medigraphic.com
Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública

2006, Number S1

<< Back Next >>

salud publica mex 2006; 48 (S1)

The role of litigation in tobacco control

Miura M, Daynard RA, Samet JM

Language: English
References: 72
Page: 121-136
PDF size: 137.84 Kb.


ABSTRACT

There is now 50-years of experience in the United States litigating against the tobacco industry. As the base of evidence regarding health effects has evolved and new legal strategies have emerged, successive waves of litigation have occurred. The many failures by the first and second waves were followed by some notable successes in the third. Litigation by flight attendants and the states led to substantial settlements and some beneficial consequences for tobacco control. One of the most significant consequences of state litigation was access to the industry’s documents, gained through the Minnesota settlement. These documents further empowered the tobacco control movement and strengthened the basis for legal action. The continuing litigation in the United States remains a threat to the industry, in spite of the mixed outcomes of recent cases.


REFERENCES

  1. Tobacco Documents Online. 2006.

  2. Legacy Tobacco Documents Library. University of California San Francisco . 2002.

  3. US Department of Health Education and Welfare (DHEW). Smoking and health. Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General. DHEW Publication No. [PHS] 1103. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964.

  4. US Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). The health effects of active smoking: A report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office: 2004.

  5. US Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). The health consequences of smoking-chronic obstructive lung disease. A report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984.

  6. US Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). The health consequences of involuntary smoking: A report of the Surgeon General. DHHS Publication No. (CDC) 87-8398. Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office: 1986.

  7. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: Lung cancer and other disorders. EPA/600/006F. Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office: 1992.

  8. California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. California: California Environmental Protection Agency, 1997.

  9. Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health, HSMO. Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health. 011322124x. 2-5-1998. The Stationary Office.

  10. World Health Organization. International Consultation on Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) and Child Health. Consultation Report. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1999.

  11. 11.International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking. IARC monograph 83. [83]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2004.

  12. California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), Air Resources Board. Proposed identification of environmental tobacco smoke as a toxic air contaminant. Sacramento, California: Environmental Protection Agency: 2005.

  13. Stratton K, Shetty P, Wallace R, Bondurant S, eds. Clearing the smoke: assessing the science base for tobacco harm reduction. Washington,DC: National Academy Press, 2001.

  14. US Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS), National Cancer Institute. Risks associated with smoking cigarettes with low machine-measured yields of tar and nicotine. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, 2001.

  15. Zeger SL, Wyant T, Miller LS, Samet JM. Statistical testimony on damages in Minnesota v. Tobacco Industry. In: Gastwirth J, ed. Statistical science in the courtroom. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2000.

  16. Rubin DB. Statistical issues in the estimation of the causal effects of smoking due to the conduct of the tobacco industry. In: Gastwirth J, ed. Statistical Science in the Courtroom. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2000: 321-351.

  17. Samet JM. Dear author-advice from a retiring editor. Am J Epidemiol 1999; 150(5):433-436.

  18. Norr R. Cancer by the carton. Reader’s Digest 1952. [December]:7-8.

  19. Cigarette case. Time 1954;63(17).

  20. Kelder JrGE, Daynard RA. The role of litigation in the effective control of the sale and use of tobacco. Stanford Law and Policy Review 1997; 8(63):98.

  21. Hilts PJ. Smokescreen. The truth behind the tobacco industry cover-up. Boston: Addison-Wesley, 1996.

  22. Kluger R. Ashes to ashes: America’s hundred-year cigarette war, the public health, and the unabashed triumph of Philip Morris. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996.

  23. Rabin RL. A sociolegal history of the tobacco tort litigation. Stanford Law Review 1992; 44:867.

  24. Boeken v. Philip Morris. Tobacco Control Resource Center . 2006.

  25. Cipollone v. Liggett Group. 505 U.S. 504, 531-32. 1992.

  26. Daynard RA. Judicial action for tobacco control. In: Roemer R, ed. Legislative action to combat the world tobacco epidemic. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1993: 140.

  27. Daynard RA, Bates C, Francey N. Tobacco litigation worldwide. Br Med J 2000; 320(7227):111-113.

  28. 28.Backgrounder for Boeken v. Philip Morris veredict. Tobacco Control Resource Center 6-1-2001.

  29. Backgrounder for Boeken v. Philip Morris punitive damages. Tobacco Control Resource Center 8-9-2001.

  30. Levin M. Widow’s legal battle with Philip Morris ends. Los Angeles Times 2006 Mar 21.

  31. Backgrounder for Williams v. Philip Morris Oregon Supreme Court Decision. (February 2, 2006). Tobacco Control Resource Center 2-6-2006.

  32. Guardino SD, Daynard RA. Punishing tobacco industry misconduct: The case for exceeding a single digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages. University of Pittsburgh Law Review 2005; 67(1).

