Denver sues Philip Morris over cigarette butt litter

A 1979 report advising companies on how to avoid liability under modern litter laws suggests tobacco manufacturers have known what happens to their product after use for decades.DENVER (CN) — Denver sued Philip Morris USA and several other tobacco companies in state court Friday seeking to recover the costs of cleaning up litter from nonbiodegradable cigarette filters discarded around the city.“Each sale and distribution of filtered cigarette products within Denver foreseeably results in additional cigarette filter waste being deposited upon municipal property, and each day that such persistent plastic waste remains upon plaintiff’s property constitutes a continuing interference with plaintiff’s property rights and public resources,” Denver says in the 72-page complaint.Philip Morris’ own website warns “there could be more cigarette butts than fish in the oceans” by the end of the decade.Activists at Tobacco Free Colorado estimate between 80,000 and 100,000 adults smoke cigarettes in the Denver metro area.Modern cigarette filters are made from cellulose acetate, “a synthetic plastic polymer that does not biodegrade under ordinary environmental conditions." The resulting trash left behind by smokers amounts to a continuing nuisance and trespass, Denver says in the complaint.Instead of decomposing, the cellulose acetate filters “fragment into progressively smaller plastic particles, including microplastics, the underlying plastic material persists in the environment and continues to require municipal collection, removal, management, and disposal," the city says.Other named defendants include Altria Group, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Reynolds American, Santa Fe Natural Tobacco, British American Tobacco, ITG Brands, Liggett Group and Liggett Vector Brands and Peerless Products.Several Denver ordinances already prohibit all manner of cast-off clutter including “garbage, litter, refuse and other discarded materials,” but people still discard nonbiodegradable cigarette filters which the city expends resources to clean up.Cigarette litter is not a random unexpected occurrence but “an inherent foreseeable and unavoidable result of the product’s intended design and ordinary use," the city says.Citing one report from 1979 on ways to avoid liability under liter laws and a 1996 survey that found 96% of smokers threw their butts on the ground, Denver claims the tobacco industry has long known what happens to their product after use.Rather than seeking to recover healthcare costs from smoking-related diseases, Denver focuses on the environmental impact of cigarette litter, and the municipality’s costs to remedy such pollution from sewers and waterways.The city’s claims include violations of state nuisance, trespass, negligence, product liability and consumer protection laws. I wants the court to order the defendant tobacco companies to pay for the costs of cleaning up cigarette litter.Representing Denver, Chris Schnieders said the suit was about lifting the burden of clearing litter from taxpayers.“Denver filed this lawsuit because the city alleges that cigarette filters have become a major source of plastic pollution in its stormwater system and waterways, and that the costs of addressing that pollution have been shifted onto the public,” Schnieders, who practices with McIntyre Schnieders in Overland, Kansas, said in an email.“At its core, this case is about who should pay those costs. The city alleges that Denver taxpayers should not be left paying to address pollution that the manufacturers allegedly knew was a foreseeable result of the way these products were designed and sold. Instead, the lawsuit seeks to recover the public costs the city alleges have been imposed on Denver because of those products," Schnieders said.Philip Morris USA did not respond to a request for comment by press time..The case was assigned to Second Judicial District Judge A. Bruce Jones, who was appointed by former Democratic Governor Bill Ritter.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads