Last week, the California Supreme Court struck down a tobacco industry claim that people can only file personal injury lawsuits within two years of becoming addicted; a decision which many think will spark a bundle of new product liability claims against tobacco companies like Philip Morris. Specifically, the Court found that the two-year statute-of-limitations for filing a claim against the tobacco company for personal injuries begins upon being diagnosed with the disease caused by the cigarettes and not when becoming addicted to them.

The California Supreme Court was deciding a 9^th Circuit Court case in which Leslie Grisham alleged that she became hooked on cigarettes in the 1960s but was recently diagnosed with emphysema and periodontal disease. Tobacco industry attorney Daniel Collins cited a 2002 case, Soliman v. Philip Morris, as evidence that Grisham should have filed her lawsuit years ago when first learning that she was addicted. However, the California Supreme Court disagreed and said that Grishalm and fellow plaintiff and emphysema sufferer Maria Cannata could proceed with product liability lawsuits against the tobacco industry.

The personal injury attorneys of these women argued that the tobacco industry’s argument was not logical, especially the notion of filing a lawsuit saying that you are now addicted on tobacco and may get a disease in the future. California Supreme Court justices also refuted a tobacco industry argument that smokers should not be able to claim they were unaware of the risks of smoking, and said that there is no presumption that smokers are aware of the addictiveness or health hazards of smoking. According to Justice Carlos Moreno, Grishalm’s “appreciable physical harm” did not manifest until she contracted her ailment. Collins declined comment on the ruling beyond a Philip Morris written statement, while others applauded this decision as bringing tobacco litigation back to California, according to the story on the Law.com website.