Law

Multiple civil lawsuits in recent years have brought massive academic and legal research on the issue of product liability in relation to tobacco companies. These lawsuits often attempt to hold tobacco companies responsible for wrongful death, medical expenses and injury related to tobacco smoking and other tobacco use.  In recent years, multiple suits have been brought on behalf of individual smokers, class of smokers and other entities who shoulder the burden of health care expenditures in relation to tobacco related expenditures. Plaintiffs often argue that tobacco products are unsafe and often directly cause harm to individuals, 
Product Liability
Product liability was initiated based on the argument that individuals injured by defective products often deserved protection and compensation from products manufacturers, suppliers and sellers Product liability lawsuits against tobacco companies began in the 1950s following increased scientific evidence that cigarette smoking was a cause of lung cancer.  However, the first wave of tobacco lawsuits occurred between March 1954 and September, 1978 a period in which over 125 reimbursement cases were filed although in all cases, although the plaintiffs were defeated, this nonetheless led to an increase in litigation towards tobacco companies,
Tobacco Companies
Product liability cases related to tobacco companies often attract massive interest based on the stakes and the parties involved. It is often observed that a single successful lawsuit could spur a tidal wave of litigation hence the industry have an enormous amount of stake in defending any pending lawsuit. Similar to other product liability cases, charges are often brought about by individuals who claims has sustained bodily injury and is often defended by the tobacco companies,  . Plaintiffs often include smokers who often use the products, their family members and bystanders who claim to have been affected as secondary smokers. Most state statutes also states that a person can institute sits based upon negligence or strict liability law for a product that leads to the death of a person hence in most cases, individuals who die from cigarette addiction are often represented by family members. In most cases, tobacco companies often argued against any direct link between tobacco and specific ailments such as cancer,.
Plaintiffs often bring their charges against tobacco companies on the argument of negligence whether they note that tobacco companies often are negligent on the manufacturing process, design and adequately issuing warnings against their products. Plaintiffs often try to prove the connection between tobacco companies negligent act and the harm and the companies legal obligation to have foreseen plaintiffs harm. A number of cases presented on the foundation of the theory of negligence have been successfully defended by the tobacco companies. For example in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, the Liggett group affirmed that they had placed adequate warnings on cigarette packages hence they could not be responsible for any charges of negligence, affirms that most tobacco related litigation presented on the argument of negligence were often defeated since the companies refuted that smoking induced disease. 
The case of Browenerv. R. J Reynolds, filed in 1981 was filed on the theoretical foundation of strict liability. R. J Reynolds defense affirmed that the scientific community had not established with certainty the connection between smoking and human disease. They also affirmed that they were not liable for any cases of strict liability since the plaintiff had assumed any risk by choosing to smoke. Expansion of product liability led to an increase in claims with individuals arguing that smoking was dangerous based on the direct statistically proven link between smoking and disease hence smoking was a hazard to health. Increased product liability litigation against tobacco companies is also a sure way to tobacco related complications since the dangers of smoking are clear-cut.