A class action lawsuit by buyers of light cigarettes against Imperial Tobacco Canada included the government of Canada as a third party. Imperial claimed that the Canadian government played a critical role in encouraging smokers to switch to light and mild cigarettes by developing and promoting strains of tobacco used in light and mild cigarettes and dictating the warnings printed on the cigarette packages. A lower court ruled that Canada was immune from liability and struck the third party claims against it. In this appeals court decision, the court reinstated a portion of the third party claims against the Canadian government for negligent misrepresentation (e.g., claims to the public about the safety of light and mild cigarettes) and the negligent development of light and mild tobacco strains. However, the appeals court agreed with the lower court’s decision striking the claims (1) that Imperial Tobacco it is entitled to contribution and indemnity from Canada on the basis of the consumer protection law and (2) that Canada owned a duty of care to Imperial with respect to the design of the tobacco strains used in light and mild cigarettes.
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.
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.
A class action lawsuit by buyers of light cigarettes against Imperial Tobacco Canada included the government of Canada as a third party. Imperial claimed that the Canadian government played a critical role in encouraging smokers to switch to light and mild cigarettes by developing and promoting strains of tobacco used in light and mild cigarettes and dictating the warnings printed on the cigarette packages. A lower court ruled that Canada was immune from liability and struck the third party claims against it. In this appeals court decision, the court reinstated a portion of the third party claims against the Canadian government for negligent misrepresentation (e.g., claims to the public about the safety of light and mild cigarettes) and the negligent development of light and mild tobacco strains. However, the appeals court agreed with the lower court’s decision striking the claims (1) that Imperial Tobacco it is entitled to contribution and indemnity from Canada on the basis of the consumer protection law and (2) that Canada owned a duty of care to Imperial with respect to the design of the tobacco strains used in light and mild cigarettes.