Widdick v. Brown & Williamson
"The Tobacco Conspiracy Trial"
Brown & Williamson Cast Doubt on Conspiracy Theory and Credibility of Plaintiff Lung Doctor
(May 28) After five days on the witness stand, plaintiff lung expert Dr. Allan Feingold finally completed his testimony but not before the Brown and Williamson defense cast some doubt on his claims about the addictiveness of nicotine and an alleged industry-wide conspiracy to hide the hazardous effects of smoking.
During the continued cross-examination of Feingold, Brown & Williamson attorney John Nyhan attempted to rehabilitate a point brought out by the plaintiffs during direct examination. Feingold had testified that Brown & Williamson's parent company, British American Tobacco (BAT), had conducted studies on the addictiveness of nicotine in the early 1960s and deliberately withheld the research results from the Surgeon General in 1964. In response to this allegation, Nyhan produced documents that indicated a valid reason for Brown & Williamson not turning over their findings: two independent pharmacologists outside of the tobacco company had evaluated the research and concluded that it was flawed.
Nyhan challenged Feingold's claim that the American Tobacco Company (ATC) was implicated in an alleged conspiracy to BAT and Brown & Williamson's knowledge of nicotine addiction. Although Feingold testified that the research reports were sent to the Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC) (of which American Tobacco is a member), he could not say whether anyone from ATC actually received the documents.
In addition, Nyhan also cast doubt on Feingold's opinion on the addictiveness of nicotine. While testifying as a defense expert in an asbestos case in 1992, the doctor said nicotine was addictive. But when he testified as a tobacco plaintiff's expert in 1997, Feingold not only said nicotine was addictive but said he realized it in the 1980s, before the 1988 Surgeon General's Report that revealed this characteristic of nicotine. Today, Feingold continues to believe that nicotine is addictive but claims he only realized it in 1994 or 1995. He said he misspoke at last year's trial. Nyhan's point suggested that Feingold tailors his testimony according to whom he works for and therefore cannot be trusted.
The next witness presented by the plaintiffs was Dr. William Farone, a research scientist who worked for Philip Morris from 1976 to 1984. Farone was called to validate the Maddox family's claim that Brown & Williamson marketed a defective product in their cigarettes. According to this witness, tar is the most hazardous substance in cigarettes. He described the ways in which a company can reduce the tar and nicotine level in cigarettes, including the type of paper used to make cigarettes, the design of the filter, and the type of tobacco in the cigarette. Farone claimed that during his time at Philip Morris, he had not seen data that American Tobacco or Brown & Williamson ever tried to improve the safety of Lucky Strike cigarettes.
However, during cross-examination, Nyhan appeared to turn Farone into his own witness. Farone admitted that American Tobacco has taken numerous steps to produce and market a safer cigarette. Low tar cigarettes were introduced in the 1950s. During that time American Tobacco's Carlton cigarettes hit the market and are considered one of the industry's safest cigarettes. In addition, Nyhan pointed out, American Tobacco produced both the unfiltered cigarettes the late Roland Maddox smoked and the filtered version of Lucky Strike.
Farone also conceded that Maddox had the option of smoking filtered cigarettes. The doctor also testified that other cigarette companies invested millions of dollars producing and attempting to market low tar and nicotine cigarettes. Many of these products, such as Sano and King Sano cigarettes of the 1950s and RJR's Premiere, were commercial failures because, according to the defense, consumers did not like their taste. Farone contended that they were not marketed properly. Nyhan also told the court and Farone that BAT tried to make products to compete with Premiere but was unsuccessful because of the patents that RJR and Philip Morris have on the necessary technology.
Interestingly, Dr. Farone said that he thought that low tar/nicotine cigarettes like Premiere were a step in the right direction for tobacco companies, despite the criticism of government agencies and anti-smoking groups. When court recessed for the day, Farone was questioned about the U.S. government's efforts to support tobacco research. (The government had stopped funding many of the projects.) Farone testimony will continue when court resumes Friday morning. The plaintiffs are expected to rest their case Friday, but not before Angela Widdick, the lead plaintiff and daughter of Roland Maddox, takes the stand. The jury also may see a video of Roland Maddox on his deathbed before the plaintiffs rest.
top of page
| 
