Anderson v. Fortune Brands, Inc., et al.

A smoker brought suit against several tobacco manufacturers and industry-based research organizations under several theories of liability, including a products liability claim of willful failure to warn consumers of the dangers of smoking.  The defendants challenged the propriety of this cause of action, arguing that a products liability action for willful failure to warn did not exist and that fraudulent concealment, which would require the plaintiff to meet a higher burden of proof, was the proper legal vehicle for the plaintiff's allegations of a decades-long conspiracy to intentionally wrong the public.  The Court held that the products liability claim for willful failure to warn was recognized in New York and ordered that the claim be considered by a jury.

Anderson v. Fortune Brands, Inc., et al., 723 N.Y.S.2d 304, Supreme Court, Kings County, New York (2000).

  • United States
  • Jul 25, 2000
  • Supreme Court, Kings County, New York
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff Clyde Anderson

Defendant

  • Fortune Brands, Inc., Formerly Known as American Brands, Inc., et al.
  • Liggett Group, Inc., also known as Brooke Group, Ltd.
  • Lorillard Tobacco Company
  • Philip Morris Incorporated
  • RJR Nabisco, Inc.
  • The Council for Tobacco Research-USA, Inc.
  • The Tobacco Institute, Inc.

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"Contrary to the defendants' contentions, a cause of action premised upon the willful failure to warn has been recognized in products liability actions in New York and elsewhere and has been deemed an appropriate vehicle for the assessment of punitive damages. (See e.g. Home Ins. Co. v American Home Prods. Corp., 75 NY2d 196 [1990]; Owens-Illinois, Inc. v Zenobia, 325 Md 420, 601 A2d 633 [1992]; Southland Corp. v Marley Co., 815 F Supp 881 [D Md 1993], revd on other grounds 52 F3d 321 [1995].) In Home Ins. Co. (75 NY2d 196, supra), a two-year-old child was given a drug in suppository form. The manufacturer was aware of certain risks inherent in the administration of the drug in suppository form, including the risk of severe intoxication and death, yet failed to warn the medical profession of these risks. The child sustained grave injuries including severe impairment of mental function. The matter ultimately came before the New York Court of Appeals which characterized the defendant manufacturer's conduct as willful and wanton and opined that "[w]hile no case involving punitive damages in a strict products litigation has come before our court, nothing in New York law or public policy would preclude an award of punitive damages in a strict products case, where the theory of liability is failure to warn and where there is evidence that the failure was wanton or in conscious disregard of the rights of others. A products liability action founded on a failure to warn involves conduct of the defendant having attributes of negligence * * * which the jury may find sufficiently wanton or reckless to sustain an award of punitive damages." (Id., at 204.)"