Categories
· Lawsuits
USA, by State
· New York
Lawsuits
· Rose
Organizations
· B&W
|
Jump to full article: Brown & Williamson, 2005-02-02
Intro: Under New York law, defendants do not have a duty to warn consumers of risks in their products that are well-known. At trial, defendants will show that Mrs. Rose was well aware of the risks associated with smoking, which are and have been common knowledge. Fully informed of such risks, Mrs. Rose assumed these risks for the approximately 40 years she continued to smoke. Additionally, Mrs. Rose has not offered and cannot offer any evidence that, at any time during her smoking history, there was any feasible, safer alternative cigarette design that she would have tried and that would have prevented her lung cancer.
In addition, defendants' medical experts will testify that Mrs. Rose's medical process is not consistent with small cell lung cancer. . . . Further, defendants' medical experts will testify that Mrs. Rose's neurological deficits could have been caused by an atypical carcinoid, her diet, alcohol use, and other non-paraneoplastic factors. . . .
Plaintiffs, Norma and Leonard Rose, filed this action on December 18, 1996 in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York. As originally filed, plaintiffs alleged multiple claims against multiple defendants.
As a result of motions to dismiss, summary judgment motions and other pre-trial proceedings, the only claim remaining for trial is negligent defective design.
Jump to full article » |