$17.7 Million Verdict in Los Angeles Smoking Lung Cancer Case
August 18, 2014 Leave a comment
News and Views on Environmental & Toxic Tort Federal and State Legal Issues and Developments
August 18, 2014 Leave a comment
On July 30, a Los Angeles County jury found that Lorillard Tobacco Co.’s cigarettes contributed to the 1998 death from lung cancer of smoker William “Earl” Major. The jury reportedly deliberated for about a day before finding in favor of Major’s widow, Tajie Major.
In a 12-0 decision in Major v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., the jury found Major had damages totaling $17,736,700. The jury reportedly apportioned liability 17 percent to Lorillard, 50 percent to Major and 33 percent to cigarettes he smoked that were made by other manufacturers. The trial judge was the Honorable Amy Hogue. Plaintiff’s counsel was Gilbert Purcell of Brayton Purcell.
Tajie Major filed her product liability/negligence complaint in November 2011. She said her husband smoked Kent, as well as Marlboro and Winston, which were made by Philip Morris USA Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., respectively. Two other tobacco companies were sued along with Lorillard, but Major’s claims against them were dismissed before trial, but there has been many legal actions about smoking products now a days, including the e-cigarettes used to replace the conventional cigarettes, so for people that have an e cig lawsuit they can even get legal help online for this.
This case is particularly interesting because the Brayton Purcell firm is best known for its work in the asbestos litigation; its past claims against Lorillard have focused on its asbestos liabilities, as Lorillard used asbestos in the “micronite filter” of its Kent brand of cigarettes in the 1950s. In fact, before bringing this tobacco action, the Brayton firm previously filed an asbestos-related complaint in San Francisco Superior Court in 1999 on Mrs. Major’s behalf, arguing that asbestos was the cause of her husband’s disease, and named Lorillard, R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris in that lawsuit.
This case represents a clear change in direction by the Brayton firm, and it remains to be seen whether Brayton’s success may inspire other traditional asbestos plaintiffs’ firms to enter the tobacco litigation. The number of lung cancer cases being filed in recent times is increasing.