Lung Cancer-Cigarettes

To be blunt, the chances are extremely slim. First, product liability suits against the tobacco industry are extraordinarily difficult to win and I do not believe that any such suit as resulted in a payout to an individual plaintiff in Ohio (somebody may correct me). Second, tobacco lawsuits are extremely expensive and take years and years to prosecute. At most, there will be only a few law firms in your community willing to take on such a case — and even those may seek to associate one of only a handful of out-of-state law firms that have the financial wherewithal and knowledge required by this type of case. Third, as you allude, tobacco companies will defend any suit, in part, on the theory that the smoker knew at the time he or she began smoking that it was dangerous and addictive. While it is factually beneficial that the prospective plaintiff started smoking in the 1950’s (I can only think of one initially successful suit where the plaintiff started smoking after the 1964 Surgeon General’s report on tobacco and health), the fact the 1969 cigarette labeling act was not in effect when this person started smoking is not dispositive. While tobacco companies, and the government, worked hard to obscure the dangers of smoking, by the 1950’s there was plenty of public information that smoking was dangerous and additive. The most notable might be the 1952 Reader’s Digest article on the subject; an article that was widely excerpted by local newspapers. The fact is that people did know smoking was bad for them (think of the nick-name “coffin nail” for instance) and was “habit forming” (read: “addictive” in the modern usage) throughout the twentieth century, and certainly by 1950. In most cases, the tobacco industry has been successful convincing juries that plaintiffs knew the risks when they started smoking. In the end, finding a law firm willing to take on your case will be difficult. I would suggest that you contact the Ohio Bar Association or local anti-smoking organizations for suggestions.