Facts

Norma Rose smoked regular cigarettes for more than 40 years, consuming over a pack a day. Beginning in the late 1960s, she smoked products manufactured by the American Tobacco Company and Philip Morris USA Inc. She quit smoking in 1993 and was diagnosed two years later with lung cancer and another condition allegedly caused by smoking.

Norma Rose and her husband filed suit against American Tobacco's successor (Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation), Philip Morris USA Inc., and a third company, asserting various claims including negligent product design. All claims except the negligent design claim were dismissed at the trial level. A jury found American Tobacco and Philip Morris liable for negligently designing the cigarettes Rose smoked, awarding compensatory and punitive damages in subsequent trial phases.

The Appellate Division reversed the judgment and granted judgment in favor of the defendants, with two justices dissenting. The plaintiffs appealed to this Court pursuant to CPLR 5601(a). Rose died during the pendency of the appeal.

Analysis

Issue #1

Issue

Did the plaintiffs prove that it was feasible to design the cigarettes in a safer manner while maintaining the product's utility?

Legal Rule

In a negligent product design claim, plaintiffs must present evidence that the product, as designed, was not reasonably safe because there was a substantial likelihood of harm and it was feasible to design the product in a safer manner, meaning the alternative design is safer but remains functional.

Rule Analysis

Plaintiffs claimed that the cigarette companies were negligent in designing their products by not using lower levels of tar and nicotine, asserting that light cigarettes are a safer alternative.

Plaintiffs presented evidence that light cigarettes, with significantly lower tar and nicotine, are safer than regular cigarettes, but failed to show that such cigarettes remain functional. The sole function of a cigarette is to provide pleasure to smokers, and plaintiffs did not attempt to prove that light cigarettes satisfy smokers as well as regular ones. It was uncontested that smokers do not find light cigarettes as satisfying, as evidenced by consumers' continued preference for regular cigarettes despite known risks and the availability of light cigarettes.

This case differed from products like the circular saw in Voss, whose function was to cut wood, or the molding machine in Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. Co. (49 NY2d 471 [1980]), whose function was to melt and form plastic. An analogy was drawn to Felix v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, where a quicker-drying but more flammable sealer was not negligently designed because the safer water-based alternative dried much slower, altering its function. Similarly, light cigarettes do not serve the same function as regular ones.

Holding manufacturers liable for every sale of regular cigarettes would effectively ban the product judicially, which should be left to legislatures, as selling regular cigarettes remains lawful.

Conclusion

No, the plaintiffs failed to prove that a safer design was feasible while maintaining the product's utility. The Appellate Division's order granting judgment for the defendants was affirmed, with costs.

Additional Opinions

Pigott, J.: Dissent

Judge Pigott respectfully dissents, arguing that the plaintiffs successfully met their burden by showing that defendants could design a safer cigarette while maintaining the functionality of a regular cigarette, citing Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co. He disagrees with the majority's requirement that plaintiffs prove smokers find light cigarettes as satisfying as regular ones and that cigarettes serve a function beyond providing pleasure, viewing this as improperly shifting the burden of proving consumer acceptability to the plaintiffs. Pigott notes that at trial, defendants sought to introduce evidence that the proposed safer alternative design was not feasible due to lack of consumer acceptability and commercial viability, but the trial court erroneously denied this motion, deeming such evidence irrelevant to feasibility or functionality. He proposes remitting the case to Supreme Court for a new trial, allowing defendants to present proof of the alleged commercial unacceptability of the light cigarette compared to the regular one.