California Attorney Tom Martin’s Law Blog

The California Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, this past Thursday made it possible for people who become ill from smoking to once again obtain justice from tobacco companies, rejecting a 4 year-old federal court decision that virtually halted all smoker lawsuits in the state.

The 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals had ruled that smokers must sue once they discover, or should have discovered, that they are addicted to cigarettes. The federal decision in effect ruled out most smokers’ lawsuits in California, since cigarette-related diseases usually manifest themselves years after smokers have become addicted.

Because the 9th Circuit litigation involved a question of California law, the California Supreme Court, the final word on what state laws mean, took up the matter. And in its decision Thursday, it rejected the 9th Circuit’s interpretation.

In the Opinion (Grisham v. Philip Morris U.S.A.), lead by the Honorable Justice Carlos Moreno, the California Supreme Court stated:

We do not believe that the Legislature, which repealed the tobacco immunity statute [], intended or intends for the repealed statute to be reincarnated, as it were, as a presumption of knowledge about the hazards of smoking that serves to disqualify tobacco lawsuits as time-barred. Indeed, the legislative history of the immunity repeal, recounted by the Court of Appeal in Whiteley, demonstrates that the immunity was withdrawn in part precisely because tobacco company misrepresentations had put into question the extent to which the public had received accurate information about the dangers of smoking.

“It reopens tobacco litigation in California,” said Northeastern University Law Professor Richard A. Daynard, who heads a group that promotes lawsuits against the industry. “The light just went from red to green.”

Sources: Millie Lapidario, “Tobacco Claims Will Start Smoking Again, Thanks to Calif. Ruling,” The Recorder (February 20, 2007); Dan Margolies, “Ruling deals setback to tobacco industry,” The Kansas City Star (February 17, 2007).

This entry was posted on Sunday, February 18th, 2007 at 2:43 pm and is filed under Personal Injury, Toxic Injury, Consumer Protection, Environmental Enforcement . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.