Independent Pharmacists Against Tobacco Sales
November 7, 2008February 8, 2008 — While the profits of Big Tobacco are hardly ‘up in smoke,’ individuals harmed by the dangerous side effects of cigarettes and other tobacco products are finding restitution through the legal system. State Supreme Courts in California, Oregon, and Florida have ruled in favor of smokers held hostage by the addictive effects of nicotine and misinformation campaigns of the tobacco industry.
Decisión responsabiliza a la empresa de cigarrillos Philip Morris por sus acciones
Nine years in the making, Philip Morris and the entire cigarette industry suffered a major setback as the Oregon Supreme Court reinstated the full punitive damages award from the 1999 Williams lung cancer trial. In the original suit, the Williams Estate was awarded $79.5 million in punitive damages from Philip Morris, a number they contested as being inflated and unfair. The verdict was petitioned by Philip Morris shortly after the standards for punitive damages were modified by the US Supreme Court in State Farm Insurance v. Campbell, 2003.
The Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the original Williams verdict in 2004 and the Oregon Supreme Court did the same in 2006. The US Supreme Court, petitioned shortly after the 2006 Oregon Supreme Court decision, sent the case back to the Oregon Supreme Court in February 2007 to reconsider its decision on the punitive damages. On January 31, 2008, the Oregon Supreme Court rejected Philip Morris’ appeal–upholding the original verdict for the Williams Estate.
La decisión sobre el tabaco en Oregón sigue el precedente de California
In 2006, the US Supreme Court upheld a $50 million punitive damage ruling for the widow of California smoker Richard Boeken by denying review of the tobacco company’s appeal. Before the Williams case, this was the largest award upheld by the high court for an individual smoker. Boeken, who died in 2002 at the age of 57, successfully won damages under a 1998 California law that allowed litigation against tobacco companies for making misleading or fraudulent claims in marketing dangerous tobacco-related products.
Previously, Glendale, California, resident Patricia Henley was the first verdict under the changed California law, resulting in a $10.5 million award in 2005. A smoker for 35 years, Ms. Henley at one point changed from smoking “Marlboro Red” to “Marlboro Lights” after calling Philip Morris and being assured that it was “low tar.” Suffering from inoperable lung cancer, Ms. Henley’s case contested that Philip Morris and other tobacco companies acted to suppress proof of the link between smoking and cancer. Philip Morris’ appeals to the California Supreme Court and US Supreme Court were both rejected.
La industria tabacalera será considerada responsable en los próximos años
Like the rest of the tobacco industry, this is not the first cigarette lawsuit against Philip Morris. They have previously been held responsible for negligence and common law fraud for knowingly withholding information about the hazardous effects of cigarettes and other tobacco products sold to the general public. Cigarette litigation reached landmark proportions in Engles, a class-action suit brought by citizens of Florida. For the residents of Florida who were sick or had died as a result of smoking, the court held the tobacco industry responsible. The court found:
- Las empresas tabacaleras fueron negligentes
- Sus productos de tabaco son defectuosos e irrazonablemente peligrosos.
- Los cigarrillos son adictivos
- Las compañías tabacaleras conspiraron para ocultar información sobre salud y adicciones con la intención de que el consumidor confiara en la información errónea.
- Las empresas tabacaleras fueron responsables por incumplimiento de garantía expresa
- Fumar causa muchas enfermedades potencialmente mortales prevenibles
Aunque una apelación de la industria tabacalera eliminó el enorme acuerdo por daños punitivos de 145 mil millones de dólares, la Corte Suprema de Florida sostuvo que la responsabilidad contra los fabricantes de cigarrillos era correcta y se aplicaba a todos los involucrados en la demanda. Esto permitió a individuos del estado de Florida presentar demandas directamente contra la industria tabacalera.
