Whiteley Jury Verdict Form


Whiteley Jury Verdict Form

March 20, 2000


[Question]

Answer

Jury Breakdown


Special Verdict No. 1 - Claim of Negligent Failure to Warn Prior to July 1, 1969

1) Did the use of the tobacco defendants' products in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable by the tobacco defendants involve a substantial danger that would not have been readily recognized by the ordinary user of the product?

Yes

10-2

2) Was the danger known or knowable in light of the generally recognized and best scientific and medical knowledge available at the time of manufacture and distribution?

Yes

11-1

3) Did the tobacco defendants fail to provide an adequate warning prior to July 1, 1969, of the danger of their products?

Yes

9-3

4) Was the failure to provide an adequate warning prior to July 1, 1969, a cause of injury and damage to Leslie Whiteley?

No

3-9


Special Verdict No. 2 - Claim of Negligence in Design

1) Were the tobacco company defendants negligent in the design of their products?

Yes

9-3

2) Was the negligence of the tobacco defendants a cause of injury and damage to Leslie Whiteley?

Yes

9-3


Special Verdict No. 3

1) Have you found that the tobacco defendants mad a representation as to a past or existing material fact or that, while under no duty to speak, they nevertheless did so, but did not speak honestly or made a misleading statement or suppressed a fact which materially qualified that which was stated?

Yes

11-1

2) Was the representation false, or misleading in the way described in Question No. I above?

Yes

11-1

3) Did the tobacco defendants know that the representation was false, or misleading in the way described in Question No. 1, when the representation was made or did defendants make the representation recklessly without knowing whether it was true or false

Yes

11-1

4) Did the tobacco defendants make the representation, or mislead or suppress a fact in the way described in Question No. 1, with an intent to defraud Leslie Whiteley, that is, for the purpose of inducing her to rely upon it and to act or to refrain from

Yes

9-3

5) Was Leslie Whiteley unaware of the falsity of the representation or the misleading nature of the representation?

Yes

10-2

6) Did Leslie Whiteley act in reliance upon the truth of the representation or the non-misleading nature of the representation?

Yes

9-3

7) Was Leslie Whiteley justified in her reliance?

Yes

9-3

8) As a result of her reliance, did Leslie Whiteley sustain damage?

Yes

9-3


Special Verdict No, 4 - Claim of Fraud by Concealment Prior to July 1, 1969

1) Did the tobacco defendants conceal or suppress a material fact prior to July 1, 1969?

Yes

11-1

2) Did the tobacco defendants, prior to July 1, 1969, know a material fact and also know that such fact was neither known nor readily accessible to Leslie Whiteley?

Yes

10-2

3) Did the tobacco defendants intentionally conceal or suppress the fact with the intent to defraud Leslie Whiteley?

No

3-9

4) Was Leslie Whiteley unaware of the fact?

not addressed

5) Would Leslie Whiteley have acted as she did if she had known of the concealed or suppressed fact?

not addressed

6) Did the Concealment or suppression of the fact cause Leslie Whiteley to sustain damage?

not addressed


Special Verdict No. 5 - Claim of Fraud by False Promise

1) Did the tobacco defendants make a promise as to a material matter?

Yes

12-0

2) At the time the tobacco defendants made the promise, did they intend not to perform it?

Yes

10-2

3) Did the tobacco defendants make the promise with an intent to defraud Leslie Whiteley, that is, for the purpose of inducing her to rely upon it and to act or refrain from acting in reliance upon it?

Yes

10-2

4) Was Leslie Whiteley unaware of the tobacco defendants' intention not to perform the promise?

Yes

12-0

5) Did Leslie Whiteley act in reliance upon the promise?

Yes

9-3

6) Was Leslie Whiteley justified in relying upon the promise made by the tobacco defendants?

Yes

9-3

7) As a result of her reliance upon the tobacco defendants' promise, did Leslie Whiteley sustain damage?

Yes

9-3


Special Verdict No. 6 - Claim of Fraud by Negligent Misrepresentation

1) Did the tobacco defendants make a representation as to a past or existing material fact?

Yes

12-0

2) Was the representation untrue?

Yes

11-1

3) Regardless of their actual belief, did the tobacco defendants make the representation without any reasonable ground for believing it to be true?

Yes

10-2

4) Was the representation made with the intent to induce Leslie Whiteley to rely upon it?

