-
Related
The family of a dead Invercargill woman have lost a landmark case against British American Tobacco.
Janice Pou lodged a $310,000 claim for damages against British American Tobacco before her death from lung cancer in 2002.
Her children, Brandon and Kasey Pou, continued the civil action. Their lawyer claims the tobacco giant failed to warn Pou of the dangers of smoking when it had a duty to do so.
The High Court has ruled that the tobacco company did not have a duty to warn the Invercargill woman of the dangers of smoking.
In his 111 page written judgement, Justice Lang, said the dangers were common knowledge in 1968, when Pou took up smoking and there was nothing to prove that the tobacco company caused her lung cancer.
Disappointment at decision
The Pou family lawyer David Collins QC, says they will be carefully analysing the judgement over the coming weeks and it is too early to say whether they will appeal.
The Smokefree Coalition and Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) also expressed disappointment and surprise on hearing Justice Lang's decision.
The group say Janice Pou showed incredible courage and determination in spending her dying days seeking justice, even though she knew the case wouldn't be concluded in her lifetime.
Smokefree Coalition Director Mark Peck said, "It's discouraging and regrettable that we've missed this opportunity to hold accountable an industry known for its systemic deceit."
Landmark trial
During the trial Brandon and Kasey Pou's lawyers said the companies, British American Tobacco and WD and HO Wills, did not warn Janice Pou of the dangers of smoking, when they had a duty to do so.
The court heard that Pou took up smoking as a teenager as she was convinced it was sophisticated, glamorous and associated with success. It heard her impressions were formed by seeing advertisements and that she was influenced by the promotion of cigarettes by "ambassadors" such as sportsmen Peter Snell and Don Clark.
The legal argument was that the companies breached the duty of care they owed Pou by not warning her in 1968 that their products were addictive or caused lung cancer and by continuing to manufacture them knowing they were dangerous.
Lawyers for the defence said that it was common knowledge prior to 1968, when Pou took up smoking, that it caused lung cancer and was difficult to give up. They also claimed Pou could have reduced her exposure to cancer had she stopped smoking by 1985.
