The son of a woman who died of lung cancer sued Lorillard Tobacco Company for wrongful death. A Massachusetts court awarded both compensatory and punitive damages to the son and to his mother’s estate. The appeals court upheld the finding of wrongful death based on Lorillard’s breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The court said it was reasonable for a jury to find that Newport cigarettes were unreasonably dangerous (known as a “design defect”) and that Lorillard failed to provide adequate warning about the health hazards and addictiveness of Newport cigarettes prior to 1970 (known as a “warning defect”). However, the appeals court eliminated the punitive damages, which were based on the claim for negligence, which the court found it could not uphold for procedural reasons. The appeals court remanded (sent back to the lower court) the issue of whether Lorillard is liable for punitive damages based on violation of Massachusetts' wrongful death law.
Evans v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 465 Mass. 411 (2013)
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.
"Compensatory damages. The defendant contends that the award of compensatory damages, even after being reduced by the remittitur, was excessive. The judge granted Lorillard's motion for remittitur in part, finding that, "[g]iven the extent of [Marie's] pain, suffering and death," a compensatory award of $25 million for Marie's conscious pain and suffering would be "appropriate, reasonable and just," and that "the largest reasonable compensatory award for [the plaintiff's] significant loss is $10 million." "[A]n award of damages must stand unless to make it or to permit it to stand was an abuse of discretion on the part of the court below, amounting to an error of law." Mirageas v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 391 Mass. 815, 822 (1984), quoting Bartley v. Phillips, 317 Mass. 35, 43 (1944). "It is an error of law if 'the damages awarded were greatly disproportionate to the injury proven or represented a miscarriage of justice.' " Labonte v. Hutchins & Wheeler, 424 Mass. 813, 824 (1997), quoting doCanto v. Ametek, Inc., 367 Mass. 776, 787 (1975). We find no abuse of discretion; the judge's remittitur award was not disproportionate to the injuries suffered and did not represent a miscarriage of justice."
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 son of a woman who died of lung cancer sued Lorillard Tobacco Company for wrongful death. A Massachusetts court awarded both compensatory and punitive damages to the son and to his mother’s estate. The appeals court upheld the finding of wrongful death based on Lorillard’s breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The court said it was reasonable for a jury to find that Newport cigarettes were unreasonably dangerous (known as a “design defect”) and that Lorillard failed to provide adequate warning about the health hazards and addictiveness of Newport cigarettes prior to 1970 (known as a “warning defect”). However, the appeals court eliminated the punitive damages, which were based on the claim for negligence, which the court found it could not uphold for procedural reasons. The appeals court remanded (sent back to the lower court) the issue of whether Lorillard is liable for punitive damages based on violation of Massachusetts' wrongful death law.