High Court Won’t Permit Suits Over Smoking Deaths

The state Supreme Court on Thursday refused to permit product liability suits against tobacco manufacturers for death or personal injury that allegedly result from smoking.

The justices, over two dissents, let stand a ruling last February by a state Court of Appeal holding that a 1987 state law, the Civil Liability Reform Act, protects tobacco and other products that are found “inherently unsafe” and are recognized as unsafe by customers.

The justices’ action came as a setback to plaintiffs in more than two dozen lawsuits pending against tobacco companies in California, as well as litigants in an undetermined number of other liability actions against manufacturers of other products.

In recent years, widespread legal attacks have been made against tobacco manufacturers in suits brought across the nation. But only one case thus far has resulted in money damages for a plaintiff. Last year a federal court jury awarded $400,000 to the husband of a New Jersey woman who died of cancer at age 58 after smoking cigarettes for 40 years.

George W. Kilbourne of Martinez, an attorney representing plaintiffs in several cases charging death or injury from tobacco, asbestos and other toxic substances, expressed disappointment with Thursday’s action.

But Kilbourne said pending lawsuits still may be able to proceed on alternative legal grounds--such as alleged fraud, negligence or conspiracy by manufacturers. “The failure to warn that some ingredients in a cigarette were not fully tested to see if they are carcinogenic would be considered as negligent,” he said.

George A. Sears of San Francisco, an attorney representing the American Tobacco Co., one of the defendants in the case before the court, called Thursday’s action “obviously the correct result.” Sears declined further comment.

The California law was approved by the Legislature over the objections of consumer groups after a last-minute compromise on tort liability issues reached in a closed-door meeting among insurance, business, medical and trial lawyer organizations.

The measure established new legal protections for design defects in products whose users would be presumed to know that they presented health risks. Listed as specific examples in the law were sugar, castor oil, alcohol, butter and tobacco.

A state Court of Appeal here, in the first appellate review of the law, ordered the dismissal of 10 wrongful-death lawsuits brought against a group of tobacco manufacturers.

The three-member panel ruled unanimously that while the 1987 statute was “poorly drafted,” the Legislature intended to create automatic immunity for the makers and sellers of inherently unsafe products.

In their appeal to the state Supreme Court, lawyers for the plaintiffs in the cases argued that the Legislature did not intend to bar liability for products that, while unsafe, could be made safer. Nor, said the attorneys, should the new law bar suits where consumers did not realize the added risk of smoking while being exposed to other health hazards, such as asbestos dust or welding fumes.

In response, attorneys for the tobacco companies contended that the Legislature clearly intended to eliminate liability suits over tobacco, alcohol and other products “involving life-style choices.”

The legislators had determined that such products posed “inherent and well-known risks,” and thus were to be protected from liability suits, the lawyers said.

Thursday’s action came in a brief order issued by the court, with only Justices Stanley Mosk and David N. Eagleson voting to hear the plaintiffs’ appeal. Votes from four of the seven justices are required to grant review.