The plaintiff sought leave to bring proceedings for damages against his employer, the State of Victoria, alleging that he had suffered from a serious injury arising out of his employment. He was a teacher in various public schools and had been exposed to heavy environmental smoke in staff rooms throughout the 1970s and 1980s. The plaintiff had suffered asthma since childhood, which was later aggravated. In addition, he developed emphysema, chronic bronchitis and bronchiectasis, and was on the waiting list for a double lung transplant.
The Court granted the plaintiff's application, noting that the aggravation of his condition arose out of his employment and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.
Brown v. State of Victoria [2001] VCC 13 (30 May 2001)
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
None
Substantive Issues
None
Type of Tobacco Product
None
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.
"I view the evidence of the medicos as strongly supportive of the plaintiff’s case. They are unanimous that there is a causative link between passive smoking and the plaintiff’s condition, at least as far as there is an asthma component. The bulk of them seem to accept that the plaintiff’s underlying condition is likely to be aggravated by the exposure to passive smoking. The bulk of them seem to accept that the degree and rate of acceleration of the plaintiff’s disease will be increased the greater the exposure to passive smoking. In my opinion, the plaintiff, whose longstanding pre-existing
underlying condition was then not serious, suffered aggravation or acceleration of that condition between 26 February 1986 and 19 October 1997, which rendered his condition then and thereafter "serious" by reason of exposure during those years to passive smoking in the staffroom at Coomoora. The aggravation increased the rate of deleterious acceleration of his underlying chest condition over and above its rate of progression unaggravated. It had a serious effect on his capacity for physical activity. I think that the plaintiff’s exposure as an incident of his employment at Coomoora from August 1985, considering its degree and intensity, was a very significant factor in bringing forward his need for a double lung transplant by some five to ten years according to Professor Pain (T 89 and 90), and in reducing his life expectancy from 70 to 80% five-year survival to 50% two-year survival according to Professor Williams (T 17) (CB 34). There is no question that those consequences are both serious and long-term so far as the plaintiff’s lung functioning is concerned."
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 plaintiff sought leave to bring proceedings for damages against his employer, the State of Victoria, alleging that he had suffered from a serious injury arising out of his employment. He was a teacher in various public schools and had been exposed to heavy environmental smoke in staff rooms throughout the 1970s and 1980s. The plaintiff had suffered asthma since childhood, which was later aggravated. In addition, he developed emphysema, chronic bronchitis and bronchiectasis, and was on the waiting list for a double lung transplant.
The Court granted the plaintiff's application, noting that the aggravation of his condition arose out of his employment and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.