Thompson v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation, et al.
A smoker and his wife filed a lawsuit against tobacco manufacturers alleging that the smoker's 30-year history of smoking cigarettes had led him to develop laryngeal cancer. He sought damages based on negligence and product liability for defect design and failure to warn, and his wife later brought a claim for loss of consortium. The defendants argued that the plaintiff had assumed the risks and had knowledge of open and obvious dangers. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff and stated that the tobacco companies knew that their products were addictive and carcinogenic, making them unreasonably dangerous under both product liability and negligence. Further, the court considered that the defendants had a duty to warn the plaintiff at the time he started smoking and noted that even though the plaintiff had smoked light cigarettes in the last five years, the tobacco manufacturer was still liable, to a lesser extent, as light cigarettes contributed to the plaintiff's development of cancer. Finally, the court held that the wife had suffered severe hardship because of her husband’s health problems. However, the trial court reduced the amount of damages awarded because the court considered that the plaintiff had contributed to the aggravation of his health conditions by continuing to smoke and drink. The defendants appealed, and the Appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court.
Thompson v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, 207 S.W.S 3d 76, Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District (2006).
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging.
(See FCTC Art. 11)
A plaintiff’s liability may be limited where she has accepted the risks and consequences of her behavior. The tobacco industry may argue that the dangers of smoking are well known, so liability should be limited.
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.
"Additional evidence was presented by B & W and PM USA as to Michael Thompson's knowledge of some of the health risks of smoking cigarettes and his failure to heed those risks, as well as emphasis on his lack of "serious quit attempts" relating to his "choice" to smoke because he enjoyed it. While we need not delineate every instance of substantial evidence in this voluminous record which could be considered support for the giving of an instruction on comparative fault, the record contains such support, as evidenced by our prior factual references in this opinion. We also note that both defendants continued to emphasize, both during the trial and in closing arguments, Michael Thompson's "choice" to smoke, which in reality is an attempt to assign fault. Furthermore, we see no prejudice to defendants in this case because B & W and PM USA had the opportunity to present evidence from which the jury could still have found B & W and PM USA zero percent at fault and Michael Thompson one hundred percent at fault. Such would have been the same outcome B & W and PM USA seek here, but without completely foreclosing the jury the opportunity to apportion fault to both parties. Neither do we find prejudice to the defendants where, as here, the evidence supports a finding of partial fault attributable to the plaintiff's actions, and the plaintiff elects a potential reduction in awarded damages by requesting a comparative fault instruction, rather than risk a denial of any award."
"Thompson testified on direct examination and again on redirect examination that at the time he started smoking, cigarette packs did not contain any warnings that cigarettes contained nicotine or that it was addictive. Thompson also testified that the packages contained no warnings that cigarettes contained carcinogens or that smoking cigarettes could cause "voice box cancer." If such warnings had been included on cigarette packages between 1964 and 1969, Thompson testified, he would not have become "a confirmed Marlboro smoker." He also testified that nothing in the magazine ads or television ads for Marlboro cigarettes that he saw from 1964 to 1969 contained any warnings that cigarettes contained nicotine or carcinogens. Thompson testified that he did not know that nicotine was addictive and could cause "voice box" (laryngeal) cancer during the entire time he smoked, or that the symptoms he experienced during attempts to quit smoking, which included feeling "stressed out, anger, on edge," were the effects of withdrawal of nicotine on the body. Examining this evidence, we find that reasonable minds could differ as to whether public knowledge about the health risks of developing laryngeal cancer and nicotine addiction from smoking cigarettes was so certain and generally known that B & W and PM USA had no duty to warn Thompson of the dangers. Thus, the case was for the jury to decide."
"We find that cases analyzing the application of the open and obvious exception to the duty to warn in a negligence claim support the determination that if the danger is not visibly apparent, the plaintiff must have actual knowledge of the specific danger such that no reasonable person in the same situation would assume that risk. We agree with the holding in Duke, that the question of the adequacy of the plaintiff's knowledge of the risk, sufficient as to obviate the defendant's duty to warn, is a question for the jury. The question before us, then, is whether the facts of this case do not allow reasonable minds to differ that Michael Thompson had knowledge sufficient to make him aware of the danger that the cigarettes he smoked which were manufactured by B & W and PM USA contained nicotine and carcinogens and that they posed a risk of addiction and developing laryngeal cancer, such that he could have taken precautions to avoid the danger. If not, the case is for the jury to assess fault under the comparative fault doctrine."
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 smoker and his wife filed a lawsuit against tobacco manufacturers alleging that the smoker's 30-year history of smoking cigarettes had led him to develop laryngeal cancer. He sought damages based on negligence and product liability for defect design and failure to warn, and his wife later brought a claim for loss of consortium. The defendants argued that the plaintiff had assumed the risks and had knowledge of open and obvious dangers. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff and stated that the tobacco companies knew that their products were addictive and carcinogenic, making them unreasonably dangerous under both product liability and negligence. Further, the court considered that the defendants had a duty to warn the plaintiff at the time he started smoking and noted that even though the plaintiff had smoked light cigarettes in the last five years, the tobacco manufacturer was still liable, to a lesser extent, as light cigarettes contributed to the plaintiff's development of cancer. Finally, the court held that the wife had suffered severe hardship because of her husband’s health problems. However, the trial court reduced the amount of damages awarded because the court considered that the plaintiff had contributed to the aggravation of his health conditions by continuing to smoke and drink. The defendants appealed, and the Appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court.