Tobacco Warning Labels Protect Companies From Suits, Court Rules

Tobacco companies that place warning labels on cigarette packages are protected from lawsuits stemming from smokers’ illness or death, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The decision by the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston stemmed from a $3-million lawsuit filed in 1983 against Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. of Durham, N.C., by the heirs of Joseph C. Palmer of Newton, Mass., a heavy smoker who died from lung cancer in 1980 at age 49.

The family said Palmer smoked three to four packs of L&M; cigarettes a day until his death and claimed his death was advanced by the tobacco company, which they said failed to provide adequate warnings about smoking risks.

Lawyers for Liggett & Myers contended that the federally required warnings about the hazards of smoking shielded the company from liability.

U.S. District Judge A. David Mazzone ruled for the Palmers in April, 1986, saying juries were free to find that reasonable manufacturers would have included stronger warnings in addition to those required by federal law.

Liggett & Myers appealed the ruling and won Tuesday.

The appeals court said the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, hammered out by Congress in 1965 with much debate and controversy, preempted the Palmer family’s state-based claim.

“It is inconceivable that Congress intended to have that carefully wrought balance of national interests superseded by the views of a single state, indeed, perhaps of a single jury in a single state,” U.S. Circuit Court Judge John R. Brown said in the ruling.

Judge Cites ‘Balance’

Brown wrote that in enacting the legislation, Congress struck “a balance between its concern for the national health policy of smoking education and its protection of the trade and commerce aspects of the tobacco industry.”

The court also ruled that many precedents set by other cases in which people were harmed by dangerous products did not necessarily apply because “cigarette smoking, at least initially, is a voluntary activity.”

The Palmers’ lawyer, Robert Potters, was not available for comment, his secretary said.