“Plaintiffs argue that the undisputed factual record shows that twenty pack-years of smoking Marlboro cigarettes necessarily damage the lungs. They contend that there is no dispute between the parties that twenty packyears of Marlboro use is a substantial factor in elevating any individual's risk of developing lung cancer and that the excess harm - caused by the differential between Marlboros and the feasible alternative - would similarly be a substantial factor. Plaintiffs argue, therefore, that there are no outstanding issues of material fact on the issues of injury and risk and seek summary judgment on those issues.”
Donovan v. Philip Morris USA
Donovan v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 06-12234-DJC (D. Mass., 2014).
- United States
- Dec 12, 2014
- U.S. District Court of Massachusetts
Parties
Legislation Cited
Related Documents
Type of Litigation
Tobacco Control Topics
Substantive Issues
Type of Tobacco Product
“Plaintiffs contend that, as a factual matter, the alternative design was not only available but that Philip Morris sold the safer product before removing it from the market. It is undisputed that Plaintiffs in this case have identified cigarette designs capable of delivering dramatically less tar to the consumer, including Philip Morris's Cambridge brand. It is also undisputed that Philip Morris, at least temporarily, sold the alternative design (again, the Cambridge brand). Philip Morris has also acknowledged that it was possible to make cigarettes with less than 0.1 mg tar. Philip Morris, however, argues that there is still a genuine dispute as to whether the alternative designs offered by Plaintiffs were feasible or whether the safer design interfered with the product's performance.”
A class of cigarette smokers sued Philip Morris in an effort to make the company pay for medical monitoring to detect early signs of lung cancer. The class alleged that Philip Morris marketed Marlboro cigarettes with excessive carcinogens. The judge partially denied the summary judgment motion from the class ruling that they couldn't prove the company could have feasibly marketed a safer alternative cigarette.