Adamo v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Smith, J.
Plaintiffs claim that two cigarette companies were negligent in designing their product, in that they should have used lower levels of tar and nicotine. We agree with the Appellate Division that plaintiffs failed to prove an essential element of their case: that regular cigarettes and “light” cigarettes have the same “utility.” The only “utility” of a cigarette is to gratify smokers’ desires for a certain experience, and plaintiffs did not prove, or try to prove, that light cigarettes perform this function as well as regular cigarettes.
Norma Rose, who died during…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Voss v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Division of Package Machinery Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Felix v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Rose v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
3Cited by18 opinions
- Caronia v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2013
- Evans v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2013
- S.F. ex rel. S.E.F. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2014
- Tuosto v. Philip Morris USA Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2009
- Grill v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2009
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.