Tobacco.org

• NAUGLE v. PHILIP MORRIS, et. al. (PDF) 

37. As a direct and proximate result of smoking cigarettes manufactured and sold by one or more Defendants, Plaintiff suffered from one or more of the diseases and medical

6

conditions described, including emphysema/COPD, which was caused by her addiction to cigarettes that contain nicotine and each of which manifested during the class period.

COUNT I: STRICT LIABILITY . . .

COUNT II: FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT . . .

COUNT III: CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT . . .

COUNT IV: NEGLIGENCE . . .

COUNT V: BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY . . .

COUNT VI: BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY

Jump to full article »

• Alberta passes bill to recoup health costs from criminals, big tobacco 

Alberta has passed legislation allowing the province to sue criminals and tobacco companies to recover health-care costs.

Bill 48, called the Crown's Right Recovery Act, passed on Wednesday.

Once the bill is proclaimed law, Alberta could file lawsuits against drunk drivers and those convicted of violent crimes to recover any health-care costs related to their crimes.

Alberta could also sue tobacco makers or join existing lawsuits to recover health-care costs for tobacco-related illnesses. Ontario has already launched a $50 billion lawsuit while Quebec is looking to recover $30 billion.

Jump to full article »

• Philip Morris USA Will Seek Further Review of Verdict in Engle Case; Company Says Award is Grossly Excessive 

Philip Morris USA said today it will seek further review of a jury verdict awarding approximately $56 million in compensatory damages and $244 million in punitive damages.

The verdict came in the trial of a so-called Engle case following a 2006 Supreme Court decision that decertified a class action but allowed former class members to file individual lawsuits.

"From the beginning, this case was marked by a fundamentally unfair and unconstitutional trial plan that allowed the jury to rely on findings by a prior jury that have no connection to the plaintiff," said Murray Garnick, Altria Client Services senior vice president and associate general counsel, speaking on behalf of Philip Morris USA.

"Today's verdict was the result of numerous erroneous rulings by the trial judge that allowed the jury to hear extensive evidence totally unrelated to the individual smoker

Jump to full article »

• Arguments begin in 'light' cigarette appeal 

If an attempt at certifying a class-action lawsuit over light tobacco products goes up in smoke at the Supreme Court of Appeal, it will not only hurt smokers and ex-smokers, but could affect all consumers.

An appeal court panel of justices - Margaret Cameron, Gail Welsh and Charles White - began hearing the case Wednesday and it continues today.

Lawyer Ches Crosbie is challenging a decision by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador which said the class action couldn't be certified because consumers didn't buy their "light" and "mild" tobacco products directly from Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.

Crosbie is accusing the company - which has the largest tobacco sales in this province - of violating provincial trade practices legislation.

Rob Cunningham, an Ottawa lawyer for the Canadian Cancer Society who is observing the case, said if the certification doesn't go ahead, it will set a precedent for many consumer products, which are not commonly bought from their manufacturer.

Jump to full article »

• Broward Jury Awards Former Mayor's Sister $300 Million in Fraud Case Against Tobacco Giant Philip Morris USA  

A Broward Circuit Court Jury returned a $300 million verdict against Philip Morris USA within hours of closing arguments this afternoon in favor of Cindy Naugle, the sister of Jim Naugle, a former mayor of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Naugle, 61, who stopped smoking in 1993, smoked her first cigarette in 1968 when she was twenty years old because she thought they "made her look older." She told the jury that had she known then what the tobacco companies already knew, but had concealed, namely that nicotine is a highly-additive drug and cigarettes were considered by Philip Morris to be a "drug delivery device," she never would have taken that first puff. The jury assessed $56.6 million against Philip Morris for Naugle's past and future medical expenses as well as for her pain and suffering. It also assessed punitive damages in the amount of $244 million to punish the company for its misconduct. The jury also found Ms. Naugle was 10% responsible because of her decision to start smoking.

Ms. Naugle, who tried unsuccessfully to quit smoking for many years, now needs 24-hour oxygen and must travel in a wheelchair because the simple act of walking leaves her exhausted. "Cindy admitted her fault to the jury," said her attorney, Robert W. Kelley of the Fort Lauderdale law firm Kelley/Uustal. "But Philip Morris refused to accept any responsibility for her emphysema, even though she was an addicted customer for 25 years," he added. . . .

Kelley went on to say: "The cigarette companies managed to hide the truth about their product for a long time, but the truth is out now. And when the jury finally hears the truth about what these companies knew and when they knew it, they almost always side with the addicted smokers, most of whom started smoking as teenagers before there were any warning labels on cigarette packs." Kelley predicts the industry is in for a long series of losses because "most Americans are fed-up with corporate fraud and misconduct."

Jump to full article »

• Philip Morris USA Sues Retailers to Stop Counterfeit Cigarette Sales  

Philip Morris USA (PM USA) filed lawsuits against ten retailers selling counterfeit versions of the company's Marlboro� brand cigarettes in New York and New Jersey.

