Eiser v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

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 that brand of cigarettes.  She also sought punitive damages for the various civil violations. The Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas dismissed the claims against the majority of the defendants, and a jury returned a verdict in favor of the remaining defendants. On appeal, the court found that the plaintiff failed to adequately present any issues for review because the number of claims she included in her appeal violated the purpose of judicial review. The court affirmed the original judgment accordingly. 

Eiser v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, et al., No. 4367 MARCH.TERM 1999, Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County (2005).

  • United States
  • Feb 1, 2005
  • Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County

Parties

Plaintiff Lois Eiser, Administratrix of the Estate of William M. Eiser and Lois Eiser, Individually

Defendant

  • American Brands, Inc.
  • American Tobacco Co., Inc.
  • BATUS Holdings, Inc.
  • British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited
  • Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation
  • Council for Tobacco Research, USA
  • Fortune Brands
  • Jetro Cash & Carry Enterprises Inc.
  • Joseph Gatta & Sons, Inc.
  • Pennsylvania Distributors Association
  • Tobacco Institute

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"In her next claim, Plaintiff asserts that the Court committed reversible error by refusing to allow the introduction of a consent agreement reached in 1994 between the American Tobacco Company and the Federal Trade Commission regarding certain advertising for Carlton cigarettes. Said evidence was properly deemed inadmissible because: 1) it is hornbook law that evidence pertaining to a settlement agreement is inadmissible; 2) the evidence was irrelevant to the issue whether the Plaintiff was misled by the advertising in question; and 3) it would have been unduly prejudicial to the defense to allow it since the jury might have adopted the FTC's findings for its own without first making an assessment of the merits (or lack thereof) of the Plaintiff evidence."