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).
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.
Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"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.)"
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
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.