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 prison inmate filed a product liability claim against manufacturers of cigarettes alleging that he had been exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) while incarcerated, which led him to become an involuntary user of tobacco products. He claimed damages and argued that tobacco products were defective under State Law because they were "inherently and unreasonably dangerous." The district court found that he had failed to factually prove that he had an actionable claim. The Appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the claimant had failed to demonstrate that the products were unreasonably dangerous, meaning that the condition of the product was "not reasonably contemplated by the users of the product."