Sivieri v. Cia de Cigarros Souza Cruz

The plaintiff sought damages for health problems that she claimed to have suffered as a result of her use of tobacco products, which she had begun consuming at a very early age. She claimed that the tobacco company, Souza Cruz, advertised smoking as being healthy, classy, and the source of well-being, which led her to start smoking. The plaintiff died during the litigation and her spouse and son continued the lawsuit and demanded financial compensation for all of the original plaintiff's medical costs, as well as for the pain and suffering she and her family experienced. Finding that the plaintiff had demonstrated that the tobacco company knew about the harmful consequences of its products, but nevertheless refrained from disclosing them in pursuit of financial gains, the Court held in favor of the plaintiff. The court ordered Souza Cruz to compensate the plaintiffs.

Millian Cury Sivieri v. Cia de Cigarros Souza Cruz, CNJ: 5258911-98.2005.8.21.0001, Comarca de Poro Alegre - 3ª Vara Cível do Foro Central [3rd Civil Court of the Central Court of the County of Porto Alegre] (2010).

  • Brazil
  • Jun 29, 2010
  • 3rd Civil Court of the Central Court of the County of Porto Alegre (Comarca de Poro Alegre - 3ª Vara Cível do Foro Central)
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff Espólio de Milian Cury Sivieri

Defendant Cia de Cigarros Souza Cruz

Legislation Cited

Consumer Protection Code (Código de Proteção e Defesa do Consumidor)

Regulation on Product Advertising (Portaria nº. 490 da União)

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"Indeed, it is relevant to analyze not only the intensity of the economic suffering caused in order to estimate the amount for indemnification, but also the financial capacity of the offender, in order to arrive at an amount sufficient to prevent the occurrence of new, identical conduct. In other words, with regard to the amount of indemnification, it is important to affirm that it must be set in accordance with the economic strength of the defendant, so that it does not lose its character as a sanction, considering that the penalty should always produce a disadvantage greater than the advantage gained from the illegal act, in order for it to have a preventive effect on the harmful act (Theory of Prevention)."
"The defendant always knew that the composition of tobacco contains a series of components that cause chemical and psychological addiction of its users and innumerable diseases resulting from the continued use of the product, creating, with the placement of cigarettes on the market, the risk of the result; and having, therefore, the obligation to prevent it. Failure to act and acting negligently fall into the category of guilt due to omission, in the present case, for the ailment developed by the plaintiff – without setting aside its liability resulting from guilt due to action: the action of exposing the market for consumption to risk, due to the harmful effects of the product made available /produced. It is important to mention the inadmissibility of the allegation concerning the concurrent or exclusive guilt of the victim, particularly if we consider (as already noted) the excessive advertising promoted by the defendant, as well as the chemical and psychological addiction caused by smoking. But even if there were this ‘concurrent guilt’ on the part of the smoker (who started to smoke because he wanted to), I emphasize once again that this would not remove liability for the risk of the activity that the defendant chose to engage in."