August 11, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Baum Hedlund
12100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 950
Los Angeles, CA 90025
310-207-3233
www.baumhedlundlaw.com
When cigarette injury suits must be filed
California Supreme Court accepts queries from Federal Court
Los Angeles, August 11, 2005 - - The California Supreme Court has agreed to address whether federally filed cigarette smoking cases are barred once a person becomes addicted. Since addiction could occur within weeks of initiating smoking, recent federal cases have effectively conferred immunity to the tobacco industry for all the latent diseases cigarettes cause, decades after the smoker becomes addicted.
In a rare move, the California Supreme Court yesterday decided it will answer two questions of California state law related to cigarette addiction, as requested by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. The Court will review the cases of two California smokers, Leslie Grisham and Maria Cannata, against cigarette manufacturing giants Philip Morris USA and Brown & Williamson. This ruling will impact the future of tobacco litigation not only in California but nationally.
Previously, in Soliman v. Philip Morris, Inc. 311 F. 3d 966 (9th Cir. 2002), the 9th Circuit had dismissed a California smoker's lung-injury claim for failing to promptly sue-after he knew he was addicted to smoking but many years before he developed lung disease. But California state courts, when faced with similar cases, have permitted smokers' claims to proceed. These conflicting federal and state court views will be resolved when the California Supreme Court decides questions related to addiction and common knowledge of smoking-related illnesses.
Ms. Grisham started smoking at age twelve in the early 1960s, when tobacco company reps handed out cigarettes near her junior high school. She tried quitting in 1993 and was diagnosed almost ten years later with emphysema and smoking-induced periodontal disease-a little known side effect of smoking.
Grisham filed suit within one year of discovering she had smoking-related periodontal disease. Notwithstanding, tobacco manufacturers successfully argued the Soliman rule, resulting in dismissal of Grisham's case and other serious tobacco-related injury cases, based on filing deadlines running from the date of addiction rather than the date of serious injury.
In 1998 California repealed legislation that granted cigarette manufacturers immunity from smoking-related law suits. Since then, California state courts have granted substantial awards to California smokers who suffered tobacco-related injury or death. Others, like Grisham and Cannata, have seen their cases dismissed by California's federal courts, in contravention of California's legislative intent and public policy.
Ms. Grisham is represented by Baum Hedlund of Los Angeles, a national plaintiff's law firm handling drug product liability and mass tort cases since the 1980s and Daniel U. Smith of San Francisco. "The statutes of limitations should not begin to run until a serious injury occurs, especially when, in tobacco cases, cigarette manufacturers have been proven to have defrauded the public and smoking's serious health effects are latent for decades," Grisham's attorney, Frances Phares, said. "We are pleased that the court is willing to address the inconsistencies between state and federal law and establish some uniformity within the various courts. Immunity from suit should not be conferred to cigarette manufacturers simply based on the court in which a lawsuit is filed."
