Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:24:03.686Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tobacco Litigation: Statistics Permitted for Proof of Causation and Damages in Class Action

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

David M. Dudzinski
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In an ongoing class action suit against large tobacco companies, including Philip Morris, Inc., and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued an opinion on October 15, 2002 making statistical proof available to address plaintiffs’ common questions and prove required elements of consumer fraud.

The dilemmas inherent in tobacco litigation as a mass tort action include overcoming the collective action problem (in particular, the relative legal sophistication, experience, resources, and superior bargaining position of tobacco manufacturers as opposed to scattered individual plaintiffs with limited resources), mobilizing appropriate and persuasive legal theories for recovery, and meeting the standards of proof, all in a timely and cost-effective manner. While some tobacco cases have proceeded on products liability theories of defective or negligent design, many recent cases are grounded in consumer fraud laws.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , Spring 2003 , pp. 161 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

See In re Simon II Litigation, No. 00-CV-5332, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19773 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2002).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Curriden, M., “The Heat Is On: Facing High-Powered Plaintiff's Lawyers and Damaging Revelations, the Once Invincible Tobacco Industry May No Longer Be Able to Snuff Out Its Competition,” ABA Journal, 80 (1994): 58.Google Scholar
See generally Vargo, J. and Lee, J. D., Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.: U.S. Supreme Court Opens the Door to Tobacco Lawsuits (New York: Matthew Bender, 1992): At 13–17.Google Scholar
See In re Simon II Litigation, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19773, at *131–36.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Curriden, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
See In re Simon II Litigation, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19773, at *33–100. Specifically, there is evidence that the firms in the tobacco industry have colluded and conspired to limit competition and progress toward truly less harmful cigarettes, limited research into the links between smoking and disease, misrepresented and deceived the public regarding these links, and actively marketed and made public their belief that smoking was either harmless or not proven harmful despite their knowledge to the contrary. See id.; Curriden, supra note 2.Google Scholar
See In re Simon II Litigation, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19773, at *5.Google Scholar
See id. at *157–63.Google Scholar
See id. at *87–94, *145, *185–86.Google Scholar
See id. at *160, *162; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).Google Scholar
Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597.Google Scholar
Id. at 589–90.Google Scholar
Id. at 589, 591–92.Google Scholar
In re Simon II Litigation, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19773, at *188.Google Scholar
Id. at *168.Google Scholar
See id. at *168–80 (listing several cases employing the methods that were accepted under Daubert).Google Scholar
See id. at *180–88.Google Scholar
Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591–92.Google Scholar
See In re Simon II Litigation, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19773, at *161–63, *172–73.Google Scholar
Id. at *200 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595).Google Scholar
See id. at *180–88.Google Scholar
Id. at *188, *195–96.Google Scholar
See id. at *158–59.Google Scholar
Sebok, A., “The $28 Billion Verdict Against Philip Morris,” FindLaw, October 7, 2002, available at <http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20021007.html>..>Google Scholar
See In re Simon II Litigation, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19773, at *86–87.Google Scholar