Advertisement

Debates on Causation in Tobacco Lawsuits

  • Minsoo JungEmail author
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Philosophy book series (BRIEFSPHILOSOPH)

Abstract

With regard to smoking-related lawsuits today, the grounds on which plaintiffs arguing damages due to smoking charge criminal defendants with legal responsibility have developed from the existing responsibility for illegal harmful acts into struggles over a new legal principle since the legislation of the South Korean Product Liability Act. According to this legal principle, tobacco is a defective product, and criminal defendants can be charged with legal responsibility when plaintiffs suffer damages due to tobacco and prove the probability of the occurrence of damage regarding a causal relation between the defects of tobacco and the occurrence of the damage. However, lung cancer, which is a chronic disease, develops only after long-term exposure to smoking and can involve interventions of other factors as well, which complicates the determination of causal relations. Consequently, as in the medical malpractice lawsuits examined above, mitigation of the plaintiffs’ burden of proof can be considered. However, the South Korean Supreme Court, which has ruled in favor of criminal defendants in smoking-related lawsuits filed by the plaintiffs, has not sufficiently accepted epidemiological evidence in proving causal relations. The reasoning is that even when epidemiological correlations are acknowledged in the case of non-specific diseases such as lung cancer, the plaintiffs must prove aspects including the exposure time regarding harmful factors, the degree of their exposures to these factors, the time of disease onset, health status before exposure to the harmful factors, and lifestyles and must thus prove the probability of the causation of non-specific diseases by those factors. In other words, the South Korean Supreme Court has judged that epidemiological evidence fails to be valuable evidence in lawsuits to determine responsibility for the occurrence of damage to individuals because epidemiological research studies populations instead of individuals. Moreover, while negligence can be seen as existing when tobacco companies, manufacturers of harmful products, have failed sufficiently to notify consumers of the harms of tobacco, the Supreme Court has ruled that these companies have appropriately performed their duty of describing potential risks, which in this case consists of what are known as the instruction defects of products.

References

  1. Broadbent, A. (2009). Causation and models of disease in epidemiology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 40, 302–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Broadbent, A. (2011). Epidemiological evidence in proof of specific causation. Legal Theory, 17, 237–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broadbent, A. (2013). Philosophy of epidemiology (New directions in the philosophy of science). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Broadbent, A. (2015). Epidemiological evidence in law: A comment on Supreme Court decision 2011Da22092 South Korea. Epidemiology and Health, 37, e2015025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broadbent, A., & Hwang, S. S. (2016). Tobacco and epidemiology in Korea: Old tricks, new answers? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 70(6), 527–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burton, P. R., Tobin, M. D., & Hopper, J. L. (2005). Key concepts in genetic epidemiology. Lancet, 366(9489), 941–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davey Smith, G. (2011). Epidemiology, epigenetics and the ‘Gloomy Prospect’: Embracing randomness in population health research and practice. International Journal of Epidemiology, 40(3), 537–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doll, R., & Hill, A. B. (1954). The mortality of doctors in relation to their smoking habits: A preliminary report. British Medical Journal, 1(4877), 1451–1455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gold, S. (1986). Causation in toxic torts: Burdens of proof, standards of persuasion, and statistical evidence. Yale Law Journal, 96, 376–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greenland, S., & Robins, J. (2000). Epidemiology, justice, and the probability of causation. Jurimetrics, 40, 321–340.Google Scholar
  11. Hill, G., Millar, W., & Connelly, J. (2003). The great debate 1: Smoking, lung cancer, and cancer epidemiology. Canadian Bulletin of Medical History, 20(2), 367–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hong, Y. P., Kim, S. J., Lew, W. J., Lee, E. K., & Han, Y. C. (1998). The seventh nationwide tuberculosis prevalence survey in Korea, 1995. International Journal of Tuberculosis Lung Diseases, 2(1), 27–36.Google Scholar
  13. Kim, D. S. (2010). Introduction: Health of the health care system in Korea. Social Work in Public Health, 25, 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim, K. S., & Lee, Y. J. (2010). Developments and general features of national health insurance in Korea. Social Work in Public Health, 25, 142–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee, S. G. (2016). Proving causation with epidemiological evidence in tobacco lawsuits. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, 49, 80–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee, S.-Y., Chun, C. B., Lee, Y. G., & Seo, N. K. (2008). The National Health Insurance system as one type of new typology: The case of South Korea and Taiwan. Health Policy, 85, 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lichtenstein, P., Holm, N. V., Verkasalo, P. K., Iliadou, A., Kaprio, J., Koskenvuo, M., et al. (2000). Environmental and heritable factors in the causation of cancer—analyses of cohorts of twins from Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. New England Journal of Medicine, 343(2), 78–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Park, S., Jee, S. H., Shin, H. R., Park, E. H., Shin, A., Jung, K. W., et al. (2014). Attributable fraction of tobacco smoking on cancer using population-based nationwide cancer incidence and mortality data in Korea. BMC Cancer, 14, 406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pearce, N. (2011). Epidemiology in a changing world: Variation, causation and ubiquitous risk factors. International Journal of Epidemiology, 40(2), 503–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peto, R., Darby, S., Deo, H., Silcocks, P., Whitley, E., & Doll, R. (2000). Smoking, smoking cessation, and lung cancer in the UK since 1950: Combination of national statistics with two case-control studies. British Medical Journal, 321(7257), 323–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Plomin, R. (2011). Why are children in the same family so different? Non-shared environment three decades later. International Journal of Epidemiology, 40, 582–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Proctor, R. N. (2012). The history of the discovery of the cigarette-lung cancer link: Evidentiary traditions, corporate denial, global toll. Tobacco Control, 21(2), 87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rothman, K. J. (1976). Causes. American Journal of Epidemiology, 104, 587–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rothman, K. J., Greenland, S., & Lash, T. L. (Eds.). (2008). Modern epidemiology (3rd ed.). New York: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  25. Rutter, T. (1997). Tobacco companies seek to pay $300bn as lawsuit settlement. British Medical Journal, 314(7089), 1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wright, R. (2008). Liability for possible wrongs: Causation, statistical probability, and the burden of proof. Loyola Los Angeles Law Review, 41, 1295–1344.Google Scholar
  27. Wu-Williams, A. H., & Samet, J. M. (2000). Lung cancer and cigarette in the UK since 1950: Combination of national statistics with two case-control studies. British Medical Journal, 321, 323–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wynder, E. L., Graham, E. A., & Croninger, A. B. (1953). Experimental production of carcinoma with cigarette tar. Cancer Research, 13(12), 855–864.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dongduk Women’s UniversitySeoulKorea (Republic of)

Personalised recommendations