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 knowingly manufacturing non-biodegradable cigarette filters while giving the appearance of biodegradability, and in doing so misleading smokers to litter them causing harm to the environment. The Plaintiffs allege that the companies have 1) violated the Baltimore City Health Code, 2) negligently created filters that constitute a design defect, 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, among others, that state and federal law preempted the claims and that the tort claims of design defect and failure to warn are barred by the Master Settlement Agreement.
The Circuit Court of Baltimore City found that state and federal law do not preempt Baltimore’s claims, which seek compensatory damages for harms caused to the environment and does not seek to regulate the manufacturing or design of cigarette filters or implicate whether warning labels on cigarette packages are adequate. The Court also found that the claims are 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 on claims related to littering, trespass, and violation of Baltimore City Health Code. The Court denied the motion to dismiss and allowed the case to continue to the next stage, discovery, on Baltimore’s claims of defective design, negligent failure to warn, and public nuisance.