Jump to:

American Tobacco

United States Court of Appeals, for the Fifth Circuit, No. 22,435, Mary Green Versus the American Tobacco Company, Edwin Gr Een, Jr., As Administrator of the Estate of Edwin Green, Deceased Versus the American Tobacco Company, Consolidated Appeals From Th E United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, Appellee S Appendix of Opinions in This Case

Date: 12 Jul 1968
Length: 51 pages
ATX040778060-ATX040778110
Jump To Images
snapshot_atc 0060119034

Fields

Litigation
10004026
Type
Pleading/Affidavit
Legal
Request
41
Date Loaded
23 Nov 1998
Attachment
60119033
Author
Bradford-Al
Neaher-Er

Document Images

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size:

Page 1: 0060119034
m • .-" <~:/-~ 0(~i!(~I~ APPELLEE'S APPENDLY OF OPINIONS IN THIS CASE ~. LEE BP~OFO2~ 10~ East ~Ia$1~r Street ~i~mi, Florida 33131 EDWAE~ B, ]~EAI~O~ 25 Broadway New York, hL Y. 10004 Aftor~ey$ fo~ Appeglee Miami, F[o~da J~NET C. B~OWN EOW~ C. ~cL~t JR. ~nADP~ U~NS, PA~K~, ~VHrPESID~ ~ ~VOL FF New YorE, N. Y. ~BE K~SH Washington, D.C.
Page 2: 0060119034
. ~ ~, , • ~=i,%~~ f ..~ .... ~ .... INDEX PAG~ Green v. American [[~obaeco Company, 304 F. 2d 70 (1962) ...................................................................... la Green v. American ~:obacco Comp nv, 30~ F. 2d 85 (1962) (On Petition ~or R~hearing) ........................ 16a Green v. American Tobacco Company, 154 So. 2d 169 O (Fla. 196,) ...................................................................... 18a Green v. American Tobacco Company, 325 F. 2d 673 (1963) ................................................................................. 23a Green v. American Tobacco Company, 391 F. 2d 97 (1968) (A.dvance Sheet) ........................................... 33a
Page 3: 0060119034
30~ I~EI)~ EFA°ORT~R, 9d Srd~I~S ~win GRI~]~', It. gm Ad~dM~r of App~lk~ N~ Unit~ Statc~ Court c~ Ap~ I~th Cir~ui~ On FctlIIon ~or ~[~ar[r~ Actloo ~y widow an(] by ~inis~r~ tot of estate o~ her ~.absnd ~h0 h~d died of Io~" e~cer ail~'cd~ Callsed bY trier Cot~rt for ~he So~tber~ Di~r~ct Of r~e~t for tI~e m~nu~c~orer and a~*ard~d ~ jud~me~ against the !01~]ntifl's L Sale~ ~73(D manufacturer and seller of the qo~lit~' and l~fiue~ of thing ~old ~or purpose for ~nde~ u~cn h[~ superior Cp~ortun~y to gain koowled~e o~ ~he product a~ to F~le~ ~427 Ci~ar~ mar~tff&c~ure~, under ~chc. or~' of implie~ ,~ranfiy, w~s no~ liable r~t~ ~moker who h~d died fro~ lung ~r~ c~g~rel~ in view of ~ry'~ finding t~ there w~ no de~e]op~I ~l~ro~ ~kil] cr ~o re~ig~l~ which could ~ord t~e m~nu- ~turer a t~ow~e~e o~ the ~a~u~ ~- ~e¢~s, F~der~l Foot[, Drug, ~ct Cos- metic Act, ~ 1 e~ seq., 21 U.S.C,A. § ~01 1 et ~ect, 15 U.B.C.A. § 41 ~l ~eq.~ F.S.A. §§ ~o0.01 Ct ~q,, 768.¢1, 7G~.02; 28 U.~.C.A.; 28 U.S,C.A. ~ 182~; 69 F.S.Pa. ~§ 1L~39.
Page 4: 0060119034
:?: • ~, .... ¢ ~=.~z¸- ~ ,~..~ ~ •. t~REF, Iff v, ~E RICA~" ~!OBACCO C0 MPAN~" cJ~ ag 3or r~ 7o ( 19~1 $. Federal Civil I?r0ceduro ~$741 united States District Court had no ~u~horlty LO tax cost~ for eoznpensatlon ~o ma ~pert wlt ne~s i~ ~xcess Of the star- mileage and subsistence. 28 U.S.C.A, § I~2L On Petition for 1~ehearing. 4. Cc~l~s ~=405(~8), 406,2 ~ view of importance of question wh~ther clg~rette m~nufaet~rer WaS llab]e for de~ath from lung cancer of ~meker of it~ e~,arettes, sad in view of dissenting oplnlun by one circuit judge o~ the United States Cent: of Appeals which had affirmed judgment for raa~u- f~ctnrer in diversity action below and in ~iew ¢~" £a~ ~t ap~tl~ahle FlorM~ ]~w, whie~ governed t~e action~ had never ~een enunciated by the FIorid~ Supreme Courl, ~our~ of Appeal~ would gmmt pe~ tlt~on for rehe~rin~ ~o extent necessary preme Court. Fed.Rnle~ Civ,Proc. rule 49(b), 28 U.S.C.A.; t~S.A. § 25031; 31 F.S.A.FIo~Ida Appellate Rules, rule 4,61. Lawrence V. H~tlngs, Neal P. Rut- ]edge, Miami, Flu,, for appellants. Samuel A. Brodnax, Jr., }Iervey Yan- c~, MIaml, Fla.~ Ralph D. Ray, New York Ci~, for appeIIee~ Before RIVES, CAMERON and BELL, Circu~ Judge~. RIVES, Circuit Judge. Edwin Green, St*, brought a~it against American Tobacco Company In Decem- ber 19~7, claiming that he had incurred feudant's product, Lue]~y Strike ciga- rettes. A ~w mouths l&~er, o~ February 2~, i9~8, ]~Ir. Green died. Under the Florida Survival ~a~ute,t the claim sur- Jr, appointed administrator ~f his estate, wa~ ~ubstltuted as p]a~ntiff.~ The w~d- L ~e~ioa 4~.11, FIof~a Statutes I96~. ]~le 25 (a), ~edel~[ R~les of Civil Pro. ~ed~re. ~w, ~,fary Green, also filed suit under the FIorida Wrongful Death Statute.~ Th8 !we suit~ were ~usolldated by order of the district court, and came on for jury tri~I upon an amended eomp/aln% ~hich asserted in separate counts six theories of liabiHW: (1) Breach of Implied War- rarity; (2) Broacher Express W~m'snty; (3) l~e~li~-encel (4) Misrepresentatlon; (5) Battery; and (6) Wiolatiola ol" the ]~ederaI Food, Drug slid Co~m~flc Ac~, tile Federat Trade Commission Act, and []1o Florid~ Food. Drug and Cosmetic 2kct. At the close of the plaintiffs' evidence, in a ruling not questioned on appeal, the district court sustained the defendant's motion for a directed verdict on all counts except Coun~ 1, breach of implied war- ranty, and Count ~, uegllgence. At the cruse of all the evidence, the defeadaat re- newed its motion for directed verdict oa those two eounk% The oour~ reserved its ruling on Shat motion~ ana submitted the ease~ to the jury upon the tWO th~erles of liability, breach of ~mplied wsrralx~y and ~egligenea. The jury returned general verdlo~ for the defendant, ~ad ~wer e'2 wrlttea izltorrogalorie/a Stlb~i~od tinder RuIe 49(b), /e~ederal Rules of Civil pro. eedure. 28 U.S.C.A., as follows : "(l) Did th~ decedent Gceert have !0rimary cancer ~n his left lung X *'1~0 ~'If your anal er is ~Ye$,~ t~le~ ~(2) Was ~he cancer in hi* left lung the cause or one of the ~auses of his death? "Yes "If your answer to the ebove questioa is 'Yes,' then "(3) ~Vas the an]eking of Lucky ~rike nlgarettes o21 the part ©f the decedent, Green, a proximate cause or one oi" the i)ro~imat~ causes of 3. ~etio~ 7G~01, ~68.0~, ~lorida ~tntute~
Page 5: 0060119034
