TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS

Broin v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc

Thirty non-smoking flight attendants brought a class action against a group of tobacco companies claiming that they suffered from health conditions allegedly resulting from continuous exposure to smoke emitted from the cigarettes of passengers during flights. The plaintiffs sought damages for the injuries under common law consumer protection theories, including strict tort liability, breach of implied warranty, negligence, fraud, misrepresentation and conspiracy to commit fraud. The trial court dismissed the class action, in part, because it found that the class representatives presented issues that potentially were not shared by all class members. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, reversed the trial court’s decision, finding that the test for establishing the requisite commonality of issues shared by members of a class was not as strict as the one that the trial court had applied. The Court ordered the reinstatement of the class action.

Broin, et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., 641 So.2d 888, District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District (1994).

  • United States
  • Mar 15, 1994
  • District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
View Case History Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff Norma Broin

Defendant

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

None

Type of Litigation

Personal Injury
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.

Tobacco Control Topics

Smoke Free Measures
Measures to reduce or eliminate exposure to tobacco smoke. (See FCTC Art. 8)

Substantive Issues

Consumer Protection Violation

Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.

Industry-Perpetrated Fraud
The tobacco industry may have perpetrated a fraud upon the public or the courts by presenting false information or deliberately hiding known-facts.
Procedural Defect
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.

Type of Tobacco Product

None

View Limitations
1400 I Street N.W.,
Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20005
United States of America

Phone: (202) 296-5469

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is a BBB-accredited charity and a
Guidestar Exchange Gold Participant.

© 2025 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids | Trademarks | Copyright | Privacy

Site created and maintained by