Big tobacco prevails in St. Louis lawsuit by hospitals

Big tobacco companies prevailed Friday in a sweep of verdicts against hospitals seeking to recoup the costs of treating smokers' diseases.
The nationally watched City of St. Louis v. American Tobacco, which took 13 years to come to trial in St. Louis Circuit Court, sought more than $455 million — plus punitive damages —from six tobacco companies on behalf of 37 hospitals, most of them local and regional operations across Missouri.
Verdict forms were signed by nine of 12 jurors, the minimum required in a Missouri civil case. The jury met for about 20 minutes Friday, starting its seventh day of deliberations, before delivering the decisions. It took Circuit Judge Michael David about an hour to read the verdicts on all the counts; the jury had been given 1,035 separate instructions.
"I'm just numb. I'm not shocked," said hospital attorney Kenneth Brostron.
He will consult with his clients about whether to appeal. "It really was a case of David versus Goliath," he said.
Ken Parsigian, an attorney for tobacco company Philip Morris, said, "The jury here found that ordinary cigarettes are not defective and not negligently manufactured, and that's what this case was all about."
David Wallace, who represented British-American Tobacco, said that if the hospitals had won, it would have opened the door to accusing various industries of making dangerous products.
"Where do we draw the line?" he asked.
The hospitals claimed that cigarette companies knowingly delivered an "unreasonably dangerous" product that burdened health providers with costs of treating smoking-related patients who had no insurance and did not pay their bills.
The defense said that the hospitals tried to play on jurors' emotions, and that the nonpaying patients represented only a "tiny fraction" of the hospitals' business. Defense lawyers also noted that cigarettes were legal to make and sell.
The suit got further than about 160 similar cases around the country that for various reasons never reached trial.
The St. Louis case, which opened in January, took about 2 1/2 months to present, less than half the time anticipated.
Some jurors stayed behind Friday to enjoy a birthday cake the jury brought for bailiff William Cowley, and to share their thoughts with lawyers.
One juror, Victoria Reed, an accountant for the city of St. Louis, said the initial vote was 7-4 in favor of the tobacco companies, with one undecided. She said it eventually settled at 8-4, until a woman who favored the hospitals said she was tired of deliberating and changed her vote, making the minimum of nine.
Reed, who would not give her age, had sided with the hospitals, saying she felt the plaintiffs met the burden to prove it was "likely" they had been damaged by the tobacco companies.
"They didn't ask, 'Was it 100 percent they were damaged?' " Reed said. "They asked if it was likely."
Juror Bessie Thomas, 58, voted in favor of the tobacco companies, saying the hospitals didn't present enough evidence that they were damaged.
"We're not letting the tobacco companies off the hook," she said, adding that she felt it was the fair decision.
James Burton, 81, who voted for the hospitals, said he had a tough time convincing others to see his side. "The reason I couldn't sway them is hospitals, when you look at the bottom line, make a lot of money."
Clifford Douglas, director of the University of Michigan Tobacco Research Network, said that while tobacco companies still win most claims against them, this was a big victory in light of the tide that turned somewhat when the industry settled a suit by 48 states for $206 billion in 1998.
"It is one more skirmish in a decades-long battle that the public is generally but slowly winning against tobacco," Douglas said. "This proves again that the companies are enormously powerful. They're very well-lawyered. They're the best money can buy. They are going to win some."