Assembly Kills Move to OK More Tobacco Suits

Handing the tobacco industry a rare victory, the Assembly rejected legislation Thursday that would have allowed individual Californians to sue cigarette companies for tobacco-related illnesses.

Defeat of the bill, by Sen. Quentin L. Kopp (I-San Francisco) leaves the state with a law enacted two weeks ago that permits only state and local governments to sue for costs that they incur in treating tobacco-caused illnesses. The Kopp measure would have added individuals as litigants, thus expanding greatly the potential field of those who could have brought suit.

Under a law passed a decade ago, California--unlike most states--does not allow suits by individuals claiming damages caused by tobacco smoking.

The bill to eliminate that shield (SB 67) passed easily in the Senate in April but, needing 41 votes, went down 36 to 24 in the Assembly, with the possibility of another vote at a later date.

Reasons for the defeat varied, but it remained clear that despite setbacks nationally and strong anti-smoking measures enacted in the past, “big tobacco” has not lost all its clout in Sacramento.

Tobacco lobbyists seeking to influence the vote were out in force Thursday, outnumbering rival lobbyists working the corridors of the Capitol by 15 to 2, according to anti-tobacco lobbyist Paul Knepprath of the American Lung Assn. of California.

The effect of the vote, said Knepprath, “continues the sweetheart deal” made 10 years ago that exempts tobacco from exposure to lawsuits under California’s product liability law.

But Peggy Carter with R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in Winston-Salem, N.C., called the vote a “positive statement for the American system.” California’s shield law, she noted, protects from lawsuits not only tobacco but also other products such as milk, butter and castor oil.

It would be unfair, she said, to single out one product as less deserving of protection than the others.

Debate on the Assembly floor echoed the by-now-familiar exchanges on tobacco’s dangers--Democrats mainly condemning the industry for peddling an addictive product, Republicans responding that smokers light up at their own risk.

More curious, however, was the resounding defeat of the measure, given the fact that the earlier bill allowing governments to sue passed overwhelmingly in the same house.

Opponents said they were persuaded, in part, by the Kopp bill’s “premature timing.”

The measure would not have taken effect until Jan. 1, noted Assembly Minority Leader Curt Pringle (R-Garden Grove), unlike the earlier bill by Assembly Speaker Cruz Bustamante (D-Fresno) that took effect right after Gov. Pete Wilson signed it June 12.

In the meantime, Pringle said, with negotiations under way for a $368-million settlement between the industry and dozens of states including California, “we don’t know how this measure interacts with that.”

Although the vote against the Kopp bill came mostly from Republicans, nine Democrats contributed to the defeat by not voting, including Bustamante.

Speculation circulated that the Democrats were following Bustamante’s lead because the speaker wanted no measure on the issue to survive other than his.

But Ron Gray, Bustamante’s spokesman, said the speaker “did not influence others” on how to vote.

* TOBACCO DEAL HITS SNAG: Senators want executives to say products are addictive. D1