The Third Wave of Tobacco Tort Litigation

Rabin, Robert L.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.283794

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…23 While PM fought public funds divestment from its inception, 24 25 the company's resistance crystallised in 1996-97, as divestment advocacy was boosted by the growing number of states joining the Medicaid-recovery lawsuits. 26 PM had initially acted jointly with industry allies 25 , but its 1996-97 counter-divestment strategic plan explicitly sought to ''focus on the company, not on the industry. The issue is not tobacco, but the company as an investment vehicle''.…”

Section: Divestment As a Philip Morris Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

Fiscal versus social responsibility: how Philip Morris shaped the public funds divestment debate

Wander

Malone

2006

Tob Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Calls for institutional investors to divest (sell off) tobacco stocks threaten the industry's share values, publicise its bad behaviour, and label it as a politically unacceptable ally. US tobacco control advocates began urging government investment and pension funds to divest as a matter of responsible social policy in 1990. Following the initiation of Medicaid recovery lawsuits in 1994, advocates highlighted the contradictions between state justice departments suing the industry, and state health departments expanding tobacco control programmes, while state treasurers invested in tobacco companies. Philip Morris (PM), the most exposed US company, led the divestment opposition, consistently framing the issue as one of responsible fiscal policy. It insisted that funds had to be managed for the exclusive interest of beneficiaries, not the public at large, and for high share returns above all. This paper uses tobacco industry documents to show how PM sought to frame both the rhetorical contents and the legal contexts of the divestment debate. While tobacco stock divestment was eventually limited to only seven (but highly visible) states, US advocates focused public attention on the issue in at least 18 others plus various local jurisdictions. This added to ongoing, effective campaigns to denormalise and delegitimise the tobacco industry, dividing it from key allies. Divestment as a delegitimisation tool could have both advantages and disadvantages as a tobacco control strategy in other countries.

show abstract

Section: Divestment As a Philip Morris Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

Fiscal versus social responsibility: how Philip Morris shaped the public funds divestment debate

Wander

Malone

2006

Tob Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lots of documents turned up in the U.S. during tort trials, which stirred up scandals similar to mad cow disease in Europe. Prominent legal cases such as Castano v. American Tobacco Co. or Broin v. Philip Morris Companies revealed that tobacco companies had refused to use ''safer tobacco,'' had tried to distract public attention from scientific results, and had suppressed information that underscored risks of second-hand smoking (Rabin, 2001). Especially claims by flight attendants gained a lot of public attention.…”

Section: Policies Shaped By Governance Models and Framing Opportunitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 Political variables seem to explain most of the differences. Without doubt, litigation has been the most important tool in the U.S. (Rabin, 2001). A majority of Americans still regard smoking as a matter of individual choice and are skeptical about trials in which smokers are the plaintiffs (Kagan & Nelson, 2001).…”

Section: Explaining the Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mix-Up: Models of Governance and Framing Opportunities in U.S. and EU Consumer Policy

Strünck

2005

J Consum Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Students of comparative politics have highlighted different styles of regulation in the U.S. and Europe. These differences also apply to consumer policy and its different models of governance. The paper holds that governance is a key variable but adds aspects of issue framing. Two examples of consumer policy are analysed: regulation of genetically modified organisms and tobacco control. The case studies show that features of governance such as adversarial legalism or the precautionary principle are not necessarily linked to distinctive styles of regulation. Instead they vary across policy fields. Only a mix of governance elements and framing opportunities for interest groups can explain output and new directions of consumer policy. Dilemmas of collective action appear to be shrinking for consumers because framing trumps mobilization of members. Copyright Springer 2005

show abstract

“…19 In almost all US states, liability for damages was expanded when the causation issue switched from contributory negligence to comparative negligence. 20 At the same time, scientific proof of the dangers of smoking began to mount, and the industry found it more difficult to deny the link between smoking and disease. Gradually, the tobacco companies began to admit that there was a statistical link between smoking and disease and that smoking was a hazard to health.…”

Section: The Three Waves Of Tobacco Litigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tobacco control implications of the first European product liability suit: Table 1

Hiilamo¹

2005

Tob Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To examine tobacco control implication of the first European product liability suit in Finland. Methods: Systematic search of internal tobacco industry documents available on the internet and at the British American Tobacco Guildford Depository. Results: Despite legal loss, the litigation contributed to subsequent tobacco control legislation in Finland. The proceedings revealed that the industry had concealed the health hazards of its products and, despite indisputable evidence, continued to deny them. The positions taken by the industry rocked its reliability as a social actor and thus weakened its chances of influencing tobacco policy. Despite fierce opposition from the tobacco industry, tobacco products were included in the product liability legislation, tobacco was entered on the Finnish list of carcinogens, and an extensive Tobacco Act was passed in Parliament. Conclusions: Tobacco litigation might not stand alone as a tool for public health policymaking but it may well stimulate national debate over the role of smoking in society and influence the policy agenda.

show abstract

The Third Wave of Tobacco Tort Litigation

Cited by 16 publications

References 16 publications

Fiscal versus social responsibility: how Philip Morris shaped the public funds divestment debate

Fiscal versus social responsibility: how Philip Morris shaped the public funds divestment debate

Mix-Up: Models of Governance and Framing Opportunities in U.S. and EU Consumer Policy

Tobacco control implications of the first European product liability suit: Table 1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About