Make your own free website on Tripod.com
1880-2001 PennsylvaniaCases Involving Smoking,
Smoker(s), Cigarette(s), or Tobacco

          Citations to the extent available are provided. The subjects of the cases relate to the existence of one or more of the sought-for words. The issues can involve tobacco hazards, tax issues, injuries on the job, product liability, negotiation issues, and/or other meanings that may apply to the various words. Readers are requested to suggest possible descriptive narratives, additions, or deletions, as appropriate.

Carroll v Eitheiler, 1 F 688 (ED Pa, 6 April 1880)

D'Estrinoz v Gerker, 43 F 285, 286 (ED Pa, 8 April 1890). SCB: GA 5251 (trade practices case, defining "Cigar: A bunch of tobacco rolled together and put into shape for smoking, and intended for that use." 11 CJ 765 n 77)

Commonwealth v American Tobacco Co, 173 Pa 531; 34 A 223; 38 Weekly Notes of Cases 4 (10 Feb 1896) (tax case)

Naum v American Tobacco Co, 28 Schuylkill Legal Record 227

Com v Mudgett, 4 Pa. Dist. 739; 1895 WL 3712 (30 Nov 1895) aff'd 174 Pa 211; 34 A 588 (4 March 1896) (smoker installed gas pipes to the rooms, large clothing chutes for dropping bodies nto basement, where he had built a private gas chamber/crematorium in his three-story Chicago hotel to 20 - 100 people; conviction was only for his Pennsylvania crimes)

U.S. v Two-hundred Twenty Patented Machines, 99 F 559 (ED Pa, 5 Feb 1900) (business practices case; cigar machines confiscated for taxes; the innocent take the risk if the cigar manufacturer violates the law, and machines are confiscated for taxes)

Commonwealth v Fisher, 226 Pa 189; 75 A 204 (3 Jan 1910)

Dzikowska v Superior Steel Co, 65 PLJ 502; 31 York Law Record 67 (23 April 1917). SCB: WCAB. (worker compensation case of employee smoking around oil, causing severe injury and death)

M. B. Fahey Tobacco Co v Senior, 247 F 809 (ED Pa, 22 Dec 1917), aff'd in part, 164 CCA 495; 252 F 579 (CA 3, Pa, 27 July 1918) (copyright and trademark case)

Dzikowska v Superior Steel Co, 259 Pa 578; 103 A 351; LRA 1918F, 888 (7 Jan 1918). ). SCB: 65 PLJ 502; 31 Lark 67 (worker compensation case of employee smoking around oil, causing severe injury and death)

Kraus v American Tobacco Co, 72 Penn L J 844 (1924) reversed 283 Pa 146; 129 A 60 (13 April 1925) (wholesale tobacco dealer case alleging manufacturer conspiracy in restraint of trade to control prices at which to resell to retailers) affirmed 284 Pa 569; 131 A 487 (23 Nov 1925) (verifying the right of local dealer to sue tobacco company, as its corps of salesman make it engaged in intrastate commerce, hence, allowing suit in state court)

Allen v Posternock, 107 Pa Super 332; 163 A 336 (16 Dec 1932) (fire case, beauty salon smoker injured customer, by smoking while using flammable chemicals, violating employer ban on smoking while working)

Herr v Simplex Paper Box Corp, 330 Pa 129; 198 A 309 (31 March 1938)

Philip Morris and Co v Stephano Brothers, 331 Pa 278; 200 A 605 (30 June 1938) (business practices case, issue of dividends on preferred stock, reversing lower court decision)

Knecht v Castleman River Railroad Co, 25 F Supp 650 (9 April 1938), 25 F Supp 652 (16 Nov 1938), 104 F2d 677 (CA 3, 12 June 1939)

Tyson v Plymouth Country Club, 57 Montg 140; 41 Pa D & C 116 (14 Jan 1941) (patron at bar was injured by clothing burned from smoker standing adjacent setting clothing afire)

