British Columbia can sue tobacco industry for healthcare costs
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
A Canadian court ruling last week has paved the way last week for the province of British Columbia to sue the tobacco industry for up to $C10bn (?.1bn; $US7.3bn; �6.1bn) in smoking related healthcare costs.
The unanimous ruling from the British Columbia court of appeal follows a six year battle by the province to push through legislation allowing it to try to recover the costs of treating tobacco related illness, estimated at $C500m a year.
The judgment is expected to encourage other provinces to pass similar laws in a bid to emulate litigation against the tobacco industry in the 1990s by more than 40 US states, which was settled for a total of more than $US240bn. The provinces of Ontario and Newfoundland already have similar legislation.
British Columbia first passed a law allowing it to sue tobacco companies for the recovery of healthcare costs in 1998, but after court challenges from the industry the law was held to be too wide because it would have effects outside the province. It was therefore held to be unconstitutional.
But the redrafted Tobacco Damages and Healthcare Costs Recovery Act is constitutionally valid, the three judge appeal court ruled last week, overturning a judgment last June by British Columbia抯 supreme court.
The lawsuit is against leading cigarette manufacturers (including British American Tobacco抯 Imperial Tobacco Canada; Rothmans, Benson & Hedges; and R J Reynolds) and the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers?Council. The industry is expected to appeal to the supreme court of Canada.
Mark Huleatt-James, a partner in Lovells, the international law firm acting for British American Tobacco, said: "The BAT companies are disappointed with the result and are considering an appeal."
The ruling allows the province to go ahead with litigation to recover the costs of treating people who became ill as a result of smoking. The lawsuit alleges that tobacco companies sold a defective product, failed to warn of the dangers of smoking, and misrepresented the nature of the product.(BMJ Clare Dyer legal corr)
The unanimous ruling from the British Columbia court of appeal follows a six year battle by the province to push through legislation allowing it to try to recover the costs of treating tobacco related illness, estimated at $C500m a year.
The judgment is expected to encourage other provinces to pass similar laws in a bid to emulate litigation against the tobacco industry in the 1990s by more than 40 US states, which was settled for a total of more than $US240bn. The provinces of Ontario and Newfoundland already have similar legislation.
British Columbia first passed a law allowing it to sue tobacco companies for the recovery of healthcare costs in 1998, but after court challenges from the industry the law was held to be too wide because it would have effects outside the province. It was therefore held to be unconstitutional.
But the redrafted Tobacco Damages and Healthcare Costs Recovery Act is constitutionally valid, the three judge appeal court ruled last week, overturning a judgment last June by British Columbia抯 supreme court.
The lawsuit is against leading cigarette manufacturers (including British American Tobacco抯 Imperial Tobacco Canada; Rothmans, Benson & Hedges; and R J Reynolds) and the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers?Council. The industry is expected to appeal to the supreme court of Canada.
Mark Huleatt-James, a partner in Lovells, the international law firm acting for British American Tobacco, said: "The BAT companies are disappointed with the result and are considering an appeal."
The ruling allows the province to go ahead with litigation to recover the costs of treating people who became ill as a result of smoking. The lawsuit alleges that tobacco companies sold a defective product, failed to warn of the dangers of smoking, and misrepresented the nature of the product.(BMJ Clare Dyer legal corr)