The family of Burl Butler, a nonsmoker, sued the tobacco companies alleging that Mr. Butler's cancer was the result of years of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the barber shop that he owned and operated in Laurel, Miss., for more than 30 years.

The case was the second individual ETS lawsuit to go to trial. In the first such case, which was tried last year in Indiana, a jury also returned a verdict in favor of the tobacco companies.

"Mr. Butler's death was unfortunate, and we sympathize with his family. No one knows why bad things happen to good people, but there was simply no persuasive evidence presented to the jury that ETS was responsible," said William S. Ohlemeyer of Shook, Hardy and Bacon, attorney for Philip Morris and Lorillard Tobacco Co.

"This case was not a referendum on tobacco issues or the political correctness of tobacco or its use -- it was about the facts and circumstances surrounding Mr. Butler's illness and death," he said.

"We are grateful the jury has found in our favor," said Andrew R. McGaan, attorney for Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, one of a number of tobacco company defendants in the case.

"The industry showed that credible evidence does not exist to show that ETS causes lung cancer in nonsmokers even at the highest levels likely to be encountered in real-world environments," McGaan said. "The evidence showed that Butler was exposed to very low levels of ETS in his barber shop. Further, it was shown that the extraordinarily weak statistical associations found in studies the plaintiffs relied on did not apply to the facts of this case."

"The evidence presented in this trial showed that much of the science known about ETS constituents and exposure levels has been conducted or supported by the industry over many years -- and that many of these findings regarding ETS have been published in the peer reviewed scientific literature," he said.

"The overwhelming majority of statistical studies investigating whether tobacco smoke in the air might be associated with lung cancer in non-smokers have reported no meaningful increase in risk," McGaan said.

Evidence presented at the three-week trial revealed that Mr. Butler had an unusually high incidence of cancer in his immediate family and expert testimony showed that Mr. Butler had at least four primary cancers at the time of his death.

Several Laurel area residents who were customers of Mr. Butler's barber shop also testified that, throughout the years, there was much less smoke present in the shop than the plaintiffs' contended.

The jury deliberated less than two hours before returning its verdict in favor of the tobacco companies.

"While ETS is an annoyance to some and an irritant to others, the scientific evidence presented during the trial showed that there is little persuasive evidence linking ETS to cancer or other serious illnesses," said Jeff Furr of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, attorney for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

"This verdict shows once again that, given all the facts, juries can separate evidence from emotion and reason from rhetoric," Furr said.