Summary

Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. (2003)

“ As a threshold matter, the fact that the public health community recommended to those smokers who could not quit that a lower delivery cigarette would reduce risk is not misleading. There is apparently no dispute that actual lower delivery of toxic substances may reduce harm. The fact that Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights did not reduce the actual delivery of harmful toxins does not convert the message from the public health community into a defense to Philip Morris' intentional fraudulent conduct. ”
Source: Wikisource

Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. (2003)

“ As the Fifth District recognized in Fopay, "the objective of admitting evidence as to defendant's wealth is to give the jury a true idea of defendant's ability to pay a punitive judgment." 334 N.E.2d at 94. As the Fifth District recognized almost twenty years later in Pickering, in order to get a "true idea" of a defendant's ability to pay, a plaintiff is entitled to discover and prove a defendant's "true net worth." Therefore, this Court will consider all evidence submitted by Plaintiffs to determine Philip Morris Incorporated's "true net worth." ”
Source: Wikisource

Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. (2003)

“ Plaintiffs second type of misrepresentation claim relates to Philip Morris' representations of lower tar (both explicitly and implicitly through the use of the descriptor "Lights" which communicates lower tar) . Here, even if for some consumers the statements relating to lower tar could be technically true as far as that statement goes (which is contrary to the evidence presented) , these statements are nevertheless fraudulent and misleading, because the tar from these "light" cigarettes is more harmful and higher in toxic substances. ”
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature