Opinion ID: 2588284
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: American Tobacco Co. v. Superior Court

Text: The state Court of Appeal's 1989 decision in American Tobacco Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 208 Cal.App.3d 480, 255 Cal. Rptr. 280 (American Tobacco ), which was authored by Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline, was the first to construe the Immunity Statute. In that case, the court described the Immunity Statute as the result of a `peace pact' or compromise between parties seeking and opposing comprehensive changes in California tort law who had been locked in a long political struggle that had reached [a] stalemate. ( American Tobacco, supra, at pp. 486-487, 255 Cal.Rptr. 280.) Those involved included major special interest groups such as insurers, physicians, manufacturers, and the plaintiffs lawyers. (Id. at p. 486, 255 Cal.Rptr. 280.) [3] The Court of Appeal in American Tobacco characterized the Immunity Statute as so poorly drafted that on its face[, it was] amenable to two diametrically opposed interpretations, each of which conflict[ed] in some way with the words used by the Legislature. ( American Tobacco, supra, at p. 485, 255 Cal. Rptr. 280.) But legislative history, the court noted, indicated that the Immunity Statute's intent was to ensure that `highcholesterol foods, alcohol, and cigarettes that are inherently unsafe and known to be unsafe by ordinary consumers, [were] not to be subject to product liability lawsuits.'  ( American Tobacco, supra, at p. 487, 255 Cal.Rptr. 280, italics added.) In light of that legislative intent, the Court of Appeal in American Tobacco concluded that the statutory immunity was very broad, providing nearly complete immunity for manufacturers and sellers of tobacco and the other enumerated products. (Ibid.)