|
|
|
|
|
Newsletter | May 2014, Issue 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LITIGATION |
|
|
|
Supreme Court Decision on Lawsuits for Recovery of Smoking-Related Damages |
|
|
|
The Supreme Court recently announced its decision in cases where the surviving family members of decedents had sought compensation, alleging that the decedents died due to lung cancer caused by smoking. The Supreme Court ruled that there was no evidence that cigarettes manufactured by the defendants had a design defect, a labeling defect or any defect that lacked the level of safety generally expected by consumers. |
|
|
|
With respect to the alleged safety defect, the Supreme Court ruled that given that consumers smoke cigarettes with the intent to experience the pharmaceutical effects of nicotine, the decision by the defendants not to use a method, which if used, could have removed nicotine and tar from their cigarettes cannot support a finding that there is a design defect in the cigarettes even if such method was available. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no evidence that the defendants could have used a reasonable alternative design that could have reduced the risks of smoking-related damages to consumers. |
|
|
|
With respect to the alleged labeling defect, the Supreme Court ruled that it is difficult to acknowledge the existence of a labeling defect in cigarettes in consideration of the fact that despite the allegation that the defendants failed to include explanations or instructions in addition to the warnings included in cigarette packs as required by law, harmfulness of cigarettes is generally well-known in the society through the mass media, legislation, etc. and the decision to start smoking or continue smoking is a matter of individual choice. |
|
|
|
With respect to the issue of whether cigarettes lacked the required level of safety, the Supreme Court denied that cigarettes lacked such safety in consideration of the fact that cigarettes have been acknowledged as items of personal preference in Korea from a legal perspective and a cultural perspective, and that the decision to start smoking or continue smoking is a matter of individual choice. |
|
|
|
In addition, the Supreme Court ruled that in the absence of special circumstances such as the defendants came to acquire information that their cigarettes, which were smoked by the plaintiffs, were especially more harmful than the cigarettes of other manufacturers, or the defendants had engaged in certain acts to increase the harmfulness of their cigarettes, the defendants did not have an obligation to disclose all the relevant information in this regard. In this regard, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no evidence that the defendants concealed information related to the harmfulness of their cigarettes. |
|
|
|
Finally, with respect to the issue of causation, the Supreme Court ruled that even in a case where epidemiological causation is acknowledged, it is difficult to conclude that the individual causation is established between a certain individual’s lung cancer and his/her smoking based solely on the fact that such individual had a non-specific lung cancer, a cause of which can arise from internal biological or chemical factors or external factors or a combination of both. Although the Seoul High Court had ruled that causation can be presumed between smoking on the one hand and small cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma on the other hand, provided that certain factual elements are proven, the Supreme Court did not make a ruling on this issue. |
|
|
|
The above Supreme Court decision brought a final conclusion to tobacco litigation that has lasted over 15 years. This decision is expected to have a significant impact on other pending smoking and health litigation. |
|
|
|
Back to Main Page |
|
|
|
|
|
If you have any questions regarding this article, please contact below: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For more information, please visit our website: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|