(Supreme Court of Norway) A request was made for a declaratory judgment finding that a tobacco manufacturer was liable for damages on a strict liability basis with respect to an injured party who after over 40 years of cigarette smoking developed lung cancer and died.
Held: ‘The parties have in their arguments before the Supreme Court concentrated to a large degree on what knowledge of the health risks of smoking the normal consumer had during the space of time from 1950 to 1975. The appellant has acknowledged that the knowledge of both the general public as well as that of [the deceased] Robert Lund of the risks in 1975 had been brought to such a level that continued smoking after that took place at his own risk.’ The judge commented on the evidence: ‘The parties are in agreement that the question of the relationship between smoking and damage to health is not related to what the individual injured party – Robert Lund in our case – knew or did not know.’ he referred to various reports, including one by the Norwegian General Director of Health in 1964, and concluded: ‘Despite the fact that extremely many cigarette smokers continued not to accept the consequences of the medical knowledge that the research had brought to light, I am of the opinion that the consumers had in any event received such information in 1964 concerning health damage that a normally intelligent person would include it in his assessment of how he wished to conduct his life. Such as I see it, there cannot be any doubt that Robert Lund’s smoking after this point in time took place at his own risk.’ The judge then considered the ten year period between 1954, when Robert Lund began smoking the particular brand of tobacco in question, to 1964: ‘My overall impression of the material that was submitted on the situation from the first half of the 1950s up to 1964 is that medical science at that time had still not secured reliable knowledge concerning a direct causal relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer and other serious injuries to health.’ However: ‘During this last 10-year period prior to the final conclusions being able to be drawn, the relationship between smoking and damage to health was not unknown to the average man or woman. However due to the lack of completely clear evidence it was to a greater degree than later left to the individual as to the extent to which one wished to believe what one read and heard now and then about the harmful effects of tobacco. And then as now, it was completely up to the individual as to whether one chose to take the chance. What is crucial for me is that it also must have been generally known at the time that cigarette smoking could involve a risk of serious health damage, and that the risk of such damage in any event to some extent would increase if the consumption of cigarettes was large. Such as I view the case, no more fine-meshed of an analysis is needed on this point.’
Judges:
Judge Flock
Citations:
HR – 2002 – 00753a
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Negligence
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.226702
