Republic of the Marshall Islands v. American Tobacco Company
The Republic of the Marshall Islands sued a number of tobacco companies for the health care costs of treating residents with smoking-related illnesses. The government alleged that the tobacco companies misrepresented the health risks of smoking and, as a result, many residents became addicted to smoking and developed lung cancer and other diseases. The court affirmed an earlier dismissal of the case, finding that the government did not present sufficient evidence to show that any misconduct by the tobacco companies led to medical costs paid by the government. Additionally, the court found that the government failed to provide sufficient proof of both the existence of and the amount of damages.
Republic of Marshall Islands v. American Tobacco Co., 2 MILR 181 (2002).
Marshall Islands
May 9, 2002
Supreme Court of the Republic of the Marshall Islands
Government, through its agencies and officials including prosecutors, may seek to enforce its health laws. For example, the government may revoke the license of a retailer that sells tobacco products to minors. These cases may also directly involve the tobacco industry, for example, a government might impound and destroy improperly labeled cigarette packs.
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.
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 discussion on whether current scientific evidence is sufficient to justify the regulatory measures.
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.
"Because smoking makes some persons sick and some sick persons go to hospitals, and the Government pays the bill, the Government claims that it has been unquestionably injured. Accordingly, the issue is not whether there is injury but how much injury. The Government contends that its tobacco-caused injury equals RMI's total expenditures on smoking-related health care. Under this theory, the High Court cannot grant summary judgment to Tobacco if there is evidence to indicate that the Government has spent even one dollar to treat smokers. However, the Government claimed confidentiality of medical records as a reason for withholding all evidence of individual medical care costs. This strategy is flawed. By equating injury with total cost, the Government is alleging that Tobacco's misconduct is responsible for the consumption of every cigarette on the Marshall Islands and therefore, the medical treatment of every tobacco-related illness. Such a broad assertion cannot survive summary judgment without evidentiary support. As the record stood at the end of discovery, there was no evidence to connect the alleged misconduct of tobacco to a single hospital expense paid by the Government."
"The High Court excluded Dr. Miller's testimony on the additional ground that he had given contradictory opinions. Although considering an expert's conflicting testimony is not mentioned in Daubert, the approach is consistent with common sense and clearly acceptable. See. e.g., Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 152 (trial courts have broad latitude in their approach to determining reliability). Dr. Miller initially disapproved of using American rather than RMI population data in his model because he considered the substitution unscientific and inappropriate. When the original model yielded unsatisfactory results, however, Dr. Miller switched position: not only did he begin using the American data, he also defended the resulting estimates as a "reasonable proxy" to actual damages. Mere speculations by an expert, however, do not make them expert opinion. See Stokes v. L. Geismar, S.A., 815 F.Supp. 904, 910 (E.D. Va. 1993), aff'd, 16 F.3d 411(4th Cir. 1994) ("the proffering of an expert ... who will bless a guess-based theory will not suffice to withstand summary judgment."). The courtroom is not the appropriate venue for casual musings of scientists, and the High Court properly discredited Dr. Miller's testimony on the basis of his contradictory opinions."
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 Republic of the Marshall Islands sued a number of tobacco companies for the health care costs of treating residents with smoking-related illnesses. The government alleged that the tobacco companies misrepresented the health risks of smoking and, as a result, many residents became addicted to smoking and developed lung cancer and other diseases. The court affirmed an earlier dismissal of the case, finding that the government did not present sufficient evidence to show that any misconduct by the tobacco companies led to medical costs paid by the government. Additionally, the court found that the government failed to provide sufficient proof of both the existence of and the amount of damages.