Yes

10-2

5) Was Leslie Whiteley unaware of the falsity of the representation?

Yes

10-2

6) Did Leslie Whiteley act in reliance upon the truth of the representation?

Yes

10-2

7) Was Leslie Whiteley justified in relying upon the truth of the representation?

Yes

9-3

8) As a result of her reliance upon the truth of the representation, did Leslie Whiteley sustain damage?

Yes

9-3

No. 7 - Claim of Conspiracy to Misrepresent Facts Both Before and After July 1. 1969

1) Did defendants Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds, together or with other tobacco companies, or with others, enter into an agreement to misrepresent a fact regarding the health effects of cigarette smoking at any time, which includes speaking dishonestly, making a misleading statement, or suppressing a fact which materially qualifies that which has been stated?

Yes

9-3

2) Was such agreement entered into with the intent on the part of Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds, together or with other tobacco companies, or with others, to defraud the public, including Leslie Whiteley?

Yes

9-3

3) Pursuant to such agreement, did Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds, together or with other tobacco companies, or with others, misrepresent a fact regarding the health effects of cigarette smoking at any time with the intent to defraud the public, including Leslie Whiteley?

Yes

9-3

4) Was Leslie Whiteley unaware of the misrepresented fact?

Yes

10-2

5) Would Leslie Whiteley have acted as she did if she had known of the misrepresented fact?

Yes

10-2

6) Did the misrepresentation of the fact at any time cause Leslie Whiteley to sustain damage?

not addressed


Special Verdict No. 8 - Claim of Conspiracy to Conceal Facts Prior to July 1, 1969

1) Did defendants Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds, together or with other tobacco companies, or with others, enter into an agreement to conceal information regarding the health effects of cigarette smoking prior to July 1, 1969?

Yes

9-3

2) Was such agreement entered into with the intent on the part of Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds, together or with other tobacco companies, or with others, to defraud the public, including Leslie Whiteley?

Yes

9-3

3) Pursuant to such agreement, did Philip Mortis and RJ Reynolds, together or with other tobacco companies, or with others, conceal a fact regarding the health effects of cigarette smoking prior to July 1, 1969, with the intent to defraud the public, including Leslie Whiteley?

Yes

9-3

4) Prior to July 1, 1969, was Leslie Whiteley unaware of the concealed fact?

Yes

12-0

5) Would Leslie Whiteley have acted as she did if she had known of the concealed fact?

Yes

9-3

6) Did the concealment of the fact before July 1, 1969, cause Leslie Whiteley to sustain damage?

not addressed


Special Verdict No. 9 - Claim of Design Defect

1) Was there a defect in the design of a product supplied by Metalclad?

Yes

11-1

2) Did the defect in design exist at the time the product left Metalclad's possession?

Yes

11-1

3) Was the defect in design a cause of injury to Leslie Whiteley?

No

0-12

4) Did Leslie Whiteley's injury result from a use of product that was reasonably foreseeable by Metalclad?

not addressed


Special Verdict No. 10 - Claim of Damages to Plaintiff

1) What is the total amount of economic damages, if any, sustained by Leslie Whiteley and caused by the wrongful conduct or defective products of the defendants upon which you base your finding of liability?

$972,200

2) What is the total amount of non-economic damages, if any, sustained by Leslie Whiteley and caused by the wrongful conduct or defective products of the defendants upon which you base your finding of liability?

$500,000


Special Verdict No. 11 - Loss of Consortium

1) Has plaintiff Leonard Whiteley suffered a loss of consortium as a result of plaintiff Leslie Whiteley's injury, damage, loss, or harm?

Yes

12-0

2) What do you find to be the total amount of damages, if any, sustained by plaintiff Leonard Whiteley as a result of his loss of consortium?

$250,000


Special Verdict No. 12 - Apportionment of Fault

Assuming that 100% represents the total causes of Leslie Whiteley's injuries, what percentage of this 100% is attributable to the wrongful conduct or defective products of defendants Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds and/or Metalclad Insulation, and what percentage of this 100% is attributable to the defective products of all other asbestos suppliers?

50% MO and 50% RJ.


This document's URL is: http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/000320whiteleyjuryform.html


***********************
Go To: Tobacco BBS HomePage / Resources Page / Health Page / Documents Page / Culture Page / Activism Page
***********************

END OF DOCUMENT