Naegele

Naegele v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Good Law
81 Cal. App. 4th 503·96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 666
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 18, 2000A084367, A084371California6,163 words

Opinion

Opinion

For a decade, Civil Code former section 1714.45 gave tobacco manufacturers and sellers almost complete immunity from tort actions based on injuries or death resulting from use of their products. [1] (Stats. 1987, ch. 1498.) A dramatic policy change occurred effective January 1, 1998, when the Legislature amended the statute to eliminate the immunity of manufacturers. (Stats.1997, ch. 570, § 1.) The principal question in these consolidated appeals is whether the amended statute allows individuals who were diagnosed with lung cancer before its effective date to maintain tort actions against tobacco manufacturers. We conclude that the amended statute is not retroactive and that former section 1714.45 bars the actions.

In January 1998, Albert J. Pavolini filed a complaint against multiple defendants, including respondents R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation (individually and as successor by merger to The American Tobacco Company), and Lorillard Tobacco Company, seeking damages for personal injuries caused by cigarettes and asbestos (San Francisco Super. Ct. No. 992223). As later amended, the complaint sought compensatory and punitive…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.