The plaintiff, representing her deceased husband, a lifelong smoker, claimed that her husband had switched to smoking Carlton cigarettes in an attempt to reduce his risk of tobacco-related diseases based on advertisements of the cigarettes' manufacturer, American Tobacco (now Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.), that Carlton cigarettes contained the lowest amounts of tar and nicotine. Her husband nevertheless died of lung cancer two decades later. The plaintiff asserted nearly thirty claims, including negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and failure to warn, against all entities involved in the manufacture and sale of Carlton cigarettes during the period which her husband smoked cigarettes of that brand. She also sought punitive damages for the various civil violations. The Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas had dismissed the claims against the majority of the defendants, and a jury returned a verdict in favor of the remaining defendants. The plaintiff appealed the judgment as against defendants Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation and the Tobacco Institute before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, asserting eight different issues for review, including whether the Court of Common Pleas appropriately excluded the testimony of several expert and fact witnesses. The Superior Court affirmed the lower court's decision, including the decision to exclude the particular witnesses.
Eiser v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, et al., No. 191 EDA 2004, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (2006).
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.
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging.
(See FCTC Art. 11)
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.
"On these facts, Appellant failed to show the decedent's injury. i.e., contracting terminal lung cancer was the result of his justifiable reliance on any alleged misrepresentation regarding the safety of Carlton cigarettes. See Gibbs, supra. Instead, the evidence showed the decedent was aware of his increased risk of contracting lung cancer throughout his adult life as a smoker. including the significant number of years he smoked cigarettes other than Carlton. Although the decedent switched to Carlton allegedly to reduce potential health consequences, he understood smoking Carlton cigarettes was not risk free and that contracting lung cancer could result in any event. See id. Moreover, it is not disputed that Carlton cigarettes, in fact. tested lowest in tar and nicotine under the FTC method. Regardless of whether the FTC method accurately measured the amount of tar and nicotine delivered to human smokers, Appellees did not advertise that smoking Carlton cigarettes reduced the risk of contracting cancer. In fact, one of the several Surgeon General's warning labels on Carlton cigarettes affirmatively stated smoking causes cancer. Thus, Appellant's proof was insufficient to establish negligent misrepresentation."
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, representing her deceased husband, a lifelong smoker, claimed that her husband had switched to smoking Carlton cigarettes in an attempt to reduce his risk of tobacco-related diseases based on advertisements of the cigarettes' manufacturer, American Tobacco (now Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.), that Carlton cigarettes contained the lowest amounts of tar and nicotine. Her husband nevertheless died of lung cancer two decades later. The plaintiff asserted nearly thirty claims, including negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and failure to warn, against all entities involved in the manufacture and sale of Carlton cigarettes during the period which her husband smoked cigarettes of that brand. She also sought punitive damages for the various civil violations. The Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas had dismissed the claims against the majority of the defendants, and a jury returned a verdict in favor of the remaining defendants. The plaintiff appealed the judgment as against defendants Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation and the Tobacco Institute before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, asserting eight different issues for review, including whether the Court of Common Pleas appropriately excluded the testimony of several expert and fact witnesses. The Superior Court affirmed the lower court's decision, including the decision to exclude the particular witnesses.