On May 18 Massachusetts’s Supreme Judicial Court “rejected one of the tobacco industry’s most successful defenses in wrongful death lawsuits, ruling the companies cannot shield themselves from liability simply by claiming that smokers should know cigarettes are dangerous.” (Denise Lavoie, “Mass. High Court Rejects Tobacco Defense”, AP/Forbes, May 18). In particular, the court declared it to be “obvious… that cigarettes cannot be used safely and therefore that cigarette use is unreasonable” and ruled that accordingly “public policy demands” that liability be placed on cigarette manufacturers. (Childs, May 18). Jacob Sullum comments at Reason “Hit and Run” (May 22).
In other news, Sullum (May 17) also brings word (via tobacco control movement whistleblower Dr. Michael Siegel) of how “at least 68 anti-smoking groups” — the American Cancer Society most prominent among them — “are falsely claiming that a half-hour’s exposure to secondhand smoke can cause atherosclerosis and heart attacks.”
2 Comments
Still it inappropriately places the blame on the deep pocket. If, as the court states, it is “obvious… that cigarettes cannot be used safely and therefore that cigarette use is unreasonable”, then we must ask to whom do they think it is obvious. If they mean the average lay person then why isn’t the blame placed squarely on the smoker for violating the courts perception of unreasonableness?
If the courts make everything that is inherently risky (and in reality everything does carry some inherent and unmitigatable risk, however small) then is there any outcome that does not fall under this idea of strict liability? The nanny state is now complete.
Doesn’t that ruling leave the State of Massachusetts open for liability as well? The State knows that tobacco is inherently dangerous and yet does not make the sale of tobacco products illegal. Even worse the State profits from the sale of tobacco through taxes.