Pubdate: Feb 27-28, 1999 Source: International Herald-Tribune Copyright: International Herald Tribune 1999 Contact: http://www.iht.com/ Page: 4 Author: Tom Buerkle EFFORT TO SUE CIGARETTE FIRMS FAILS IN BRITAIN LONDON - The most ambitious attempt to sue tobacco companies outside the United States collapsed on Friday after a High Court judge dismissed suits brought by 46 cancer sufferers against Britain's two leading cigarette makers. The ruling greatly diminished the prospect of successful litigation in Britain and demonstrated the legal and cultural differences that have prevented anti-tobacco forces from adopting American-style court tactics, according to legal experts and industry executives. The dismissal of the suits "sends a signal to others contemplating similar action about their prospects of success, " said Gareth Davis, chief executive of Imperial Tobacco Group PLC, one of the two defendants in the case. "This is a great disappointment," said Bill O'Neill, head of tobacco policy at the British Medical Association, which represents most of the country's doctors. He said Britain had lost its best chance to "force representatives of industry into the witness box to get at the truth of what has gone on in this country. " Judge Michael Wright dismissed the suits after the plaintiffs and their lawyers decided to abandon their action following a damaging pre-trial ruling earlier this month. In that ruling, Judge Wright rejected eight test cases because the plaintiffs filed their suits more than three years after being diagnosed with cancer, exceeding the statute of limitations under British law. The judge also appeared to question the plaintiff's underlying argument that the companies were negligent for failing to reduce the tar content of cigarettes in the 1950s and 1960s, calling it "speculative." Unlike recent successful suits in the United States, the plaintiffs did not rely on the argument that smoking was addictive. "There was just no point in continuing," said Martyn Day of the law firm Leigh, Day & Co., who initiated the case. The judge "made it clear he didn't like the case as a whole," he said. In return for dropping the case, Imperial & Gallaher Group PLC, the other defendant, agreed not to pursue the plaintiffs and their lawyers for legal costs, which Imperial alone put at UKP 7 million ($11.2 million). The plaintiffs' lawyers also agreed not to take new action against the two companies for 10 years, or against any other tobacco company for five years. The withdrawal still leaves seven plaintiffs in the case, but with no lawyers to represent them and the possibility of being bankrupted by legal costs, they were expected to abandon their cases by an April 16 deadline. "The chance of other lawyers' being prepared to take this through is nil," Mr. Day said. "It demonstrates the extent to which the U.S. is different," said Michael Prideaux, a spokesman for British American Tobacco PLC, which was not involved in the case but has participated in a $300 billion national settlement in the United States. "No other country has adopted the UWS. Iegal system in its full glory." - --- MAP posted-by: Derek Rea