I'm looking for a summary of the Henley v. Phillip Morris case in
California.  Though I've found a lot of information, I'm having trouble
sorting through it all.  I want to pull out the basics:  What was the
suit originally brought up on (product liability of some kind, like
most tobacco suits?), How did it turn out (I know there was an award,
but how much and why), What happened on appeal?  is it still up for
appeal (I think it is).  I'm basically looking for a summary of the
case in layman's terms
to make sure I understand it.

This info is for a minor part of a research paper I'm writing for a
college business law class - it probably won't even get its own
paragraph.  I'd appreciate links to info you used to answer this
question though.  I have a basic understanding of law (this is my
first law related class), product liability, and I've looked at some
other well known tobacco cases (cipollone, etc), but I'm just having
lots of trouble sorting through this case.  Thanks in advance!

tallkth --

I think that this is one of rare Google Answers questions where one
link provides all the information you want and need.  If you have any
other specific questions, please ask for clarification before rating
the answer, and I will try to answer them for you.

An up-to-the minute summary of the Henley case is on the website of
Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris.  It is clearly intended
to be understandable by laymen, and it is both comprehensive and
concise.  Here is a link to that summary:

Altria: Henley Case
http://www.altria.com/media/03_06_04_09_00_Henley.asp


The page contains links to earlier Altria press releases on the case,
and the one dated November 7, 2001, might give you whatever extra
information you might want about the issues at the trial stage of the
case.


Search Strategy:

I found the information with the following Google search:

henley "philip morris" status
://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=%22henley%22+%22philip+morris%22++status



I believe that this is exactly the information you are looking for,
and I am happy to have it for you so promptly.  If anything is
unclear, please let me know.

markj-ga

---

Request for Answer Clarification by tallkth-ga on 02 Nov 2004 11:22 PST

Thanks for the answer, it has most of the information I need, but it
doesn't say on what basis the case was brought up on.  Some tobacco
cases have brought claims of express warranty, product liablility
issues, or even fraud and conspiracy.  Since so many personal suits
against tobacco companies have failed, I'd like to know what the basis
of this suit was.

---

Clarification of Answer by markj-ga on 02 Nov 2004 12:02 PST

tallkth --

You will not be surprised to learn that Henley enumerated many
theories of the case in her complaint.  The jury found against the
company on virtually all of them, including negligence, fraud, strict
product liability, and conspiracy:

Here are a few concise, contemporaneous plain-English summaries:

"After a month-long trial, a jury in California yesterday found Philip
Morris liable to a 52-year old woman with lung cancer and awarded her
$1.5 million. The jury found liability on all eight of the plaintiff's
allegations, including strict liability (defective product),
negligence, various fraud claims and conspiracy. The jury also decided
to award punitive damages."
No-Smoking.org
http://www.no-smoking.org/feb99/02-13-99-1.html


"She sued Philip Morris Cos., claiming there were no warnings on
cigarettes when she began smoking more than three decades ago and that
major tobacco companies failed to warn that smokers may be unable to
give up the habit. Her lawsuit included charges of negligence, strict
liability and fraud."

CleanLungs,com
http://www.cleanlungs.com/litigation/jury.html


"The jury found that Philip Morris engaged in widespread wrongdoing,
violating the rights of Patricia Henley, a lung cancer victim, as to
each of the nine causes of action asserted by her. Thus, the jury
found violations in each of the following respects:

defective product in violation of the expectations of the ordinary consumer 
defective product by failing to warn before July 1, 1969 
negligence 
breach of express warranty 
fraud by intentional misrepresentation 
fraud by concealment before July 1, 1969 
fraud by false promise 
fraud by negligent mispresentation; and 
conspiracy to defraud."

Gasp.org: Questions at Philip Morris Stockholders Meeting
http://www.gasp.org/pmques.html



Follow-up Search Strategy:

The following Google searches were helpful:

henley "philip morris" "jury found" negligence
://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&lr=&q=%22henley%22+%22philip+morris%22++%22jury+found%22+negligence


henley "philip morris" "complaint alleged"
://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=%22henley%22+%22philip+morris%22++%22complaint+alleged%22


As before, if you need any other specific information before rating
the answer, plese let me know.

markj-ga

Thank you so much for your answer and clarification and the prompt
reply - this has really helped a lot.  Thanks!

tallkth --

Thanks for the five stars and the kind words.

markj-ga