Finnish court to rule in 'light tobacco' case
By Sami Torma
HELSINKI, May 30 (Reuters) - In a Finnish court case that could set a precedent in Europe, two tobacco firms admitted smoking may cause serious illness but denied liability to three women with lung disease who say they were unaware of the dangers.
The Helsinki district court on Friday heard closing arguments in an indemnity and product liability suit brought by the women, aged 64, 58 and 52, against the Nordic unit of British American Tobacco (BATS.L) and Finland's Amer (AMEAS.HE), which produced cigarettes until 2004 under licence from Altria's (MO.N) Philip Morris.
A ruling is due in late August or early September.
Erkki Aurejarvi, the plaintiffs' lawyer, contended that when the women started smoking as teens, there was no way for them to understand the risks, since tobacco firms hid and publicly denied the link between cigarettes and diseases such as lung cancer.
His team also argued that tobacco companies have since the 1970s incorrectly marketed light cigarettes as a healthier option. A European Union directive in 2002 banned the description of cigarettes as "mild" or "light".
"The plaintiffs believe they had no competence to make an informed decision because the diagnoses for lung cancers and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) only took place 40 years later," Aurejarvi told the court.
Two of the women have had lung cancer and all three have been diagnosed with COPD.
"The plaintiffs believe that both defendant firms have, from the early 1950s on, had knowledge that their products kill people," Aurejarvi said in court.
The firms countered that the plaintiffs cannot prove their illnesses were caused specifically by BAT and Amer products. Both companies said they wanted the claims dismissed.
LEGAL ACTIVITY
Both firms also said the cases had no merit, given that the manufacture and sale of tobacco was and is a legal activity strictly controlled by the authorities in Finland.
Lawyer Ari Kantor said Amer had the same information on cigarettes' health impact in the 1950s as those authorities.
"This cannot be just armchair travelling and moralising on what should have been done in the 1950s," Kantor said.
He said if the plaintiffs won the case, it would mean tobacco manufacturing had been deemed illegal retrospectively.
"This trial is not about the fact that smoking may cause disease," Kantor added.
BAT's lawyers said the plaintiffs' claim of lack of information was not credible, as awareness in Finland was high.
"Consumers have been aware of the health dangers of smoking and that quitting can be difficult," BAT Nordic lawyer Mats Welin said, adding that this was the case even as far back as the 1950s.
Aurejarvi, who is representing the Finnish plaintiffs free of charge, said the women switched to light cigarettes -- a shift that benefits the tobacco industry, since nicotine addicts who smoke light cigarettes consume more to compensate for the lower nicotine levels.
He also said tobacco companies had set out to create addiction through their nicotine research and manipulation in closed laboratories. The firms denied there was anything shady or mysterious about their business.
The plaintiffs are seeking 348,000 euros ($538,600) in damages, a nominal sum compared with some of the multibillion dollar class-action tobacco cases in the United States.
In 2001, the Finnish high court dismissed charges brought by cancer patient Pentti Aho against BAT and Finland's Rettig. Aurejarvi represented Aho in those cases, which lasted 13 years, although Aho died in 1992.
BAT Nordic said it saw this case as an attempt to get even.
Tobacco litigation cases in Europe have been less successful than in the United States.
The only major case in Britain -- the McTear case in 2005, when a widow sued Imperial Tobacco Group Plc (IMT.L) after her husband died of lung cancer -- was won by the tobacco industry.
Cigarette advertising has been banned in Finland since a 1976 law, which also brought health warnings on cigarette packs. (Editing by Sarah Edmonds)
