Eastman v. Chief Executive of the Department of Justice and Community Safety
The plaintiff was serving a life sentence at the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC), managed by the defendant. He alleged that his treatment at the AMC contravened the Corrections Management Act 2007 and the Human Rights Act 2004. He complained about several matters, including that he had been exposed to second-hand smoke through the conduct of AMC officers who had facilitated and permitted prisoners smoking in areas where it was not permitted due to the prison's Smoking Policy. He alleged that he suffered asthma and sought damages.
Mansfield J rejected the plaintiff's claim relating to passive smoking, largely because there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the Smoking Policy was not enforced.
Eastman v. Chief Executive of the Department of Justice and Community Safety [2011] ACTSC 33 (4 March 2011)
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 claim of a violation of a tobacco control law or statute.
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.
"On the evidence, I do not consider that the plaintiff should be awarded damages for being exposed to the smoke from other prisoners’ smoking, with the tolerance or support of certain officers of the defendant. I assume for the purposes of this step that, in the circumstances, the defendant is vicariously liable for their conduct and that, in all the circumstances, their conduct might render them also personally liable for any loss or damage suffered by the plaintiff. I do not need to make findings specifically on those two assumptions for present purposes. That is because it is not proved that their conduct has caused the plaintiff any loss or damage. He gave no real evidence of suffering from the consequences of passive smoking, other than to say that he is asthmatic. He gave no evidence about the extent of his exposure to passive smoking in the past, or indeed since he has been at the AMC. There was no medical evidence to indicate that he presently suffers from the consequences of passive smoking, or did so even temporarily in late 2009. I decline to find that, even if he was exposed to passive smoking whilst he was in the Management Unit in late 2009 and early 2010, he suffered any detriment as a result. I am not satisfied that he did so."
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 was serving a life sentence at the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC), managed by the defendant. He alleged that his treatment at the AMC contravened the Corrections Management Act 2007 and the Human Rights Act 2004. He complained about several matters, including that he had been exposed to second-hand smoke through the conduct of AMC officers who had facilitated and permitted prisoners smoking in areas where it was not permitted due to the prison's Smoking Policy. He alleged that he suffered asthma and sought damages.
Mansfield J rejected the plaintiff's claim relating to passive smoking, largely because there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the Smoking Policy was not enforced.