Grisham v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
SimpleOriginal

Summary

In this 2007 case, the court held a smoker’s fraud and negligence claims against tobacco companies were not barred by the statute of limitations due to delayed discovery of her nicotine addiction.

2007 | State Juristiction

Grisham v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

Keywords statute of limitations; delayed discovery; nicotine addiction; smoker's fraud; negligence claims; tobacco companies; 2007 case; legal case; fraud; negligence
Open Case as PDF

Delayed Discovery in Tobacco Litigation

This 2007 case addressed the statute of limitations concerning a smoker's claims of fraud and negligence against tobacco companies. The court determined that the plaintiff's delayed discovery of her nicotine addiction was sufficient to preclude the application of the statute of limitations.

Open Case as PDF

The Case of Delayed Discovery in Tobacco Litigation

This 2007 ruling addressed a smoker's claims of fraud and negligence against tobacco companies. The court determined that the statute of limitations did not preclude the lawsuit. This decision hinged on the delayed discovery of the plaintiff's nicotine addiction, a crucial element in establishing the timeframe for legal action. The court acknowledged the complexities of addiction and its impact on a plaintiff's awareness of potential legal recourse.

Open Case as PDF

Smoker's Lawsuit and the Statute of Limitations

A 2007 court case determined that a smoker's claims of fraud and negligence against tobacco companies weren't dismissed due to exceeding the time limit for filing lawsuits (statute of limitations). The court acknowledged the smoker didn't realize the extent of her nicotine addiction until later. This delayed awareness was a key factor in the court's decision.

Open Case as PDF

The Smoking Case

A court case from 2007 said a smoker could sue tobacco companies even though it had been a long time since she started smoking. The court decided that she didn't know she was addicted to nicotine for a long time, so the time limit for suing didn't apply.

Open Case as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

54 Cal.Rptr.3d 735 (2007)

Highlights