Plaintiff, the son of a woman who died from lung cancer at the age of fifty-four, brought an action against the two tobacco product manufacturers that produced the particular brand of cigarettes that the deceased smoked. In addition to claims of consumer protection violations, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant tobacco companies intentionally misled the public about the existence of a controversy concerning evidence demonstrating the addictive properties of nicotine. The plaintiff also alleged that the tobacco companies misrepresented its conduct when stating that they would remove any ingredients found to pose risks to health from its products and that the companies deliberately marketed their products to minors as safe to consume. The defendants asked the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut to dismiss each of the plaintiff's consumer protection claims and asserted that the Federal Labeling Act preempted all of the plaintiff's claims concerning failures to warn the public of health risks associated with their products. The District Court denied the defendants' request for dismissal of the complaints, finding that the sufficiency of the plaintiff's assertions as to misrepresentations required further examination at trial and that federal law did not preclude the court from examining the sufficiency of the defendants' health warnings.
Gerrity v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., Civil No. 3:99cv1329 (JBA) (D. Conn. 2005).
United States
Nov 1, 2005
United States District Court, District of Connecticut
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.
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.
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging.
(See FCTC Art. 11)
Measures restricting tobacco sales to or by minors, as well as other retail restrictions relating to point-of-sale, candy and toys resembling tobacco products, vending machines, or free distribution.
(See FCTC Art. 16)
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.
A discussion on whether current scientific evidence is sufficient to justify the regulatory measures.
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.
"Plaintiff Gerrity’s improper marketing and promotion claim is based on three theories: (1) defendants, individually and in conspiracy with other tobacco companies and related entities, attempted to persuade American consumers that there was an "open question" concerning the health hazards of smoking, which was false as a matter of scientific research, and they falsely represented that the companies would investigate and disclose any health hazards of cigarettes, when they did not intend to disclose the risks, nor did they actually disclose them; and (2) defendants falsely represented that they did not target minors under age 16 in their advertising and promotion for cigarettes, when in fact their advertising did target minors; and (3) defendants falsely represented that they did not manipulate the nicotine content of their cigarettes, when in fact they did alter cigarette nicotine levels in order to make their products more addictive. These claims are based on theories of fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment, and conspiracy to commit fraud. As such, they are not preempted by the federal cigarette labeling act. "
"In this case, it is undisputed that the defendant cigarette manufacturers did not sell or contract to sell their products directly to Judith Gerrity, and thus no buyer-seller relationship existed. Based on the uniformity of result in the Connecticut Superior Court decisions addressing the issue, as well as the absence of any purpose of notice by a smoker who has already contracted lung cancer, the Court concludes that the Connecticut Supreme Court would hold that a consumer like Judith Gerrity need not give notice of an alleged breach of warranty to a manufacturer before bringing a products liability lawsuit to recover for personal injuries. For this reason defendants’ motion to dismiss the breach of warranty claims for lack of the U.C.C. notice will be denied."
"Plaintiff in this case alleges in the fifth claim of the complaint that Reynolds warranted that the cigarettes smoked by the Judith Gerrity "were safe for their normal and expected use by users, that if defendant Reynolds discovered that such cigarettes were hazardous to health, it would so advise the consuming public, and that if any components found in its cigarettes were determined to cause or contribute to disease, it would remove such components." Third Am. Compl. ¶ 35. Plaintiff further alleges that Reynolds "knew that its product contained toxic, cancer-causing ingredients" but did not so inform the public or remove these ingredients, and that Judith Gerrity was unaware at the time she began smoking in the mid-1950s that "cigarettes were hazardous to health." Id. at ¶¶ 36-38. Plaintiff alleges that "Reynolds’ warranties and representations were intended by defendant Reynolds to induce consumers to smoke and continue to smoke," and its "warranties and representations were directed to the American consuming public, including Judith Gerrity," who "was aware of defendant Reynolds’ massive publicity campaign to warrant the safety of its products." Id. at ¶¶ 39- 41. These allegations are sufficient to apprise defendants of plaintiff's allegation that Judith Gerrity purchased and smoked defendants’ cigarettes in reliance on defendants’ publicity allegedly warranting the safety of their cigarettes. Plaintiff therefore has adequately alleged that defendants’ promises formed "the basis of the bargain" under which Judith Gerrity purchased and used the cigarettes at issue."
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.
Plaintiff, the son of a woman who died from lung cancer at the age of fifty-four, brought an action against the two tobacco product manufacturers that produced the particular brand of cigarettes that the deceased smoked. In addition to claims of consumer protection violations, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant tobacco companies intentionally misled the public about the existence of a controversy concerning evidence demonstrating the addictive properties of nicotine. The plaintiff also alleged that the tobacco companies misrepresented its conduct when stating that they would remove any ingredients found to pose risks to health from its products and that the companies deliberately marketed their products to minors as safe to consume. The defendants asked the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut to dismiss each of the plaintiff's consumer protection claims and asserted that the Federal Labeling Act preempted all of the plaintiff's claims concerning failures to warn the public of health risks associated with their products. The District Court denied the defendants' request for dismissal of the complaints, finding that the sufficiency of the plaintiff's assertions as to misrepresentations required further examination at trial and that federal law did not preclude the court from examining the sufficiency of the defendants' health warnings.