Woburn, Massachusetts — A jury trial this week concluded with a $40.57 million verdict against the country’s two leading cigarette manufacturers, Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds. The jury found the companies liable for the lung cancer death of 54-year-old Jose Amaral, who passed away in 2019.
The jury in the Middlesex County Superior Court reached its decision after five days of deliberations. They determined that cigarettes produced by both Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds were defectively designed, contributing to Amaral’s cancer diagnosis and subsequent death.
Of the total verdict, $25 million was awarded in punitive damages against Philip Morris, while R.J. Reynolds faced $11.5 million in similar penalties. Additionally, the jury granted over $4 million in compensatory damages to Amaral’s family. However, the jury dismissed other claims against the cigarette manufacturers and cleared two retailers involved in the sale of the products to Amaral.
Amaral, who began smoking as a teenager, was reported to have smoked over a pack of cigarettes daily for more than three decades. His family argued that both companies produced and marketed cigarettes that were known to be addictive and carcinogenic. The trial largely centered around whether the design of these cigarettes was unreasonably dangerous.
During closing arguments, Bruce Tepikian, representing Philip Morris, stated that all cigarettes are inherently dangerous and that there are no reasonable alternative designs. He noted attempts by the company to develop alternatives like heat-not-burn cigarettes and ultra-low nicotine versions had failed in the market.
Kevin Boyce, representing R.J. Reynolds, echoed this sentiment, outlining the company’s efforts to introduce filtered and very-low nicotine cigarettes that, according to company scientists, were designed to be safer.
On the opposing side, Gary Paige, attorney for Amaral’s family, claimed that the filtered and “light” cigarette products, which Amaral used, were actually associated with higher rates of adenocarcinoma, the form of lung cancer he had developed. Randy Rosenblum, another attorney for the family, argued that while safer alternatives were introduced in the late 20th century, the companies did not adequately warn the public about the dangers of smoking.
“The safer designs were not marketed effectively because the companies failed to acknowledge the risks of smoking,” Rosenblum stated, emphasizing that consumer demand was not the issue.
This verdict marks a significant moment in the ongoing legal battles surrounding tobacco companies and their products, contributing to an ongoing dialogue regarding the responsibilities of manufacturers toward public health.
This article was automatically generated by Open AI. Please be aware that the people, facts, circumstances, and storyline may be inaccurate, and any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by emailing contact@publiclawlibrary.org.