Brown & Williamson urges judge to set aside Carter verdict.LOUISVILLE, Ky.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 29, 1996--Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. today urged a Jacksonville, Fla. judge to set aside the verdict in the Carter trial, arguing that prejudicial prej·u·di·cial adj. 1. Detrimental; injurious. 2. Causing or tending to preconceived judgment or convictions: errors made during the July cigarette product liability trial should cause the verdict to be overturned. "We are absolutely convinced that the Carter verdict will be overturned," said Tom Bezanson, attorney for Brown & Williamson. "If appeals are necessary, they may be lengthy, but it ultimately allows mistakes to be overturned, as will be the case in Carter." In its motion, B&W pointed out several examples of why the company believes its appeal will be successful: -- The jury was allowed to hear speculative, self-serving testimony from Mr. Carter about what he would have done had there been additional warnings about the health risks associated with cigarettes. This is clearly contrary to Florida law The jurisprudence of this state offers major differences from doctrines prevailing in the United States at either the federal level or that of the various states. Homestead exemption from forced sale, the dangerous instrumentality doctrine, the right to privacy, and the Williams as set out in Drackett v. Blue. In addition, the judge refused to allow B&W to cross examine plaintiffs' experts on this issue in order to refute re·fute tr.v. re·fut·ed, re·fut·ing, re·futes 1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony. 2. this testimony. -- Mr. Carter was allowed to contradict con·tra·dict v. con·tra·dict·ed, con·tra·dict·ing, con·tra·dicts v.tr. 1. To assert or express the opposite of (a statement). 2. To deny the statement of. See Synonyms at deny. evidence that he would have smoked no matter what he was told about the reported risks of smoking. It was contrary to Florida state law to allow this self-serving testimony without allowing the defense an adequate opportunity to refute this testimony. -- The judge allowed plantiff's experts to broadly speculate in their testimony, unfairly prejudicing the jury. One plaintiff's expert was allowed to speculate about what the Surgeon General The U.S. Surgeon General is charged with the protection and advancement of health in the United States. Since the 1960s the surgeon general has become a highly visible federal public health official, speaking out against known health risks such as tobacco use, and promoting disease or members of Congress might have done 40 years ago given various hypothetical situations. The judge also allowed extensive cross examination of defense experts outside of their area of expertise. -- Contrary to the rules of evidence, the judge permitted submission of documents that had no relevance to the trial. The plaintiffs were permitted to introduce numerous documents that were not relevant to the plaintiff's claims. -- The judge allowed speculative testimony that American Tobacco could and should have produced a "safer cigarette" without any extrinsic evidence Facts or information not embodied in a written agreement such as a will, trust, or contract. Extrinsic evidence is similar to extraneous evidence, which is not furnished by the document in and of itself but is derived from external sources. of a feasible alternative design and how it would have made a difference, as is required by law. CONTACT: Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Louisville Tom Fitzgerald Tom Fitzgerald can refer to:
|
|
||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion