United States

The plaintiff, representing her deceased husband, a lifelong smoker, claimed that her husband had switched to smoking Carlton cigarettes in an attempt to reduce his risk of tobacco-related diseases based on advertisements of the cigarettes' manufacturer, American Tobacco (now Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.), that Carlton cigarettes contained the lowest amounts of tar and nicotine.  Her husband nevertheless died of lung cancer two decades later. The plaintiff asserted nearly thirty claims, including negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and failure to warn, against all entities involved in the manufacture and sale of Carlton cigarettes during the period which her husband smoked cigarettes of that brand.  She also sought punitive damages for the various civil violations. The Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas had dismissed the claims against the majority of the defendants, and a jury returned a verdict in favor of the remaining defendants. The plaintiff appealed the judgment as against defendants Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation and the Tobacco Institute before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, asserting eight different issues for review, including whether the Court of Common Pleas appropriately excluded the testimony of several expert and fact witnesses. The Superior Court affirmed the lower court's decision, including the decision to exclude the particular witnesses.