Thomas v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 350 Pa 262; 38 A2d 61 (30 June 1944) (copyright infringement case alleging breach of contract by using "Camel" advertising suggestion without paying)

Gruber v LaRusse, 95 Pittsburgh Legal J (29 June 1946)

Commonwealth v Abdo, 162 Pa Super 622, 60 A2d 419 (23 July 1948)

Commonwealth v Flickinger, 165 Pa Super 95; 67 A2d 779 (15 July 1949), 365 Pa 59; 73 A2d 652 (22 May 1950), cert den 340 US 843; 71 S Ct 33; 95 L Ed 618 (9 Oct 1950)

Pritchard v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 134 F Supp 829 (D WD Pa, 2 Aug 1955); 183 F Supp 406 (MD Pa, 27 April 1960), 33 FRD 262 (MD Pa, 19 July 1961), 28 FRD 315 (MD Pa, 12 Oct 1961), 295 F2d 292; 22 NCCA3d 421 (CA 3, 12 Oct 1961), 350 F2d 479 (CA 3, 26 July 1965), cert den, 382 US 987; 86 S Ct 549 15 L Ed 2d 475 (17 Jan 1966), 370 F2d 95 (CA 3, 22 Dec 1966), cert den 386 US 1009; 87 S Ct 1350; 18 L Ed 2d 436 (17 April 1967)

Mitchell v American Tobacco Co, 183 F Supp 406 (D MD Pa, 27 April 1960)

Delaware Valley Marine Supply Co v American Tobacco Co, 184 F Supp 440 (ED Pa, 9 June 1960) ( local store sued alleging manufacturer conspiracy in restraint of trade for refusal to sell cigarettes to the store) and 199 F Supp 560 (ED Pa, 16 Nov 1960). SCB: 184 F Supp 440 (costs issue) affirmed 297 F2d 199 (CA 3, 8 Dec 1961)

Mitchell v American Tobacco Co, 33 FRD 262 (D MD Pa, 19 July 1961). SCB: 183 F Supp 406

Mitchell v American Tobacco Co, 28 FRD 315 (D MD Pa, 12 Oct 1961). SCB: 183 F Supp 406; 33 FRD 262

Haskell Manufacturing Co, Inc and International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, 64-2 ARB 8647 (13 May 1964) (smoker suspended 30 days for on-job smoking)

N. Tilli & Sons, Inc v Commonwealth, 420 Pa 28; 215 A2d 653 (4 Jan 1966)

Minamayer Corp v Paper Mill Suppliers Inc, 297 F Supp 524 (D Pa, 14 Feb 1969)

Bucci v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 57 Del Co 122 (Pa Com Pl, 7 Aug 1969) affirmed 439 Pa 302; 268 A2d 88 (13 July 1970) (ex-employee won case to obtain profit sharing plan benefits lost due to unjust discharge; jury did not believe company reasons)

Albright v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 350 F Supp 341 (D WD Pa, 23 Oct 1972), affirmed, 485 F2d 678 (CA 3, 25 Oct 1973), reh den 463 F Supp 1220 (D WD Pa, 22 Jan 1974) cert den 416 US 951; 94 S Ct 961; 40 L Ed 2d 301 (15 April 1974) aff'd 531 F2d 132 (CA 3, 13 Feb 1976)

In Interest of Helman, 230 Pa Super 484; 327 A2d 163 (23 Sep 1974) (smoking boys set fire to building)

Commonwealth v Hughes, 468 Pa 502; 364 A2d 306 (8 Oct 1976) (A typical result of smoker addiction, Hughes' smoking on the job started a fire. This fire was at a chemical factory. Firemen trying to put out the fire were killed on the job in the process of putting out the smoker-caused fire. The smoker was arrested for manslaughter in the two deaths. He appealed all the way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but lost. Smokers—contrary to lay beliefs—do not have a right to start fires that kill people.)