  33. Levin M. Tobacco giant, in a shift, pays a victim. Los Angeles Times 2003 Oct 2.

  34. Tobacco litigation. Smokin’. The Economist 2005;374(8413):61.

  35. Settlement Agreement. Broin v. Philip Moriss Inc., Case Number 91-49738 CA (22). 10-9-1997.

  36. Marie Lee v Dep’t of Public Welfare et al, No. 15385, 1.2 TPLR 2.82. 5-31-1983.

  37. Levin M. Philip Morris wins reversal of verdict. Los Angeles Times 2005 Dec 16.

  38. Daynard RA, Parmet W, Kelder G, Davidson P. Implications for tobacco control of the multistate tobacco settlement. Am J Public Health 2001; 91(12):1967-1971.

  39. National Association of Attorneys General. Tobacco public page. National Association of Attorneys General . 2006.

  40. Mackay J, Eriksen M. The tobacco atlas. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002:1-128.

  41. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. 18 U.S.C. 1961. 10-15-1970.

  42. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. 18 U.S.C. 1962. 10-15-1970.

  43. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. 9-22-1999.

  44. Postrial Brief of the United States of America. United States of America (et al.) v. Philip Morris USA Inc. (et al.); civ. no 99-CV-02496. 8-24-2005.

  45. US Department of Justice. Litigation against tobacco companies. US Department of Justice . 10-4-2005.

  46. World Health Organization. Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Geneva: World Health Organization, 2003.

  47. Meier BM. Breathing life into the framework convention on tobacco control: Smoking cessation and the right to health. Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law & Ethics 2005; 5(1):137-192.

  48. Crow ME. The human rights responsibilities of multinational tobacco companies. Tob Control 2005; 14 Suppl 2:ii14-ii18.

  49. World Health Organization. Updated status of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2006.

  50. World Health Organization, Tobacco Free Initiative. The first session of the Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2006.

  51. Altrai Group I. Altria 2005 annual report. 2005.

  52. The Role of Tobacco in Public Health and Smoking Prevention. Lecture abstract in the course of the Eastern Mediterranean Region (WHO) “Making Smoking History,” by the Cypress International Institute for the Environment and Public Health.: Harvard School of Public Health, 2006.

  53. World Health Organization, Tobacco Free Initiative. Tobacco and poverty: a vicious circle. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2004.

  54. Daynard RA. Why tobacco litigation? Tob Control 2003; 12(1):1-2.

  55. Flores ML, Barnoya J, Mejia R, Alderete E, Perez-Stable EJ. Litigation in Argentina: challenging the tobacco industry. Tob Control 2006; 15(2):90-96.

  56. Karlikaya C. Turkey: first tobacco litigation. Tob Control 2006; 15(2):78.

  57. Kyodo News Service. Top court dismisses appeal for damages by cancer-ridden ex-smokers. Tobacco Documents Online . 1-26-2006.

  58. Collin J. Controlling the global tobacco epidemic: towards a transnational response. Insights Health 2001;(1).

  59. Marsden W. Tobacco companies linked to criminal organizations in lucrative cigarette smuggling. Center for Public Integrity . 3-1-2001.

  60. Tobacco Traffic. Transcript. “Now” with Bill Moyers (PBS). Public Broadcasting System 4-19-2002.

  61. Anti-Contraband and Anti-counterfeit Agreement and General Release. The European Commission 7-9-2004.

  62. Roberts M. Passive smoking cost me dearly. BBC News, 2004, Nov 14.

  63. Stewart BW, Semmler PC. Sharp v Port Kembla RSL Club: establishing causation of laryngeal cancer by environmental tobacco smoke. Med J Aust 2002; 176(3):113-116.

  64. Quit Victoria. Summary of Australian and State And Territory legislation on smoking in public places. Quit Victoria, 2005.

  65. Murli S. Deora v. Union of India (WP 316/1999). 11-2-2001.

  66. Sinha SB. Environmental justice in India. The M.C. Bhandari Memorial Lecture 2002.

  67. Ramakrishnan v State of Kerala [1999] ICHRL 112. 7-12-1999.

  68. Oluwafemi A. Regional summary for the African region. In: Shafey O, Dolwick S, Guindon GE, ed. Tobacco control country profiles. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society, 2003: 27-31.

  69. El-Roy et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated et al. District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel (class cert pending). 1-18-2004.

  70. Navon et al. v. Philip Morris Products USA et al. District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel. 12-5-2004.

  71. The Smoker Health Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz S.A. and Philip Morris Marketing S.A. Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central Courts of the Judiciary District of San Paulo, Brazil. 7-25-1995.

  72. Tobacco Control Resource Center. Northeastern University. 2006.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com