Plaintiffs sought damages for the death of a spouse/father, alleging that the victim was influenced by the defendant tobacco company's advertisements, which associated smoking to luxury and a good and healthy life. The defendant argued that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs had not filed the lawsuit in a timely way following the spouse/father's death. The Court found that the Brazilian Civil Code's provision at issue did not apply, and therefore, the Court upheld the lower court's decision in favor of the plaintiffs. The Court also required Souza Cruz to compensate the plaintiffs based on the principles of proportionality and reasonableness.
Maria de Fátima Almeida Dias, et al. v. Souza Cruz, CNJ: 7999179-72.2005.8.13.0024, 14ª CÂMARA CÍVEL do Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de Minas Gerais [14th Civil Chamber of the Court of Justice of Minas Gerais] (2009).
Brazil
Sep 3, 2009
Court of Justice of Minas Gerais, 14th Civil Chamber (14ª CÂMARA CÍVEL do Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de Minas Gerais)
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.
A violation of the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health. Public health advocates may claim the public’s right to health is violated by weak tobacco control measures, industry tactics, or an organization’s or smokers’ actions.
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.
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
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.
"Cigarette manufacturers always knew that cigarettes are addictive and cause innumerable diseases. Thus, in light of the knowledge and awareness of the harmful effects caused by cigarettes to the health of smokers, there is no doubt that the respondent acting in this fashion consciously creates the risk of the result, therefore assuming the obligation to make restitution. The dispute cannot only be examined from the standpoint of the industrial production of tobacco, which is actually legal, but also from the standpoint of the free choice of the consumer, for a strategy of attractive advertising has always been and continues to be executed, associating the product with an image of success, beauty, wealth, health, affirming in a misleading manner a factual situation that is absolutely false. Furthermore, speaking of consumption, it is observed in the record of the proceedings that the verification of the disease and the respective surgery occurred while the Code of Consumer Protection was fully in force, which took effect on March 12, 1991. Accordingly, since the Law invoked involves a standard for the regulation of public order and social interest, it does not matter if the victim started smoking before it entered into force, but rather only the consequences of smoking are relevant, which, in turn, were observed after the entry into force of the legislation in question, with the solution of the dispute also being subject to the aforementioned legislation. And with the establishment of the harmfulness of cigarettes as a highly dangerous product that poses risks to the whole community, they are defective because they do not offer the safety expected of them, and the manufacturer, the producer, the creator, national or foreign, and the importer, are liable, independently of the existence of guilt, for the reparation of damages caused to consumers, in proper application of objective liability as provided for in the Code of Consumer Defense."
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 sought damages for the death of a spouse/father, alleging that the victim was influenced by the defendant tobacco company's advertisements, which associated smoking to luxury and a good and healthy life. The defendant argued that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs had not filed the lawsuit in a timely way following the spouse/father's death. The Court found that the Brazilian Civil Code's provision at issue did not apply, and therefore, the Court upheld the lower court's decision in favor of the plaintiffs. The Court also required Souza Cruz to compensate the plaintiffs based on the principles of proportionality and reasonableness.