Caronia et al. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

Plaintiffs, current and/or former smokers with histories of 20 pack-years or more and who aren’t yet sick, brought a class action suit against Philip Morris USA requesting a court-supervised medical monitoring program funded by the tobacco manufacturer to assist in the early detection of lung cancer. Plaintiffs’ claims based on negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty were previously dismissed.  The state’s highest court held that there is no independent equitable cause of action for medical monitoring under New York state law.  The court cited the well-established rule that a plaintiff must sustain a physical injury before he or she is able to recover “reasonably anticipated” consequential damages.  The court reasoned that it is “speculative, at best, whether asymptomatic plaintiffs will ever contract a disease.”  The threat of future harm alone is insufficient to impose tort liability in this context. 

The court also cited several policy reasons behind its decision, including the potential for a flood of frivolous claims and the difficulty in implementing and administering a medical surveillance program. 

Caronia v. Philip Morris USA, 13-00227, New York State Court of Appeals (Albany).

  • United States
  • Dec 17, 2013
  • New York Court of Appeals

Parties

Plaintiff

  • Arlene Feldman
  • Linda McAuley
  • Marcia L. Caronia

Defendant Philip Morris USA, Inc.

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"However, "the potential systemic effects of creating a new, full-blown tort law cause of action cannot be ignored" (Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co. v Buckley, 521 US 424, 443-444 [1997] [refusing to recognize a tort claim for medical monitoring costs where the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos but had not manifested symptoms of a disease]). For instance, dispensing with the physical injury requirement could permit "tens of millions" of potential plaintiffs to recover monitoring costs, effectively flooding the courts while concomitantly depleting the purported tortfeasor's resources for those who have actually sustained damage (id. at 442-444). Moreover, it is speculative, at best, whether asymptomatic plaintiffs will ever contract a disease; allowing them to recover medical monitoring costs without first establishing physical injury would lead to the inequitable diversion of money away from those who have actually sustained an injury as a result of the exposure."