Newspaper Article

TOBACCO COMPANIES' VICTORY

Lewin, Tamar

1986

Overview

''This is a bad blow, but not a fatal blow,'' said Richard Daynard, a professor at the Northeastern University law school who is an advocate of the tobacco litigation. ''People are going to need a little time to figure out what's left of the cases, but I'm confident that we have other theories that don't relate to inadequate warnings. I'm also confident that this decision will ultimately be overturned by the Supreme Court.'' ''I think it pretty well puts this litigation to bed,'' said John C. Maxwell Jr., an analyst with Furman Selz Mager Dietz & Birney. ''It's a very important decision for the tobacco companies. Their stocks have been severely depressed by the litigation. People equated this with the asbestos or Dalkon Shield situation. That fear ought to be gone now.'' Stock Prices Rebound ''But we do have other legal theories to pursue,'' Mr. [Marc Edell] said. ''There's the addiction theory, and there's risk/utility analysis, in which we would show that the cigarettes' risks so outweigh their utility that the companies that put them on the market should be held strictly liable for selling a defective product. And the warnings only began 20 years ago. So we can still bring the cases of people who began smoking in the 40's and are just now developing diseases related to smoking.''

• Publisher: New York Times Company
• Subject: CIPOLLONE, ROSE (MRS) / CONSUMER PROTECTION / DECISIONS / LEWIN, TAMAR / MEDICINE AND HEALTH / SIGNS / SMOKING / STOCK PRICES AND TRADING VOLUME / STOCKS AND BONDS / SUITS AND LITIGATION