I. Rationale
Tobacco litigation is currently running rampant in the United States. This has not always been the case. Of the 800 cases between 1950 and 1993, none were successful and only 23 reached trial. Since then, numerous legal victories have been achieved, by individuals and states, against the tobacco manufacturing companies.
Strict product liability is a theory that a manufacturer of any product in defective condition is liable for injury caused as a result of the defect. I would argue against this form of liability being used in litigation against tobacco manufacturers. I believe that the product (cigarettes) is not defective and is being manufactured the way it is intended. If a smoker gets lung cancer or another form of cancer from cigarettes, she should not be able to sue under strict product liability.
During the last 15 years, juries seem to have ignored this and have awarded plaintiffs unreasonable monetary awards in tobacco cases. I believe, in many cases, the juries are offering sympathy to the plaintiffs and punishing the tobacco manufacturers even though they should not be considered liable under the strict liability policy.
II. Key Facts and Legal Arguments in Favor of Imposing Liability
• Manufacturers lied about their knowledge that tobacco is addictive.
• Manufacturers deceived the public by labeling some cigarettes as “light” or “ultra-light”.
• Manufacturers unethically advertised tobacco products toward underage children.
I believe that the above facts could be used in neglige ...