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
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.
"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."
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 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.