brand new 2006 Kia Sorrento began malfunctioning immediately after he purchased the car from the dealership, and he requested that the company replace the car. When Kia refused, Mr. Guillermo sue Kia under California’s Lemon Law.   

Julian Senior (O’Hagan Spencer LLP), representing Kia Motors America, Inc., suggested that the Mr. Guillermo’s claim was merely a cover for buyers’ remorse. According to Mr. Senior, nothing was wrong with the car, and that Mr. Guillermo was unable to find a specific fault that met the Lemon Law’s stric procedural requirements. “This is a case of buyers’ remorse. This is a case where the witness testified specifically on the stand that within 11 days of him…buying this car, he was back at the dealership complaining about a problem,” Senior said.  

Brian Cline (Bickel Law Firm), representing the plaintiff, countered that if it were a mere cover for buyer’s remorse, it would be strange to request that Kia repurchase the vehicle and sell him a new one, rather than refund Guillermo’s money. Further, Mr. Cline argued something was in fact wrong with the car, as evidenced by multiple service invoices and receipts for replaced parts and work done, by both the dealership and a local mechanic, all of which failed to eliminate stalling, electrical problems, and a problem with the drive shaft. “The facts of this case as you’ve heard them…require that Mr. Guillermo’s vehicle be repurchased,” Cline said. “They gave him the runaround. They said go to the dealer, the dealer said go to Kia, Kia said go back to the dealer. He asked for a repurchase … they didn’t even check the car.”  

The jury decided in favor of the defense, finding that there was no particular and substantial defect in the vehicle that substantially impaired its use, value, or safety.

Watch CVN’s webcast of the Guillermo v. Kia Lemon Law trial.

Jewett v. R.J. Reynolds (Jacksonville, Florida)

Thomas Jewett’s wife, Barbara Jewett, was born in 1955 and died in 2006 as a result of complications arising from an attempted lung transplant to combat emphysema (COPD) caused by smoking.

Wilner Hartley’s Woody Wilner told the jury that Ms. Jewett was in fact first diagnosed with COPD in 1995, and she was shocked by the diagnosis. Therefore, said Mr. Wilner, the jury should reject the cigarette companies’ claim that Ms. Jewett’s lawsuit was time-barred because she should have known that she had COPD by May of 1990, even though she subsequently misstated that she had been diagnosed with COPD much earlier than 1995.

Mr. Wilner concluded that the three questions before the jury were “no brainers”: Ms. Jewett filed her claim on time, her death resulted from emphysema, and she was addicted to cigarettes containing nicotine.

Representing R.J. Reynolds, Jones Day’s Peter Biersteker told the jury that Ms. Jewett knew she had the symptoms of COPD before May 5, 1990; she knew before May 5, 1990, that her COPD was caused by her smoking; no addiction caused Ms. Jewett to continue smoking; and Ms. Jewett’s death resulted from thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP), as noted on her death certificate.

“I’m not here to tell you that my client never did anything wrong,” said Mr. Biersteker. “There were periods in the history of these tobacco companies that were not their finest hour.” But, Mr. Biersteker told the jury, the advertisements and internal documents shown by the plaintiff were like a sports blooper reel, showing the tobacco companies’ worst moments, but not accurately, because they lacked context — and in any case they did not relate to the issues in the case.

According to Mr. Biersteker, Ms. Jewett consistently told her doctors that her COPD started before May 5, 1990.

Representing Lorillard, Shook Hardy Bacon’s Roger Geary told the jury that although Lorillard agreed that smoking can be addictive in some people, Ms. Jewett was not addicted because cigarettes did not control her, nor did they impair her daily activities, like working and taking care of the family. When she wanted to quit she quit, with no problems. Moreover, she refrained from smoking in places where it was important to her to not smoke.

CVN webcast the Thomas Jewett tobacco trial live.