Scottish court dismisses a historic smoker's suit.
Scottish court dismisses a historic smoker's suit.
复制标题
苏格兰法院驳回历史悠久的吸烟者的诉讼。
DOI：
10.1136/tc.2007.020768
复制
发表时间：
2007
期刊：
影响因子：
5.2
通讯作者：
Daynard,R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Friedman,L;Daynard,R
在麦克特拉诉帝国烟草有限公司（McTear v. Imperial Tobacco Limited）一宗苏格兰吸烟者案中，法院裁定没有科学证据证明原告吸烟与其死于肺癌之间存在因果关系，这一裁决接受了烟草业在整个烟草诉讼历史上提出的所有传统论点，包括流行病学不是一个足以得出因果关系结论的科学分支，烟草业不知道其产品对消费者有危险，尽管缺乏这种知识，原告有足够的信息对吸烟的危害做出明智的决定。这一案件依赖于过时的推理方法，过于相信烟草业“人人都知道，没人知道”的陈腐论点。此外，法官认为，原告的专家证人因为贫穷而没有获得服务报酬，这对原告是不利的，法官认为，没有报酬使他们的可信度受到怀疑，并声称，付费的烟草专家证人因为有报酬而更有动机独立作证，这是一种反常和新颖的推理方式。ctearcase与最近美国诉菲利普莫里斯案（United States v. Philip Morris）一案的判决形成了不利的对比，美国的一项判决认定烟草业被告是敲诈勒索者，其依据是大量烟草业内部文件的重要性，这些文件表明烟草业知道他们的产品具有成瘾性，并故意这样做以增加销售，以及专家证人的证词，这些证人与mctear案的证人一样，把促进公共卫生事业作为自己的终身事业，而不是“雇佣枪手”。thectearcase的推理似乎过时了，让人想起美国早期的诉讼。希望美国以外的法院不要再花40年的时间来承认目前关于吸烟和健康的科学知识。
The decision in a Scottish smoker’s case,McTear v. Imperial Tobacco Limited, that there was no scientific proof of causation between the plaintiff’s smoking and his death from lung cancer, accepted all of the traditional arguments that the tobacco industry has made throughout the history of tobacco litigation, including that epidemiology is not an adequate branch of science to draw a conclusion of causation, that the tobacco industry has no knowledge that its products are dangerous to consumers, and that, despite this lack of knowledge, the plaintiff had sufficient information to make an informed decision about the dangers of smoking. This case relied on outmoded methods of reasoning and placed too great a faith in the tobacco industry’s timeworn argument that “everybody knew, nobody knows”. Further, the judge found it prejudicial that the plaintiff’s expert witnesses were not paid for their services because she was indigent, believing that the lack of payment placed in doubt their credibility and claiming that the paid tobacco expert witnesses had more motive to testify independently because they had been paid, a perverse and novel line of reasoning. TheMcTearcase contrasts unfavourably with the recent decision inUnited States v. Philip Morris, a United States decision that found the tobacco industry defendants to be racketeers, based both on the weight of a huge amount of internal tobacco industry documents showing that the tobacco industry knew their products were addictive and were made that way purposely to increase sales, and on the testimony of expert witnesses who, like those who testified inMcTear, have made the advancement of the public health their life’s work and are not “hired guns”. TheMcTearcase’s reasoning seems outdated and reminiscent of early litigation in the United States. Hopefully, it will not take courts outside of the United States 40 more years to acknowledge the current scientific knowledge about smoking and health.