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.
A truck driver routinely traveled in an enclosed truck with a co-worker who smoked a brand of cigarettes manufactured by the defendant tobacco company. He was eventually diagnosed with lung cancer. The truck driver, along with his wife, brought an action against the tobacco company, asserting among other claims, that the tobacco company had engaged in negligent misrepresentation, negligent failure to warn, and intentional misrepresentation with regard to its known harms of environmental tobacco smoke. The tobacco company claimed that the suit should be dismissed, among other reasons, because the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 preempted the plaintiffs' claims of negligence and intentional misrepresentation. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the majority of the plaintiffs' claims but granted their claims of negligent failure to warn and intentional misrepresentation.