header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 March 2009 / Andrew Buchan
Issue: 7361 / Categories: Features , Personal injury , Employment
printer mail-detail

The knowledge question

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Will employers pay the price for passive smoking in the workplace? Andrew Buchan reports

* * * * * *

The first studies into injury caused by passive smoking date back to 1982 and involve the link between smoking and cancer for non-smokers living with a smoker. These showed an increased risk to health and were followed by obfuscation and denials of the link by the tobacco industry.

In 1993 the US Environmental Protection Agency published a comprehensive report in which, having reviewed 30 epidemiological studies, found a positive association of passive smoking and lung cancer and classified environmental tobacco smoke as a known human carcinogen. In 1994 air hostesses in Florida were allowed to bring an action against the Phillip Morris tobacco companies for “second-hand smoke”. This case is reported to have settled for £300m in 1996.

Second-hand smoke

A 1997 BMJ editorial entitled “Passive Smoking: History Repeats Itself” sets out the advice from the Royal College of Physicians going back to 1962 warning of the risks associated with passive smoking. The

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll