Clinton v. Brown and Williamson Holdings Inc.

A widow brought suit against tobacco companies on behalf of her deceased husband seeking punitive damages for failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, design defect, and fraud in marketing pertaining to the Marlboro Lights brand. Upon motion to vacate an order for summary judgment previously handed down by the Court, the plaintiff argued that Philip Morris gave the public the false impression that Marlboro Light cigarettes were safer than other filtered cigarettes because they delivered a lower amount of nicotine and tar to the smoker in violation of state law. The defendant argued that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempted state law's requirement or prohibition related to smoking and health with regards to advertising and promotion of cigarette packaging that conformed with the federal act's provisions. Finding no preemption and that a causal connection between the defendant's fraudulent statements and the deceased's injuries was established by evidence demonstrating that the deceased had continued smoking because he believed "light" cigarettes to be "safer" than other cigarettes, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion to vacate the summary judgment order.

Clinton v. Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., et al., 652 F. Supp. 2d 528, United States District Court, S.D. New York (2009).

  • United States
  • Sep 8, 2009
  • United States District Court, S.D. New York
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff Eileen A. Clinton, on behalf of herself and as Administratix of the Estate of William A. Champagne, Jr.

Defendant

  • Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., as successor by merger to The American Tobacco Company
  • Philip Morris, USA, Inc.

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"Plaintiff has, however, presented sufficient evidence to raise a material issue of fact as to proximate cause. First, although Plaintiff testified that the number of cigarettes the decedent smoked remained relatively consistent, and that she could not recall whether the way in which the decedent smoked cigarettes—i.e., how he inhaled smoke, or held the cigarette, or how far down the cigarette he smoked—changed over the years (Clinton Dep. 182-84, 193-94), there is evidence to show that many smokers engage in compensatory behaviors when they switch to "light" cigarettes, and that "Marlboro Lights were designed to permit the human smoker to easily compensate to obtain nearly the same amount of nicotine ... and tar." (Decl. of William A. Farone Ph.D. ("Farone Decl.") 8.) In addition, the fact that these behaviors are "unconscious" makes it unlikely that they would be perceptible to an observer. (Block Decl. Ex. 19 at 115.) Second, rather than receiving lower levels of tar and nicotine, which Mr. Champagne believed he was receiving and would help him to gradually quit smoking, there is evidence to suggest that he received levels comparable to those he would have received had he been smoking regular Marlboro cigarettes. Evidence submitted by Plaintiff indicates that Marlboro Lights deliver virtually the same amount of tar and nicotine as regular Marlboro cigarettes when smoked by human beings. (Id. 159-60; id. Ex. 23 at 14105-06.) In fact, Defendant's own study, the results of which were in agreement with other studies, concluded that due to compensatory behaviors, smokers did not receive less smoke when smoking Marlboro Lights as opposed to regular Marlboro cigarettes. (Id. Ex. 23 at 2-3.) A jury could conclude that Mr. Champagne was lulled into a false sense of security by the representation that he was smoking a "light," safer cigarette, and/or that he would have chosen a brand that in fact delivered less tar and nicotine had he known the truth about Marlboro Lights. Finally, Mr. Champagne, in the belief that Marlboro Lights were better for his health, continued to smoke them for seventeen years. Testing conducted by Philip Morris indicated that the tar in Marlboro Lights was more carcinogenic than the tar in regular cigarettes. (Id. Ex. 19 at 57-58.) Thus, there is also evidence to show that by switching to and continuing to smoke Marlboro Lights. Mr. Champagne was not only impeded in his efforts to quit smoking, but exposed to more carcinogenic tar than he would have been had he continued to smoked regular Marlboro cigarettes. In his expert report. Dr. Gary M. Strauss concludes that the carcinogens in the cigarette smoke of each brand of cigarettes smoked by Mr. Champagne, including Marlboro Lights, was "a substantial contributing factor to the development of his lung cancer." (Decl. of Gary M. Strauss 23.) Accordingly, there is sufficient evidence to raise a jury question as to the causal connection between Defendant's purportedly fraudulent statements and Mr. Champagne's injuries."