Saying that cigarettes are so deadly that there's no such thing as safe use, Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that cigarette companies cannot cite smokers' knowledge of the health risks of smoking as a defense in wrongful-death lawsuits -- a common tactic used by industry lawyers across the country.

The Boston Globe reported May 19 that the ruling came in the case of a Douglas, Mass., man who died of lung cancer after years of smoking cigarettes made by Philip Morris. "Because no cigarette can be safely used for its ordinary purpose, smoking, there can be no nonunreasonable use of cigarettes," wrote Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall in the ruling.

Antismoking advocates expressed hope that other courts would adopt the ruling. "This could blow Big Tobacco out of the water," said John F. Banzhaf III, founder of Action on Smoking and Health. "What the court is saying is that this product is so dangerous that the plaintiff almost never can be said to have used it improperly."

David R. Geiger, a Boston attorney representing the industry-affiliated Product Liability Advisory Council, disputed the court's contention that there is no safe use of cigarettes. "What they mistakenly assumed is that cigarettes are inevitably dangerous, they basically harm everyone," said Geiger. "I worry that this [ruling] could be used not only in cigarette litigation but in litigation against manufacturers of all products that have inherent dangers."

''I'm very pleased, because it means to me that now my husband didn't die in vain," said plaintiff Brenda Haglund, who filed suit after her husband, Steven, died of lung cancer at age 51 in 2000. "He had eight months from diagnosis to time of death. It was absolutely horrendous. I pray I never witness anything like that again."

Richard Daynard, head of the Public Health Advocacy Institute, called the ruling "a home run for the plaintiff."