3687 Warnings printed on cigarette packages do not prevent a products liability action for injuries resulting from smoking; expert testimony is admissible to guide the jury in determining the expectations of cigarette smokers who began smoking in 1961 before any package warnings were used or required; unreasonable danger is not an element of California products liability law; a person who was misled by a tobacco company and therefore unaware of the risks of smoking did not accept those risks and is not precluded from suing for damages; a statement made by a defendant who possesses or holds itself out to possess superior knowledge or special information regarding the subject matter of the statement may be lead to misrepresentation liability, even though the same statement would be an expression of opinion if made by any other person; a statement by a representative of a tobacco company to the effect that switching to that company's "Lights" would minimize risks was an express warranty for which products liability could be imposed; while entitlement to punitive damages must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, review of a punitive damages award is based on the sufficiency of evidence standard; evidence that justified a jury's conclusion that a tobacco company willfully concealed and suppressed information concerning the addictive and harmful properties of its product and consciously marketed its cigarettes to teenagers satisfied the requirements for punitive damages; such conduct was sufficiently reprehensible to justify a punitive damages award six times the compensatory damages award.

HENLEY v PHILIP MORRIS (Smoking Issues) 112 CA4 198 [See: CivC 1714.45; REST (2d) Torts 402A comment I; Henley v Philip Morris 93 CA4 824, T/AT 12/01; Myers v Philip Morris 28 C4 828, T/AT 9/02; Naegele v RJ Reynolds 28 C4 856, T/AT 9/02; Papike v Tambrands 107 F3 737; Soule v GM 8 C4 548, T/AT 11/94; Cronin v Olson 8 C3 121; Pacific Mut v Haslip 499 US 1; BMW v Gore 517 US 559; State Farm v Campbell 123 SCt 1513, T/AT 7/03]