Plaintiffs alleged that defendant tobacco companies had knowingly made false statements as to the health dangers of smoking and the addictive qualities of nicotine through advertising and public statements, and therefore breached an express warranty. However, the Court found that only one statement made before the Congress in 1994 was admissible, in which major cigarette manufacturer executives testified that they believed nicotine was not addictive. The Court found that the alleged misleading statement made by the Tobacco Institute, Inc. and The Council for Tobacco Research USA, Inc. did not constitute an express warranty, because it was not made by sellers of tobacco. Moreover, similar statements made by cigarette manufacturers were made 42 years after the plaintiff's addiction to tobacco and they could not have misled the plaintiff.
Cole, et al. v. The Tobacco Institute, Inc., et al., 278 F.3d 417 (5th Cir. 2001).
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.
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.
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.
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.
"As the district court correctly noted, any statement made before May 5, 1993 is barred by limitations. Thus, the only relevant representation relied upon by the Plaintiffs is a 1994 statement by major cigarette manufacturer executives before the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, that nicotine is not addictive. The Plaintiffs contend that, despite this statement in 1994, the Defendants have known cigarettes were addictive since the early 1960s....The Plaintiffs’ breach of express warranty claims against the remaining Defendants necessarily fail as well. Defendants’ statements before Congress were made forty-two years after the Plaintiffs became addicted to cigarettes. Thus, these statements cannot have formed the “basis of the bargain” for the Plaintiffs’ initial purchase of cigarettes. "
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.
Plaintiffs alleged that defendant tobacco companies had knowingly made false statements as to the health dangers of smoking and the addictive qualities of nicotine through advertising and public statements, and therefore breached an express warranty. However, the Court found that only one statement made before the Congress in 1994 was admissible, in which major cigarette manufacturer executives testified that they believed nicotine was not addictive. The Court found that the alleged misleading statement made by the Tobacco Institute, Inc. and The Council for Tobacco Research USA, Inc. did not constitute an express warranty, because it was not made by sellers of tobacco. Moreover, similar statements made by cigarette manufacturers were made 42 years after the plaintiff's addiction to tobacco and they could not have misled the plaintiff.