|
Our Tobacco Lawsuit
July 1, 2000
All casino dealers, and especially those in
Nevada, should know the significance of October 8, 1997. It was on
that date the NCDA filed a class action lawsuit against 18 tobacco
companies, seeking damages for Nevada's casino dealers and
charging the companies with knowingly and wrongfully exposing them
to second hand smoke and thereby putting them at increased risk
for cancer, lung and heart disease.
There are literally dozens of lawyers from
three separate law firms who are engaging Tobacco's legal hit team
in battle. Tobacco has overwhelming resources and many scalps on
their belt, but we sense that their luck is running out; the tide
has turned. Like John Gotti, the Teflon Don, their time has
come---the party's over!
At present, the lawsuit is in the U.S. District
Court of Nevada before Judge Phillip Pro. Tobacco is claiming they
should not pay medical monitoring costs despite their wrongdoing.
They do not deny that dealers were wrongfully exposed to toxic
second hand smoke that causes cancer, as well as heart and lung
disease. They do not deny that dealers, once made aware of these
dangers, would seek medical monitoring to ensure detection of
disease. They do not deny that this would mean additional expense
for dealers subject to the toxic smoke. Nor do they deny that it
was they that caused this additional financial burden on dealers.
What they do deny is that they should pay for medical monitoring
despite their wrongdoing. The costs, according to the tobacco
companies, should be borne, not by the wrongdoers, but by the
innocent parties---the dealers.
The argument regarding medical monitoring has
caused Judge Pro to ask the Nevada Supreme Court to rule on
whether medical monitoring is allowed by Nevada statute. Of
course, this causes more delay---the tobacco companies love delay.
The tobacco companies and their
"amici" (their resort owning friends) filed briefs with
the Supreme Court asserting arguments with two central themes. The
first is that if they allowed monitoring, the courts would be
overwhelmed with cases. The second is that businesses in Nevada
would suffer if they were required to bear the costs of medical
monitoring for their misdeeds. And that, in turn, would lead to
the misperception that Nevada was no longer "business
friendly."
Essentially, Tobacco's argument ignores the
right and wrong of the case and focuses only on how a decision
against their interests might indirectly hurt Nevada. Of course,
we hope the Supreme Court will reject their arguments.
We never thought this battle would be easy, but
in the end, it will be worth all the effort. We will be issuing
more situation updates as the case progresses.
(Back
to Index)
|
