Should People Even Be ALLOWED To Sue Tobacco Companies?

[WWW.SETH.COM]

I know there have been some smoking threads in the past, but I'm curious to see if this develops into anything.

Should people be allowed to sue tobacco companies? It's not like we don't know that cigarettes are harmful to a persons health in the long term. Likewise, the state allows the selling the alcohol, which can also have many negative consequences to a person's health, but prohibits the marketing of marijuana, which is less harmful than a tobacco cigarette (I use this by way of an example of the government saying that it is alright for Americans to purchase certain substances even if they can result in health complications in the long and short term). There is currently a warning on cigarettes that explains some of the risks associated with smoking.

On the other hand, a company that puts out a dangerous toy can expect a couple of lawsuits. Are cigarettes exempt because they are somewhat up front about the side effects of their product?

Again, this seems to me to be a personal choice issue. And that would imply that cigarette companies should not be sued by the people harmed by their products. But when a product is actually dangerous to people, does the consumer/user have a right to compensation for medical complications?

[Larry Flyntz]

I'm very wary of attempts to limit the abilities of Americans to sue, or at least to try to sue.  The ability of Americans to sue each other is really at the root of our Civil Justice system.  But, maybe I'm just saying that because I'm going to law school and I want a job.

Anyway, more to the point: I think people should be allowed to bring suits against tobacco companies.  Whether the should win those suits is another question entirely.  It depends on the person's ailment and ability to prove that the ailment was caused directly by smoking (not as easy as it sounds, I imagine).  One thing that is interesting about the Surgeon's General warning is that there are actually four warnings.  Cigarette manufacturers are required by law to rotate the warnings.  The warnings are:

- Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy.
- Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health.
- Smoking By Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, And Low Birth Weight.
- Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide.

Numbers 1 and 2 seem pretty good, but three and four are a big vague (the former referring only to women, and the latter requiring consumer knowledge of the danger of carbon monoxide).  If a cigarette maker is found not to be rotating properly, a lawsuit may be in order.

The law also requires that "All the letters in the [Surgeon General's Warning label] shall appear in conspicuous and legible type in contrast by typography, layout, or color with all other printed material on the package."  Some cigarette manufacturers try to blend the warning in as much as possible with the style and colors of the packaging.  This practice may be illegal and possibly cause for a legitimate lawsuit.

So, from a legal standpoint, smokers may have legitimate options in some cases.  And I think that anyone who feels injured deserves the right to bring a case to court, but I generally don't think smokers should win these cases. 

I don't want to get back into the second-hand smoke argument, but I think I read in the Times that it has been proven that second-hand smoke can cause cancer.  If this is true, I think the individual getting cancer should be able to sue the tobacco companies.  In that case, it is no longer a personal choice issue. 

[WWW.SETH.COM]

Hmmm. But if secondhand smoke becomes an issue, does the litigious party sue the tobacco company for putting out a harmful product or the person who was using that product in their vicinity?

[Larry Flyntz]

I think the tobacco company could be sued if they didn't announce that second-hand smoke could cause cancer.  Many smokers firmly believe that second hand smoke poses no dangers to anyone.  So, unless the fact that second hand smoke can be harmful becomes either common knowledge or unless the cigarette companies start adding something about second-hand smoke to the Surgeon General's warning, I think they could probably be sued.

Example: A knife manufacturer can't be held liable if I accidentally cut you with one of their knives, but I could, because it is common knowledge that knives are dangerous to others as well as one's self.  Apparently it isn't common knowledge that second-hand smoke is dangerous, so I don't think the smoker can be helf liable for something he can't necessarily be expected to know.