Limitations regarding the use of quotes
The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore brought an action against Phillip Morris and several other tobacco companies for manufacturing non-biodegradable cigarette filters while giving the misleading appearance of biodegradability, and in doing so, knowingly misleading smokers to litter the filters, causing harm to the environment.
The Plaintiffs alleged that the companies 1) violated the Baltimore City Health Code, 2) negligently created filters that had a defective design, 3) negligently failed to warn the public about the nonbiodegradability of the filters, and 4) led to Plaintiffs’ use of resources to clean the filters in violation of public nuisance and trespass regulations.
The Defendants moved to dismiss the case on the basis that state and federal law preempted the claims and that the tort claims of design defect and failure to warn were barred by the Master Settlement Agreement.
The Circuit Court of Baltimore City found that state and federal law did not preempt Baltimore’s claims, which sought compensatory damages for harms caused to the environment. The Court found that these effect of these claims was not to regulate the manufacturing or design of cigarette filters nor warning labels on cigarette packages, both of which were regulated by federal law. The Court also found that the claims were not barred by the Master Settlement Agreement, as the Attorney General of Maryland did not have the authority to act on behalf of Baltimore City when negotiating the settlement agreement.
The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claims for littering, trespass, and violation of the Baltimore City Health Code. The Court denied the motion to dismiss and allowed the case to continue to discovery for the Plaintiff’s claims of defective design, negligent failure to warn, and public nuisance.