Over time, lawsuits against the tobacco industry have proceeded on a variety of grounds. In the first wave of the tobacco litigation, individual smokers sued the industry in tort (as a wrongful act but not a breach of contract) based upon smoking-related disease. This first wave culminated in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. (1992), in which the Supreme Court held that federal legislation specifying the content of cigarette warnings precludes, in substantial part, lawsuits against the industry by smokers. The Court, however, left open the possibility of lawsuits based upon allegations of fraud.

The second wave of the tobacco litigation exhibits two distinctive features: a focus upon nicotine addiction in addition to smoking-related disease; and the use at trial of internal documents that detail the industrys awareness of the risks posed by its products as well as its extensive efforts to mislead the public concerning those risks. The signal development of this second wave came in a class action in Florida state court that resulted in a $144.8 million punitive damage verdict against the industry. In addition, state governments sued for reimbursement of the sums that they previously had expended in connection with smoking-related disease. These state suits led to a settlement under which the industry is obligated to pay $240 billion to state governments by the year 2025.

Some observers applaud the tobacco litigation for bringing to light the misconduct of the industry, and for forcing it to address the toll that its products take upon both public health and the coffers of the government. Other observers sharply criticize the litigation on several grounds. Practical objections include the claim that the multibillion-dollar state settlement amounts to little more than an indirect tax on cigarettes to be paid by future smokers. A related practical objection is that the litigation is likely to be less effective than direct regulatory measures to control the health risks of smoking, particularly by teenagers. Some see the litigation as a troubling effort to use tort law as a vehicle to punish the tobacco industry, without regard to whether its past misconduct actually caused the injuries of which smokers complain. Finally, some cultural critics frame the litigation as the product of a society in which individuals seek to transfer responsibility to others for the adverse consequences of their own risk-decisions.

Read more: Tobacco Litigation – Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., Ashes to Ashes

http://law.jrank.org/pages/19123/Tobacco-Litigation.html#ixzz0eYL5AXxj

Cipollone v. Liggett Group supreme court monsanto racketeering rico racketeer gmo product liability big tobacco fda blanche taylor

Monsanto target of massive racketeering litigation to expose bribes, gratuities and kick-backs ?

Duration : 0:0:45

(more…)