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.
Pattison v Herald & Weekly Times Limited [2012] VCC 2014 (19 December 2012)
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 dealing with criminal and civil liability, including compensation.
(See FCTC Art. 19)
Substantive Issues
None
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.
"It appears to me that Dr Fisher’s clinical notes demonstrate that the plaintiff was labouring under major symptoms of an increasingly incapacitating chronic obstructive airways disease from 6 June 2000 onwards. It also appears to me that the severity of those symptoms were well-established before 24 December 2007.43 By 2007, the plaintiff’s evidence is that her symptoms were well-established and only progressed a little at a time thereafter.44 I am satisfied on the medical evidence up to that time, and confirmed particularly by the evidence of Dr Sasse, Dr Burdon and Dr Trembath, that if the plaintiff had made an application for serious injury before 24 December 2007, that she would have succeeded, because all of the elements necessary to prove that she had suffered an injury which resulted in a long-term impairment of the function of her lungs and long-term consequences were obviously present."
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 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.