CIGARETTE MAKER LIED, SUIT CLAIMS; PHILIP MORRIS SUED FOR MISREPRESENTATION.

Byline: Don Holland Staff Writer

Nearly a decade before the surgeon general warned America's smokers that cigarettes were dangerous, Randi Reynolds was hooked.

For 30 years she smoked, unable to kick the habit that was portrayed in the 1950s as a glamorous, fun and even healthy pastime.

Now cancer is taking its toll on the 57-year-old Simi Valley woman who is undergoing chemotherapy and has had a lymph node and part of her left lung removed.

Reynolds is fighting not only cancer but a potentially more daunting adversary: tobacco giant Philip Morris.

She filed a product liability suit against Philip Morris Cos. last week in Ventura County Superior Court, claiming the company intentionally misrepresented its cigarettes and conspired to withhold information on the dangers and addictive power of tobacco.

``She was smoking for quite a period of time when the tobacco companies knew that smoking was hazardous to your health but did not release that information to the public,'' said attorney Charles Phillips, a partner in the Calabasas firm of Phillips and Kamishita.

An attorney for Philip Morris declined to comment specifically on the Reynolds' case but said the allegations are similar to suits that tobacco companies have won.

``These are tough cases to make,'' said Michael York, a Washington, D.C., attorney for Philip Morris. ``The plaintiffs have won a handful of cases, and all of those have either been reversed or are on appeal.''

Experts say product liability cases, once a hopeless avenue in tobacco litigation, received a boost three years ago when a landmark Minnesota case turned up a treasure trove of documents that showed tobacco industry executives had long been aware of the dangers of cigarettes and the addictive nature of nicotine.

Since then, those documents have been widely circulated and are being used in other tobacco lawsuits. Cases that a few years ago might never have been filed are now making their way to court.

``It used to be these cases were considered hopeless,'' said Richard Daynard, chairman of the Tobacco Products Liability Project and professor at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston.

``With the incriminating documents, it's possible to make a case pretty easily to persuade a jury that these were very bad people and they were lying, even back in the 1950s, lying to their customers about what the scientific evidence showed,'' Daynard said. ``You can build a damning case against the tobacco companies just sitting at your computer on the Web.''

Of the thousands of tobacco suits that have been filed nationwide, only a few dozen have made it all the way to trial.

Juries in the United States have awarded damages in smoking liability suits only five times. But two of those cases were overturned on appeal, and a $51 million award by a San Francisco jury was later reduced by half.

However, in the past year, plaintiffs have prevailed in about half of the tobacco suits that have gone to trial - thanks in part to the tobacco industry documents, Daynard said.

Those successes, he said, have given rise to an increase in lawsuits.

Reynolds, who started smoking when she was 14, and her husband, Jack, are seeking general and punitive damages as well as compensation for pain and suffering, emotional distress and lost earnings. Phillips declined to say how much they will seek.

York, however, said juries have often concluded that smokers could simply quit.

``Just about anyone in our society, certainly people who are adults, have been exposed to overwhelming information on the risks and hazards of smoking,'' said York. ``Traditionally, over the last 50 years, dozens of juries have listened to evidence and concluded that people can quit.''