Gladieux Food Services, Inc and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 70 Lab Arb 544 (1 March 1978) (identifying smoking in that context, in murder terms)

Nicolet Industries, Inc and Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Union, 79-2 ARB § 8398 (1 Dec 1978)

Schoenkopf v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 483 F Supp 1185 (D ED Pa, 18 Jan 1980)

Schoenkopf v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 637 F2d 205 (CA 3, Pa, 29 Dec 1980). SCB: 483 F Supp 1185

Ruckstiehl v Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 57 Pa Cmnwlth 302; 426 A2d 719 (4 March 1981) (Details at ASH)

Crucible Steel v Workmen's Compensation, 59 Pa Cmnwlth 184; 429 A2d 123 (6 May 1981) (worker compensation case)

Ierardi v Lorillard, Inc., 777 F Supp 420 (ED Pa, 28 Oct 1981) (no duty of post-sale warning)

Crucible Steel Co v Workmen's Compensation Appeal Bd, 63 Pa Cmnwlth 374; 437 A2d 1324 (23 Dec 1981)

Chambersburg Area School District v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Penn Labor Relations Board, 60 Pa Cmnwlth 29; 430 A2d 740 (10 April 1981), app dism, 498 Pa 366; 446 A2d 603 (17 June 1982)

Commonwealth v Commonwealth, Penn Labor Relations Board, 11 PPER § 11,223 (198?)

Commonwealth v Commonwealth, Penn Labor Relations Board, 74 Pa Cmnwlth Ct 1; 459 A2d 452 (28 April 1983)

Robin A. Ennis v Stoehmann Bros, Appeal No. B-83-2-R-24, 2-218601 (Pa Unemployment Comp Bd of Review, 27 May 1983)

Philip Morris v Pittsburgh Penguins, Inc, 589 F Supp 912 (WD Pa, 31 Oct 1983) (business practices case, issue of tobacco advertising on scoreboard)

Philip Morris v Pittsburgh Penguins, Inc, 738 F2d 424 (CA 3, Pa, 21 June 1984). SCB: 589 F Supp 912

Iandorio v Kriss & Senko Enterprises, Inc, 339 Pa Super 624; 488 A2d 1169 (1986), app 512 Pa 392; 517 A2d 530 (17 Nov 1986)

Lapham v Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 103 Pa C 144; 519 A2d 1101 (13 Jan 1987) (Details at ASH)

Morelite Equipment Co v IBEW Local 56, 88 Lab Arb (BNA) 777 (Penn, 28 Jan 1987) (on-job smoking ban is not negotiable)

Cruiess v Matty, 1987 WL 13348 (ED Pa, 1 July 1987) (details)

Miller v Brown and Williamson Tobacco Co, 679 F Supp 485 (D ED Pa, 10 Feb 1988) (Details at ASH)

Pennington v RJ Reynolds & American Tobacco Co, 876 F2d 414 (CA 5, 28 June 1989) (Details at ASH)

Hite v RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, 396 Pa Super 82; 578 A2d 417; CCF Prod Liab Rep ¶ 12535 (12 July 1990) (Details at ASH)

Strathmann v Linda Foster (Common Pleas, Erie County, 1991) (smoke-free conduct required in home for child during visitation; details at ASH)

Quinn, Gent, Buseck & Leemhuis, Inc v Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 147 Pa Cmnwlth 141; 606 A2d 1300 (8 April 1992) (Details at ASH)

Marie Kuhn v Philip Morris U.S.A., Inc, 814 F Supp 450 (ED Penn, 2 March 1993) (employee sex discrimination case)

Reynolds v Bucks, 833 F Supp 518 (ED Pa, 1 Oct 1993) (details)

Fontroy, et al v Owens, et al, Case No. 94-0700 (CA 3, ED Pa, 4 May 1994) (cruel and unsual punishment case, court said to await harm, opposing prevention, constituting judicial malice)

