Little v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, et al.
The plaintiff, the widow of a man who had died of a smoking-related illness, claimed that a defendant tobacco company had misrepresented its "low-tar" and "low-nicotine" cigarettes as a healthier cigarette than regular brands and that her late husband had relied on such statements to his detriment. The plaintiff claimed that her husband had switched to smoking a particular brand of the company's cigarettes based on statements made by the company concerning low-tar and nicotine cigarettes, thinking that it would act as a "stepping stone" to help him quit smoking when, in fact, the company had knowledge that smoking such brands of cigarettes did not actually mitigate health risks to consumers. The company requested the Court to declare that there were no issues worthy of adjudication. The Court denied the motion, finding that there were unresolved issues concerning whether the particular brand at issue offered a safer and healthier cigarette in fact, as well as whether it was reasonable for the plaintiff's late husband to have relied on statements of the defendant company concerning the product when he chose to switch to smoking that particular brand.
Little v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, et al., 243 F.Supp.2d 480, United States District Court, District of South Carolina, Charleston Division (2001).
United States
Jan 4, 2001
United States District Court, District of South Carolina, Charleston Division
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.
A plaintiff’s liability may be limited where she has accepted the risks and consequences of her behavior. The tobacco industry may argue that the dangers of smoking are well known, so liability should be limited.
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.
"Accordingly, evidence has been produced from which a reasonable jury could conclude that B & W knowingly made misleading material statements with regard to its low-tar and nicotine cigarettes, with the hope of exploiting the public's confusion and misperception. Furthermore, a reasonable jury could conclude that Mr. Little, without knowing such statements were misleading, reasonably relied on such statements to his detriment. Accordingly, the court denies B & W's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs fraud claims."
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, the widow of a man who had died of a smoking-related illness, claimed that a defendant tobacco company had misrepresented its "low-tar" and "low-nicotine" cigarettes as a healthier cigarette than regular brands and that her late husband had relied on such statements to his detriment. The plaintiff claimed that her husband had switched to smoking a particular brand of the company's cigarettes based on statements made by the company concerning low-tar and nicotine cigarettes, thinking that it would act as a "stepping stone" to help him quit smoking when, in fact, the company had knowledge that smoking such brands of cigarettes did not actually mitigate health risks to consumers. The company requested the Court to declare that there were no issues worthy of adjudication. The Court denied the motion, finding that there were unresolved issues concerning whether the particular brand at issue offered a safer and healthier cigarette in fact, as well as whether it was reasonable for the plaintiff's late husband to have relied on statements of the defendant company concerning the product when he chose to switch to smoking that particular brand.