Family members of smokers filed lawsuits against the major tobacco companies seeking damages for injuries caused by smoking. The family members argued that the findings in an earlier class action lawsuit (Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc.) could be used against tobacco companies to prove that the companies had engaged in acts such as selling cigarettes that were defective and unreasonably dangerous. In this appeals court decision, the court ruled that the “approved findings” from the first phase of the Engle case must have some effect on future cases. However, the court ruled that the plaintiff in future cases must be able to establish that the jury in the Engle case actually decided that a tobacco company acted wrongfully regarding cigarettes that the plaintiff smoked.
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.
A violation of the right to procedural fairness. For example, a party may claim that a government agency did not consult with public or stakeholders when issuing regulations.
Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
Family members of smokers filed lawsuits against the major tobacco companies seeking damages for injuries caused by smoking. The family members argued that the findings in an earlier class action lawsuit (Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc.) could be used against tobacco companies to prove that the companies had engaged in acts such as selling cigarettes that were defective and unreasonably dangerous. In this appeals court decision, the court ruled that the “approved findings” from the first phase of the Engle case must have some effect on future cases. However, the court ruled that the plaintiff in future cases must be able to establish that the jury in the Engle case actually decided that a tobacco company acted wrongfully regarding cigarettes that the plaintiff smoked.