Michael v Shiley, Inc, Case 94-0959, 46 F3d 1316 (CA 3, ED Pa, 24 Oct 1994) cert den 516 US 815; 116 S Ct 67; 133 L Ed 2d 29 (preemption with cigarette law 15 § 1331, et seq, compared, claim of practice of fraudulent promotion of dangerous product not preempted)

Crawford County v Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 659 A2d 1078 (26 May 1995) app gr 542 Pa 676; 668 A2d 1138 (1995) app dism as improvidently granted 543 Pa 482; 672 A2d 1318 (1996) (details)

Austin v Lehman, 893 F Supp 448 (ED Pa, 6 July 1995) (details)

Wivell v Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 673 A2d 439 (19 March 1996). SCB: UCBR No. B-339019 (list of similar cases in other states)

Philip Morris/Kraft Foods, Inc v WCAB (Levan), 689 A2d 986 (Pa Cmnwlth, 29 Jan 1997). SCB: WCAB A95-0209 (worker compensation case)

Arch v American Tobacco Co., 175 FRD 469 (ED Pa, 3 June 1997) (refusing smokers' request for class action status)

Arch v American Tobacco Co, Inc, 984 F Supp 830 (ED Pa, 17 June 1997)

Barnes v American Tobacco Co, Inc, 176 FRD 479 (ED Pa, 22 Aug 1997)

Barnes v American Tobacco Co, 989 F Supp 661 (ED Pa, 10 Oct 1997)

Barnes v American Tobacco Co, 984 F Supp 842 (ED Pa, 17 Oct 1997)

Ciarlante v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp and American Tobacco Co, 143 F3d 139; Case No. 98-1850 (CA 3, ED Penn, 30 April 1998) (class action by sales reps of whom large numbers were fired without notice on corp merger, citing Chevron argument and alleging violation of the law requiring notice when over 50 are fired by the same office). SCB: 1996 WL 656448 (judgment for employees); 1996 WL 741973 (reconsideration denial); 1997 WL 611679 (damages order)

House of Corrections Block Representatives Comm v Creamer, 1998 WL 242663 (ED Pa, 30 April 1998) (prison case)

USA v Milner, Case 98-1970 (CA 3, MD Pa, 15 Sep 1998) (c) (heroin case, with evidence including a cigarette pack with a bottle cap, which they recognized as a device used to mix heroin prior to injection)

Williams & Drake Co v American Tobacco Co, No. 98-553 (WD Penn, 21 Dec 1998) (self-insured employer brought cost recovery lawsuit for payments for sick smokers)

Barnes v American Tobacco Co, 130 F3d 765 and 161 F3d 127; Case 98-1999p (CA 3, ED Pa, 12 Nov 1998). SCB: 176 FRD 479; 984 F Supp 842; 989 F Supp 661 (cigarette case, affirming lower court dismissal of "class action" case, and citing, e.g., the running of the stutute of limitations in certain individual cases)

Barnes v American Tobacco Co, Case 98-1999a (CA 3, ED Pa, 16 Nov 1998) (c) (cigarette case, alleging that the issue, e.g., of "addiction" is not amenable to being resolved on a "class action" basis. The real truth is cited at my citation of the 99½% factor, i.e., smoking is [beyond a reasonable doubt, 99½%] "always" addictive, i.e., a "natural and probable consequence")

Steamfitters Local 420 v Philip Morris Inc, 171 F3d 912, Case No. 99-2106 (CA 3, ED Penn, 29 March 1999) (health care cost reimbursement case, claim denied). SCB: 1998 WL 212846

Barnes v American Tobacco Co, 526 US 1114; 119 S Ct 1760; 143 L Ed 2d 791; 1999 US LEXIS 3264 (17 May 1999). SCB: 161 F3d 127

Sklaroff v Com of Pennsylvania by D. Michael Fisher, Pa,736 A2d 693; 736 A2d 705 (17 Dec 1999) (Sklaroff intervention denied)

Sklaroff v Com of Pennsylvania by D. Michael Fisher, 531 US 917; 121 S Ct 276; 148 L Ed 2d 201; 2000 US LEXIS 6515 (certiorari denial, 2 Oct 2000). SCB: 736 A2d 693; 736 A2d 705 (Sklaroff intervention).

