The plaintiff alleged that she suffered chronic obstructive airways disease as a result of exposure to second-hand smoke while employed by the defendant. She claimed that she had been exposed to a work area full of smoke for 5 years but she had never been a smoker.
The defendant alleged that the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred because she had become aware of her injury more than 3 years before bringing the case, in contravention of the Limitations of Actions Act.
Judge Misso found in favor of the defendant, ruling that the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred. However, Judge Misso also commented that if the plaintiff had made an application for serious injury earlier, then she would have been successful: based on the medical evidence, she had proved all of the elements necessary to establish that she had suffered a serious injury which resulted in a long-term impairment of the function of her lungs.
Note: this decision was successfully appealed, see Pattison v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd [2013] VSCA 121.
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.
The plaintiff alleged that she suffered chronic obstructive airways disease as a result of exposure to second-hand smoke while employed by the defendant. She claimed that she had been exposed to a work area full of smoke for 5 years but she had never been a smoker.
The defendant alleged that the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred because she had become aware of her injury more than 3 years before bringing the case, in contravention of the Limitations of Actions Act.
Judge Misso found in favor of the defendant, ruling that the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred. However, Judge Misso also commented that if the plaintiff had made an application for serious injury earlier, then she would have been successful: based on the medical evidence, she had proved all of the elements necessary to establish that she had suffered a serious injury which resulted in a long-term impairment of the function of her lungs.
Note: this decision was successfully appealed, see Pattison v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd [2013] VSCA 121.