Eiser v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

The plaintiff, representing her deceased husband, a lifelong smoker, claimed that her husband had switched to smoking Carlton cigarettes in an attempt to reduce his risk of tobacco-related diseases based on advertisements of the cigarettes' manufacturer, American Tobacco (now Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.), that Carlton cigarettes contained the lowest amounts of tar and nicotine.  Her husband nevertheless died of lung cancer two decades later. The plaintiff asserted nearly thirty claims, including negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and failure to warn, against all entities involved in the manufacture and sale of Carlton cigarettes during the period which her husband smoked cigarettes of that brand.  She also sought punitive damages for the various civil violations. The Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas had dismissed the claims against the majority of the defendants, and a jury returned a verdict in favor of the remaining defendants. The plaintiff appealed the judgment as against defendants Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation and the Tobacco Institute before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, asserting eight different issues for review, including whether the Court of Common Pleas appropriately excluded the testimony of several expert and fact witnesses. The Superior Court affirmed the lower court's decision, including the decision to exclude the particular witnesses.

Eiser v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, et al., No. 191 EDA 2004, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (2006).

  • United States
  • Jan 19, 2006
  • Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Parties

Plaintiff Lois Eiser, Administratrix of the Estate of William M. Eiser and Lois Eiser, Individually

Defendant

  • Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation
  • Tobacco Institute

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"On these facts, Appellant failed to show the decedent's injury. i.e., contracting terminal lung cancer was the result of his justifiable reliance on any alleged misrepresentation regarding the safety of Carlton cigarettes. See Gibbs, supra. Instead, the evidence showed the decedent was aware of his increased risk of contracting lung cancer throughout his adult life as a smoker. including the significant number of years he smoked cigarettes other than Carlton. Although the decedent switched to Carlton allegedly to reduce potential health consequences, he understood smoking Carlton cigarettes was not risk free and that contracting lung cancer could result in any event. See id. Moreover, it is not disputed that Carlton cigarettes, in fact. tested lowest in tar and nicotine under the FTC method. Regardless of whether the FTC method accurately measured the amount of tar and nicotine delivered to human smokers, Appellees did not advertise that smoking Carlton cigarettes reduced the risk of contracting cancer. In fact, one of the several Surgeon General's warning labels on Carlton cigarettes affirmatively stated smoking causes cancer. Thus, Appellant's proof was insufficient to establish negligent misrepresentation."