In June 1997, plaintiff’s decedent William Major, a marine architect consultant in his mid-50s, was diagnosed with lung cancer, despite having quit cigarette smoking in 1988. He died the following year from complications of the cancer at the age of 55. Major’s wife, Tajie Major, sued Lorillard Tobacco Co., Philip Morris USA Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. for wrongful death, asserting claims of products liability and negligence. Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds resolved their cases with Mrs. Major prior to trial. The matter continued to trial against Lorillard. Mrs. Major claimed that her husband started smoking cigarettes in the early 1960s while he was a student at Auburn University in its Navy ROTC program, well before the government mandated the first warnings on packages of cigarettes in 1966, and that Major was addicted to nicotine by the time he first saw any warnings. She further claimed that tobacco companies had known of the lung cancer risk dating back to the 1950s. Mrs. Major claimed that her husband’s consumption of two brands — Lorillard’s Kent and Newport cigarettes — were substantial contributing factors to his developing lung cancer, along with the other lung carcinogens (primarily tar) he was exposed to, including those in Philip Morris’ Marlboro brand and R.J. Reynolds’ Winston brand. She claimed that all of these brands contributed to the aggregate dose of carcinogens that caused his lung cancer. She claimed that the evidence was consistent with mainstream medical literature describing carcinogens. Mrs. Major specifically argued that during the manufacturing process, additives, such as menthol in Newports, were included to not only allow an otherwise harsh product to be inhaled more easily, but also to enhance the nicotine impact. She claimed that Lorillard expended millions of dollars to assess the effects of content manipulation and adulteration, not only of the tobacco itself and the additives, but also of the paper that encased the tobacco and the filters through which the smoke itself was inhaled into the lungs. Mrs. Major further argued that Lorillard ignored design innovations and alternatives in cigarettes that would have had a positive impact in regard to health and safety. Instead, she claimed, the manufacturers elected to enhance nicotine delivery in order to increase consumer addiction and increase profits. As such, she argued that Lorillard failed to meet the California consumer safety-based risk-benefit test for design defect, given the ability to manufacture safer designed cigarettes. Lorillard argued that Major did not smoke any Lorillard cigarettes until 1973, and that every pack of Lorillard cigarettes he smoked contained a warning of the health risks of cigarette smoking. The company further argued that its cigarettes were not negligently or defectively designed, because the design reduced the risk of an inherently dangerous product. Lorillard also argued that it offered lower tar products that Major chose not to smoke, and that his smoking of Lorillard cigarettes was not a substantial factor in whether he would contract lung cancer, in light of the combined effects of his occupational exposure to asbestos while serving in the Navy from 1965 to 1991 and his other exposures to lung carcinogens. , William Major died of lung cancer in 1998. He left behind his wife and two adult children. Mrs. Major, via her forensic economist, presented $2.5 million in her husband’s total economic lost wages damages (reduced to present value), $1.4 million in lost pension and Social Security benefits (owing to Major’s early death at age 55), and $330,000 in lost household services. She also sought $9.7 million in past non-economic losses and $2.7 million in future non-economic losses, to the end of her husband’s normal life expectancy.