Rev. Jesse Brown et al v Philip Morris et al, Case No 99-1931, ___ F3d ___ (CA 3, 17 May 2001). SCB: ED Pa, 23 Sep 1999 (issue of targeting minorities)

Mitchell's Bar and Restaurant, Inc., et al. v Allegheny County, et al. (Ct of Common Pleas, 22 Dec 2006) (upholding smokefree ordinance going into effect 2 January 2007) (See Smokefree Pennsylvania's amicus brief and exhibits and "Preemption" by RWJF/AMA SmokeLess States.)


      The U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), book entitled Research on Smoking Behavior, Research Monograph 17, Publication ADM 78-581, p v (December 1977), said:

"Over 37 million people (one of every six Americans alive today) will die from cigarette smoking years before they otherwise would."

      A few years earlier, the Royal College of Physicians of London, in its book, Smoking and Health Now (London: Pitman Medical and Scientific Publishing Co, 1971), p 9, had already declared the smoking-caused death toll to be a "holocaust" due to the then "annual death toll of some 27,500." If 27,500 deaths is a "holocaust," and it is, 37 million is (in contrast to the Nazi 6 million holocaust), a six fold+ holocaust. That is above the World War II "crimes against humanity" level for which prosecutions occurred.

This holocaust level of tobacco-caused deaths was already known by 1836. By then, it was already well-established "that thousands and tens of thousands die of diseases of the lungs generally brought on by tobacco smoking. . . . How is it possible to be otherwise? Tobacco is a poison. A man will die of an infusion of tobacco as of a shot through the head." —Samuel Green, New England Almanack and Farmer's Friend (1836).

          Cigarettes have toxic chemicals and have a record of containing a dangerous poisonous additive, coumarin used for rat poison. Wherefore, by definition, cigarette emissions are illegal everywhere.

          To the extent that workplace issues are involved, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 USC § 651 - § 678 forbids hazards. Rules such as 29 CFR § 1910.1000 provide specific examples of hazards such as carbon monoxide (limit of 50 parts per million). An employer has a duty to prevent and suppress hazardous conduct by employees. National Realty and Construction Co, Inc v Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 160 US App DC 133, 489 F2d 1257, 1266, n 36 (CA DC, 1973).

The Pennsylvania Lawsuit Against Tobacco Companies
Comm. of Pennsylvania by D. Michael Fisher, Attorney General
v
Philip Morris, Inc; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co; Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp; B.A.T. Industries, P.L.C.; The American Tobacco Co, Inc.; Lorillard Tobacco Co; Liggett Group, Inc; United States Tobacco Co; The Tobacco Institute, Inc; The Council for Tobacco Research-U.S.A., Inc; Smokeless Tobacco Council, Inc.; and Hill and Knowlton, Inc

OTHER RELATED SITES TRACING
HISTORY OF THE TOBACCO HAZARD
Tobacco's Toxic Chemicals
Michigan House Report - 1889
Iowa's 1897 Cigarette Ban
Tennessee's 1897 Cigarette Ban
Michigan's 1909 Cigarette Ban
Thomas Edison's 1914 Analysis
1925 Data Linking Tobacco and Cancer
Tobacco Addiction Data 1527 - Present
U.S. Supreme Court Tobacco Cases
Federal Circuit Court Tobacco Cases
Smokers' Rights Cases
Tobacco Company Behavior Cases

          A further explanation will be provided, with additions or deletions as appropriate, when practicable. To submit input, email lpletten@tir.com.