California Court of Appeal

Reset A A Font size: Print

IN RE TOBACCO CASES II, D035450

The remoteness doctrine, which bars negligence-based claims seeking recovery of damages from defendants who injure third parties for whom various types of plaintiffs ultimately foot the bills, applies to negligent misrepresentation claims.

Appellate Information

  • Decided 10/25/2001
  • Published 10/25/2001

Judges

  • KREMER, P.J.

Court

  • California Court of Appeal

Counsel

  • For Appellant:
  • Law Offices of Jack R. Ormes and Jack R. Ormes, Pasadena, for Plaintiff and Appellant Operating Engineers Local 12 Health and Welfare Trust Fund., Cotchett, Pitre & Simon, Joseph W. Cotchett, Marie Seth Weiner and Gwendolyn R. Giblin, Burlingame, for Plaintiffs and Appellants U.A. Local No. 467 Health and Welfare Trust Fund, U.A. Local No. 393 Health and Welfare Trust Fund, and North Coast Trust Fund., McCarthy, Johnson & Miller and Raphael Shannon, San Francisco, for Plaintiffs and Appellants U.A. Local No. 467 Health and Welfare Trust Fund, and U.A. Local No. 393 Health and Welfare Trust Fund., Beeson, Tayer & Bodine and Geoffrey Piller, Sacramento, for Plaintiff and Appellant North Coast Trust Fund., Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, Los Angeles, Christian L. Raisner, Theodore Franklin, Oakland;  Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP, William S. Lerach, Michael Dowd and Frank J. Janecek, Jr., San Diego, for Plaintiff and Appellant Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California.

  • For Appellees:
  • Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, Steven H. Bergman, Los Angeles, Demetra V. Frawley, Mary Elizabeth McGarry;  Steefel, Levitt & Weiss, Barry W. Lee and Peter N. Larson, San Francisco, for Defendant and Appellant B.A.T. Industries., Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Gregory P. Stone, Daniel P. Collins, Los Angeles, and Martin D. Bern, San Francisco, for Defendant and Respondent Philip Morris Incorporated., Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin and H. Joseph Escher III, San Francisco, for Defendant and Respondent R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company., Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro LLP and Anthony R. Delling, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp (individually and as successor by merger to The American Tobacco Company)., Loeb & Loeb LLP and Daniel G. Murphy, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent The Council for Tobacco Research-U.S.A., Inc., Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, San Francisco, and Larry R. O'Neal, Kansas City, Mo., for Defendant and Respondent Lorillard Tobacco Company., Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May, Los Angeles, and Mary C. Oppedahl, Oakland, for Defendant and Respondent The Tobacco Institute, Inc., Coughlan, Semmer & Lipman, LLP, San Diego, and R.J. Coughlan, Jr. for Defendant and Respondent United States Tobacco Company., Chadbourne & Parke, LLP and Susan St. Denis, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited., Krieg, Keller, Sloan, Reilley & Roman and Stanley G. Roman for Defendant and Respondent Hill & Knowlton, Inc., Segal & Kirby and James R. Kirby II, Sacramento, for Defendant and Respondent Smokeless Tobacco Council, Inc., The Lendrum Law Firm, Jeffrey P. Lendrum, San Diego;  Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP and Julie Fischer for Defendant and Respondent Liggett Group, Inc.
Copied to clipboard