Panama, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al.
Two foreign governments claimed that manufacturers of tobacco products consumed within the foreign nations should be held liable for the harmful health effects of smoking, arguing that the companies must reimburse the governments for medical care funded for their citizens due to illnesses resulting from tobacco consumption. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' arguments for failure to satisfy proximate cause, finding the claim to be too remote to be actionable. The Court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that their quasi-sovereign interest to recover on behalf of their citizens afforded them parens patriae standing, under which the plaintiffs had authority to act on behalf of those affected by tobacco consumption. Consequently, the Court ordered the dismissal of all claims against all defendants.
Panama, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., 2006 WL 1933740, Superior Court of the State of Delaware (2006).
United States
Jul 13, 2006
Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County
Governments or insurance agencies may seek reimbursement from the tobacco companies for health care costs related to tobacco. The most famous example is the case brought by individual states in the U.S.A. that resulted in the Master Settlement Agreement.
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.
"Acting as a healthcare provider, the Foreign Governments cannot establish proximate causation of their injury because their injury is only related to Moving Defendants via the actions or inactions of their citizens. Standing between Moving Defendants' alleged tortious conduct and the Foreign Governments' injury are their citizen smokers. Their smokers break the chain of causation and disrupt the "natural and continuous sequence" between the act and the injury."
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.
Two foreign governments claimed that manufacturers of tobacco products consumed within the foreign nations should be held liable for the harmful health effects of smoking, arguing that the companies must reimburse the governments for medical care funded for their citizens due to illnesses resulting from tobacco consumption. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' arguments for failure to satisfy proximate cause, finding the claim to be too remote to be actionable. The Court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that their quasi-sovereign interest to recover on behalf of their citizens afforded them parens patriae standing, under which the plaintiffs had authority to act on behalf of those affected by tobacco consumption. Consequently, the Court ordered the dismissal of all claims against all defendants.