"The New York metropolitan area continues to be a lucrative market for counterfeit and contraband cigarette smugglers," said Joe Murillo, vice president and associate general counsel, Altria Client Services, speaking on behalf of PM USA. "High excise taxes, coupled with New York state's lack of effective tax enforcement, only makes the problem worse," added Murillo.

"These lawsuits are the latest in a series of filings by Philip Morris USA aimed at combating the sale of counterfeit cigarettes in New York and New Jersey," said Murillo. Since May 2009, Philip Morris has filed lawsuits against 27 retail locations in New York and New Jersey for selling counterfeit Marlboro� brand cigarettes

In addition to violating many trademark laws, counterfeit cigarettes are almost always sold without the appropriate federal and state excise tax. The counterfeit cigarettes purchased from the retailers named in today's suits bore no tax stamp or a counterfeit tax stamp. As a result, the applicable excise taxes were not paid. . . .

Eastern District of New York

Maria’s Deli Grocery 143-20 101 Avenue, Richmond Hills, NY 11419

Loveras Grocery 996 Nostrand Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11225

Southern District of New York

Aloshe Mini Market 1889 Guerlain Street, Bronx, NY 10461

El Barrio Grocery Deli 39 West 183rd Street, Bronx, NY 10453

Fernandez Grocery Corp. 1665 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10029

Jump to full article »

• Philip Morris USA sues over counterfeit Marlboros 

Philip Morris USA is accusing 10 New York and New Jersey retailers of selling counterfeit Marlboro cigarettes.

The nation's largest tobacco company announced the federal lawsuits against the retailers Thursday.

Jump to full article »

• American Cancer Society Won't Appeal Smoking Ban Ruling 

American Cancer Society South Dakota Government Relations Director Jennifer Stalley says, “It is appropriate that today, on the 34th annual American Cancer Society Great American Smoke Out—a day dedicated to helping smokers quit—the American Cancer Society, along with more than fifty diverse public health, business and medical groups, will begin in earnest our statewide effort to support the smoke free law on the November 2010 ballot and ensure that no one has to choose between their health and their job in our great state."

“We are confident that the vast majority of South Dakotans support this law and that by this time next year –the 35th annual Great American Smoke Out—South Dakota will be a smoke free state.”

Jump to full article »

• Cancer Society says it won't appeal smoking ban appeal decision 

Officials for the American Cancer Society in South Dakota say they won't appeal a court decision that will now send a smoking ban in South Dakota bars, restaurants, casinos and other businesses to the vote of the people in 2010.

The announcement by the Society's government relations director Jennifer Stally came on the 34th annaul American Cancer Society Great American Smoke Out Day. Stalley said in a news release that the Cancer Society "will begin in earnest our statewide effort to support the smoke free law on the November 2010 ballot and ensure that no one has to choose between their health and their job in our great state."

Jump to full article »

• Smoking ban battle hits courtroom 

Whether the state took an improper route to nab the admitted smoking ban violator is just one of several arguments Des Moines County District Court Judge Mary Ann Brown will consider before ruling whether the smoking ban violates the U.S. and Iowa constitutions.

Though the hearing lasted just two hours Tuesday morning, with the arguments largely made up of the written briefs the attorneys previously submitted to the judge, the owner of Otis Campbell's Bar and Grill said he'd take what he could get.

"I'm grateful that it got this far now," Duncan said after the trial. "I believe in the system."

Brown asked few questions during the hearing but thanked the attorneys at the end of their arguments. She did not offer a time frame for making a decision but said it will be "as quickly as we can."

Jump to full article »

• 'Light' cigarette case going back to court 

The application for certification was filed by Ches Crosbie on behalf of Victor Todd Sparkes - the class action's representative plaintiff - against Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., Imperial Tobacco Company Ltd. and the Attorney General of Canada.

Sparkes' lawyers claimed the tobacco companies descriptions of "light" and "mild" as well as other descriptive terms were part of a deliberate misinformation campaign by the tobacco manufacturer to mislead and deceive the public into thinking the use of such products would have less harmful effects than smoking "regular" cigarettes.

But Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Justice James Adams said in 2008 the plaintiff failed to establish a cause of action under the federal Trade Practices Act. Adams denied the certification on the basis consumer Victor Sparkes did not buy the cigarettes directly from Imperial Tobacco. But the matter is being heard again by the Court of Appeal Wednesday and Thursday.

Crosbie argues people can't buy cigarettes directly from the supplier.

Lewis originally joined the class action because it sounded like his life story.

"We were blindsided. We were misled and taken advantage of. ... At the end of the day, I wanted to quit. I thought the switch to light cigarettes was going to help me take that edge off from smoking regular cigarettes," Lewis said.

"So they had me. I couldn't win."

