From the early 1950s until his death from smoking-related lung cancer in 1997, Williams smoked cigarettes, primarily the Marlboro brand, eventually developing a habit of three packs a day. At that point, he spent half his waking hours smoking and was highly addicted to tobacco, both physiologically and psychologically.

Although, at the urging of his wife and children, he made several attempts to stop smoking, each time he failed, in part because of his addiction. When his family told him that cigarettes were dangerous to his health, he replied that the cigarette companies would not sell them if they were as dangerous as his family claimed.

When one of his sons tried to get him to read articles about the dangers of smoking, he responded by fi nding published assertions that cigarette smoking was not dangerous.

However, when Williams learned that he had inoperable lung cancer, he felt betrayed, stating, “Those darn cigarette people fi nally did it. They were lying all the time.” He died about six months after his diagnosis. Williams’s widow sued, demanding both compensatory and punitive damages, claiming that the manufacturer of the cigarettes was responsible for her husband’s death. Is Williams’s widow likely to be successful in her lawsuit? [ Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Williams , 540 U.S. 801, 124 S. Ct. 56, 157 L. Ed. 2d 12 (Oregon).]