Jump to full article: Law.com, 2008-04-11
Author: Noeleen G. Walder New York Law Journal
Intro: In a major victory for tobacco companies, a Manhattan appellate court Thursday reversed a 73-year-old lung cancer victim's $3.4 million compensatory damage award against two industry giants and threw out $17.1 million in punitive damages against Philip Morris USA. . . .
But two dissenters sharply criticized the tobacco companies, finding that the test of consumer acceptability amounted to "nothing more than a cynical effort by the defendants to maintain the commercial advantages of continuing to sell unreasonably dangerous addictive products to addicts." . . .
Rose and her husband argued that the tobacco companies should have sold only "light" cigarettes, and that their failure to cease marketing regular cigarettes constituted a negligent design flaw. . . .
Rose and her husband maintained that they had satisfied this burden by showing that it was technically feasible to manufacture light cigarettes. But the majority held that they had failed to present evidence of "consumer acceptability." . . .
Justices James M. Catterson and Eugene Nardelli dissented in a 38-page opinion written by Catterson.
. . .
Finz, citing what he characterized as the "extraordinarily strong dissents," said his clients would appeal the decision and expected the Court of Appeals to reverse the verdict, "consistent with the current state of the law in New York on products liability."
Jump to full article » |