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.
Employees of a floating casino sued their employer for respiratory illnesses allegedly caused by exposure to secondhand smoke and the casino’s defective ventilation system. The employees sought class action status so that the approximately 100-150 affected employees could sue at one time. The court of appeals agreed that granting class action status was proper because, among other factors, (1) all class members are alleging that they suffered injury from secondhand smoke; (2) the claims of the parties are typical of the claims of the class since all class members have suffered occupation-related respiratory illness; (3) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; and (4) a class action is superior to other methods of resolving the case.