The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Gallaher (Dublin) Limited seeking to strike out a woman’s personal injury claim over cigarettes she says caused continuing injury after she began smoking the company’s brand in 1995.
The decision leaves the claim against Gallaher to proceed. The Court did not determine whether the cigarettes were defective, whether the company was liable, or whether smoking its products caused further injury. It said those issues required evidence at a full hearing.
The woman, Margaret Delahunty, sued two tobacco manufacturers and state defendants. This appeal concerned only Gallaher, the second named defendant; the claims against the first manufacturer and the state defendants were not before the Supreme Court on this appeal. Delahunty alleges negligence, breach of duty and breach of statutory duty, including under the Liability for Defective Products Act 1991.
According to the judgment, Delahunty began smoking cigarettes made by the first named defendant in 1938 and became addicted. After being diagnosed with cancer in 1995 and undergoing surgery, she says she learned from medical practitioners about harm caused by smoking. She then changed to Gallaher’s “Silk Cut Extra Mild” and continued to smoke about 20 cigarettes a day, which she says she could not give up because of her addiction.
Gallaher argued that the pleadings did not identify a defect compared with other cigarettes or an applicable safety standard. It also said Delahunty’s cancer predated her use of its products, and that no additional injury had been properly attributed to smoking them. Her counsel submitted that evidence, including a medical report, described continuing symptoms and progressive lung damage after 1995. He also argued that the company had marketed Silk Cut to people already addicted but concerned about health risks.
The Supreme Court said the 1991 Act’s test of whether a product failed to provide the safety a person was entitled to expect could not be decided on this motion; it would require substantial evidence. The Court also considered the pleaded post-1995 injury and causation arguments insufficient to dispose of the claim at this stage. It upheld the High Court’s refusal to strike out the claim and dismissed Gallaher’s appeal.