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 worker sued his employer, Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR), and its subsidiary, for injuries. Plaintiff alleged that he was "repeatedly" exposed to environmental tobacco smoke and that the defendant companies failed to provide him a reasonably safe work environment, as required under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (‘‘FELA’’). Furthermore, the plaintiff claimed that the medical agents of the defendant companies failed to timely provide information about a cancerous spot found on his lung. After discovering that the NSR's parent company was solely responsible for determining NSR's non-smoking policy, the plaintiff sought to add the parent company as a defendant. The parent company, however, asserted that, as a stockholder only, it did not operate as a common rail carrier and therefore was not liable under FELA or common law. The trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that the parent company had "exclusive control" over NSR's non-smoking policy and could therefore be added as a defendant.