Widdick v. Brown & Williamson
"The Tobacco Conspiracy Trial"
Deceased Smoker's Daughter Testifies--With Mixed Results
(May 29) The daughter of the late Roland Maddox, Angela Widdick, came to the stand and testified that her father tried in vain to stop smoking numerous times before his diagnosis of cancer. But Widdick, who is the personal representative of her father's estate in the suit against Brown & Williamson, may have conceded a few key points to the defendant as the tobacco company used her own history of smoking to help its case.
A tearful Widdick testified that her father smoked Lucky Strike as she grew up, and she usually gave him a carton of unfiltered Lucky Strike every Christmas. Widdick said she never heard her father refer to his cigarettes as "cancer sticks" or to cigarette filters as "mufflers." He called his Lucky Strike cigarettes "stoogies." She said that her father tried to quit the habit several times unsuccessfully.
"I couldn't count the all the times he tried to stop," Widdick said. "Every time I turned around, he was trying to quit."
However, Widdick said that throughout his many attempts to quit smoking, Maddox never discussed with her the reasons he tried to stop. To illustrate how addicted her father was to smoking, Widdick told the jury that he would smoke outdoors even if it was raining. She said that she never realized the extent of her father's illness until she heard Dr. Allan Feingold's testimony in court over the past several days. Widdick became increasingly emotional as she described how her father's health deteriorated during the course of his battle with lung cancer.
But during cross-examination, Brown & Williamson used Widdick's own battle with smoking and her decision to quit to imply that Maddox knew the dangers of smoking long before his fatal illness and that he could have stopped. Widdick admitted that she smoked for 13 years, at one point as much as two packs a day. When asked whether her mother and father disapproved of her habit or expressed concern about it, Widdick said that her mother never expressed disapproval. However, Widdick was lectured about smoking in the house. Still, Widdick said, her parents never addressed her habit. But then the defense impeached Widdick with her prior deposition testimony that her wanted her to stop. Widdick then admitted that her father expressed concern about her smoking, perhaps as it pertained to her health. Apparently, Widdick said, they did not have a lot of conversations about smoking until they both tried to quit the habit.
Widdick stopped smoking in 1983 after she had suffered a mini-stroke. Her doctor told her that her health problems were smoking-related. Widdick testified that she did not quit "cold turkey;" she still smoked occasionally after her illness, underwent hypnosis and struggled to quit. But she succeeded. Widdick said that she never told her father about her illness but her mother did. She also never told him about her hypnosis therapy, which she considered a factor, but not the main factor in her quitting smoking.
When asked whether her father knew about the warning labels and dangers of smoking from various ads and reports, Widdick said that she did not know how aware her father was. She testified that she had never seen anti-smoking ads until recently and that up until 1980 the warning labels on cigarettes did not outright say that smoking could kill. They only said that smoking posed a health risk. The defense also implied that it was peculiar that Widdick never talked to her father about the dangers of smoking, especially given the fact that he was trying to quit and she stopped because of health problems.
Brown & Williamson also pointed out to Widdick that as a smoker and a one-time cigarette salesperson for Winn-Dixie, Maddox had an opportunity to open and look at thousands of packs of cigarettes and read the warning labels. The defense was trying to show that Maddox could have known about the risks of cancer. In addition, it was revealed, years before his diagnosis of cancer, doctors told Maddox he suffered from cardiopulmonary disease, and he continued to smoke. Widdick responded that her father bore some responsibility for his death but not total responsibility. She and the other family members respected him as an adult and did not want to "beat it into him" that he should stop smoking.
Before Widdick's testimony, William Farone, who was a research chemist at Philip Morris from 1976 to 1984, was back on the stand for continued cross-examination. Brown & Williamson attorney John Nyhan elicited more testimony that Philip Morris, like the other tobacco giants, devoted millions of dollars to developing a safer cigarette, with lower tar and nicotine content. The defense suggested that the cigarette companies pursued this goal even though government support was lacking (the government stopped funding its own research into safer cigarettes). Nyhan also displayed Carltons to show that tar and nicotine content appeared on the packaging. The lightest Carltons, in fact, had lower tar and nicotine content than Farone's hypothetical safer cigarette.
During redirect, Farone said that he was told at Philip Morris that the company does not test its finished products or its competitor's products for carcinogenicity. Farone also said that he thought the FDA should regulate cigarettes, because then testing of the products would be conducted, and the results would be made public. Thus,consumers could make an informed choice. As it stands now, while some brands bear nicotine and tar level information on their packaging, the majority do not. Consequently, consumers are not able to make any kind of informed comparison. Farone also stressed that not all tar is equal, that toxicity is not simply a measure of the amount of tar in a cigarette .
Brown & Williamson is expected to start presenting its case when court resumes on Monday.
top of page
|
