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.