Jump to full article »

• Court rules against tobacco shop 

Customers are still rolling their own smokes at Tobacco Haven, despite a superior court ruling Monday that says the Brookline shop is a cigarette manufacturer that hasn’t been paying either the mandatory Tobacco Settlement tax, or making escrow payments.

Merrimack County Superior Court Judge Larry Smukler issued a temporary injunction against Tobacco Haven on Monday, ordering the shop on Route 13 to either ensure that its supplier has paid the required tax or escrow payment, pay itself, or stop operating its two high-speed cigarette-rolling machines.

The machines take loose tobacco and roll 200 cigarettes in a matter of minutes. A carton costs $25.99, while cartons of many name brand cigarettes can cost twice as much. Customers have flocked to the store, often lining up to use the machines.

What’s at stake here is a lot more than where people can buy cheap smokes. The state filed suit against the company in August because New Hampshire stood to lose about $50 million in tobacco settlement money.

Jump to full article »

• Bar owners seek to overturn smoking ban  

A group of bar owners is fired up over Ohio's 3-year-old smoking ban.

Bar owners and employees met in Grove City on Friday claiming there weren't enough signatures for the ban to appear on the ballot in 2006.

They also say 46 convicted felons were allowed to collect signatures for the petitions -- something not allowed under state law.

The ban prohibits smoking in most public places in Ohio, including bars and restaurants.

Members of the Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association want the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate the claims. They want family-owned businesses and private clubs to be exempt from the ban.

The group also is threatening a class action lawsuit for the hundreds of bars they claim went out of business because of the ban.

"We're losing money in our businesses because this never should have gone to a vote and it went to a vote anyway," said Pam Parker of Parker's Tavern in Grove City.

Jump to full article »

• TIMOTHY ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellee vs RACHEAL ANDERSON nka HILL, Defendant-Appellant (PDF) 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Racheal Anderson nka Hill, appeals a decision of the Warren County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, regarding custody and parenting time matters involving her daughter. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decision of the trial court. . . .

On April 3, 2008, Marilyn moved the court to modify Racheal's parenting time with Victoria, and further moved the court for an order prohibiting all parties from smoking cigarettes in Victoria's presence. Marilyn argued that Victoria had expressed concerns, fears and reluctance over spending time with her mother, and had returned home from parenting time smelling of cigarette smoke as a result of Racheal smoking in her home and car. Marilyn also requested that a guardian ad litem be appointed for Victoria. . . .

In her third assignment of error, Racheal challenges the trial court's imposition of a no-smoking ban upon the parties. Specifically, she argues that there was no evidence before the court that Victoria suffered from any health problems or had an increased sensitivity to smoke, and she contends that there must be some evidence that a child suffers physical harm before the court can restrict a parent from engaging in a lawful activity. Racheal also points to the fact that the smoking ban is not limited to the parties' homes or to the parties themselves, and argues that the ban has effectively restricted the places where she can take Victoria.

{¶31} The trial court adopted the magistrate's finding that although there was no evidence presented to indicate that Victoria has any health problems or an increased sensitivity to cigarette smoke, it was not in Victoria's best interest to be exposed to such an activity. Indeed, other Ohio courts have made reference to the "avalanche of authoritative scientific studies" which indicate that "secondhand smoke constitutes a real and substantial danger to children because it causes and aggravates serious diseases in children, which danger is both a 'relevant factor' and a 'physical health factor'" that a trial court is required to consider in making a best interest determination under R.C. 3109.04(F). In Day, the Fifth District Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's imposition of a no-smoking ban, noting that the Ohio Supreme Court has recognized conclusions made by the United States Surgeon General, as well as other health agencies, that "secondhand smoke impairs the respiratory health of thousands of young children." Id., quoting D.A.B.E., Inc. v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Bd. of Health . . . . Regardless of the condition of their health, secondhand smoke is considered a danger to all children.

{¶32} Based on the foregoing, Racheal has not shown that the trial court's decision to restrict Victoria's exposure to cigarette smoke was arbitrary, unconscionable, or unreasonable so as to constitute an abuse of its discretion.

Jump to full article »

• STATE: Smoking ban can go to vote, judge rules  

South Dakota's new smoking ban will remain on hold until voters decide its fate next November.

That's where the issue stands for now after Circuit Judge Kathleen Trandahl ruled Friday afternoon there are sufficient valid signatures on petitions to refer the ban to a statewide vote next year.

After a two-day trial, Trandahl restored a net total of 2,261 signatures which Secretary of State Chris Nelson previously ruled were invalid. Before that, the petitions had stood 17 signatures short of the 16,776 minimum needed to make the ballot.

Her decision remains subject to a possible appeal to the South Dakota Supreme Court by Nelson or the American Cancer Society, which lobbied for the law and intervened in the lawsuit.

Nelson and a cancer society official each said no decision has been made yet regarding an appeal.

The judge said Nelson properly did his job in reviewing the signatures. She said state law gives the secretary of state “no discretion” regarding validity of signatures.

Jump to full article »