Tobacco Immunity Leaves Claims Smoking in Court
By Robert Warne - August 9, 2002With roughly 65 anti-tobacco lawsuits pending in California, the state’s Supreme Court made two key rulings Aug. 5 that could affect the outcome of future smoking claims. The matter at hand clarified how courts should treat evidence from 1988 to 1998 when cigarette makers were granted immunity from liabilities.
Plaintiffs argued that when the legislative protection was repealed in 1998, it eliminated the immunity granted to cigarette makers for the 10-year period.
The defendants argued that when the immunity law was passed in 1988 it protected tobacco companies from litigation from prior years as well.
Justice Joyce Kennard in Myers vs. Philip Morris Cos. wrote, “With respect to conduct falling outside the 10-year immunity period, the tobacco companies are not shielded from product liability lawsuits.”
In Naegele vs. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Kennard defined what could be considered as an exception to the 10-year immunity legislation. The legislation “does not shield a tobacco company from liability for injuries or deaths caused by something not inherent in the product itself.”
This is in reference to allegations that manufacturers added ammonia to tobacco to increase its addictive qualities.
The court’s rulings can be viewed as a straight down the middle decision.
Attorney Daniel U. Smith told the Los Angeles Times that the rulings were, “a major victory for smoking victims in California.” He believes that smokers’ cases will prevail in court without evidence from 1988 to 1998.
R.J. Reynolds General Counsel, Charles A. Blixt, “called the rulings ‘a victory for fundamental fairness,’ because they did not hold the industry responsible for actions taken during the 10 years,” according to the Times.
Regarding the one exception to the 10-year period of immunity, another R.J. Reynolds lawyer told the Times that plaintiffs would not be able to prove that tobacco companies adulterated their products to make them more dangerous.
These two decisions have an immediate bearing on three multimillion-dollar verdicts in California where evidence during the 10-year window was admitted. The verdicts in these three cases are expected to be appealed.
| 
__May11th2017.gif)
.gif)