'006~ 'uk-) ~ '~ol[c,l| .* +oD X;.m~pul oA~q '~q~]~aa0J o[qtluo~o~ Sq 'plnoo pa~oad p~y ~/p~[.~otv4 og!~uo!a~ ~aao .~q ~ q/~ uo ~all~uoa u! OSle s~t~ ,~uoul!~aT Xoqff, "opr~ q.~a uo poyD~o~ ~o~aop lea ,bul % ~qT '$uuI ~q% u! ~Teu!~o zaa ~aqtoq~ Jo setlee! aq~ '4~; ~ Xli~d]au!~d pa -uaoauo~ ~u.'~ I*IV~ a~13 ~ £uotu~a~ a~, "8~6X '~ 2~.~ t~aqe~ llo q~op ~,UOS~O "zI~ ut pO~lUSOa pu~ '~anoa i~; 'lea!d~1 u~{a!eXqd I~!q uaq~ '9~61 AI,I~O []~ur~ ~ep OH 'pIo ex~aX 9'[ ~lloq~ ~tA at[ ~eq~ ,,;, oln~cq~ [e,ope~ Xq pogb~oql~t~ put¢ alqemoll~ ~u~om~ aql puoXaq ~u!aq ~tuns qoa~ "gaad~o ~od O0'OOIS ~o ~unom~ aq~ u! soeJ S~OUI!~A ~odxe aulu JO I~tot s ~II ~?aupoad ~! u! eaau~rqn~ In~ma~q aql ~naq~ /~ou~l ~ ~oan~a~jn~m aq~ ~o /~]i;q~ aq~ uodn ~p~odop o:~m o~ p[~ s! ,~1 1/ptao[,~ .tap~u ao/nlv~Jrfa~ol ~ x[~.q~a ~8 n~au~v muo~D ~ ~ 'L~ ~'o~ ~i pa!idm! ~o on~[ aqT uo s~lcqa p~, -I sonb¢.! ¢8~!|lqgld luea.~ oI ~ul~nta* u!.uoe~pnrielal+q)goup!~ (g),, /,Sun[ -uoa v~ luapaa~p ://BU!~ld oq~ pa~nea • Iegemlxoad eoglo~e~!'~ o~!zlS ~anq s,%~vp~agap ;o 8a!~o~u~ OK~, %~tp, s~/11 { pry 1¢{~ ~,~II1[ ~q~ tIodU pog~q '(q)g~ +ln~ a~pun su0{;ooa Fqa1-1eocl g ~ ~uom~puf o+ pal;Duo s~[;U!~ld ~u!~laot) ~pVolel oq~ a~pu& (I),, : sl~odd¢ osoq~ £q po ~u~s~.ti[ o.!, X[uO uo}~sanb ~al~,+ 4~ go!Fire! '~ ~unoo ;o ,¢aceq~ eq~ o] 0uuDuoguco .,[aq~ ~o!alga.' Inq 'eoua2!l~aU o~ ~uasaJtl ~];Du[r:Id a'4~ '[~ad~i¢ uodTl '~'696'I~ jo lunome ogre u! poaa~ua m¢~ "~t/l~pt/0lap aq~ .~O~ paaO~o sgt~ Ogg3 qo~;~ u! quau~png '+~!pta++ %.~n~ aq; uOdfl oN,, . i~tml aq~ Sa aa~ ~aH'~ I~0.~ allol~g wgaa~ tI{~ux aq+ ~o uo!+eleqa! aq~ gq 'poaa.~u~puo eq plno~ uaa~O ~uol~'ap aql )¢ qan~ <seHaz~!o o~}a~ I)ionq ~0 s/esn ~ u~ou~ aA~q ~ll~{~aao/ pole l[{~a uBmnq lro uoD¢OIldd~ alqcue~eaa ~q~ ~q '9~6I 'I ~avnJqod 'o~ aolad ~o 'uo ~;~pua~ap aqt plnoD (¢),, uoq~ ,'~X, s{ uoBcenb £~unI '~4 ~3~1%! *a~ Io %uamdola#~p aqT ~lan'I ~o l*~}~o~s eqg eu
Page 6: 0060119034
i"
Page 7: 0060119034
o~1~A~zY 73 ~e~ for a particular p~r- ring the pnrpo~ for which es it ~d ~ th~ ~r- no opportLlnity to inspec~ , b~t reK~ u~n tk~ jttdg- he ~e]ler, there L~ an il'~ t the artlele ~8 fit for the which it is to be al~plie~." v. Burdlne'~ Inc., 1940, 144 ~o. 228~ 227, 229~ 1~1 A.LR. requested of a saleslady at lunter a gccd lipstick, The !e~ed a certain ~ipstick and [ it for its inLe~ded use. colltaln~d a poisonous sub- allegedly injured the health In aa action for breach of !anty of fitness the iris] 8 vcrC]ic~ for the defend- ~rida Supreme Cntlr~ re. ~d that whether the buyer judgmen~ of T.he saleslady urn, saying ~t~nce c~ non existence of war2"~n~y c~ ~ness ~or ~tlri:c~e mu6~ &rid nee@s- ~nd ~pon vche~.h~r ~r fer relied upon his ow~l tk~ t~me ~f tle ~lr- li~d on the sk~II or judg~ ael~r~ a~d thin is a fact to be determlncd by let ~ppr~prlate iustrK¢~ ,8 Se. ~29.) Cudah~" Packl.g Co,. 872, 19 So.~d 31~, a r~an~ ~rler of a l~e~t~ Dro~uet~ ng/' sold to the refai{er ir~ !s or Cans Was heId liable con$1z~Jer fop broaoh ~ ~ranty that su~ product is I fit for human constimp- rt said in par~: lied w~rranty theory of lpor~s with the general @ b~qt re3sone~] e~se~. ~ure~ knows the content o~ ~e food produeL~ lffered to tl~e public for , The Vab~c ge~e~ly );leerned i~ wholesome h~l~h ~,~t L~ 3e~par3- i~4. If l~hauo~a, u~healt:~fnl and deleterious fc*ods ar~ plac~<t by ~he manufacturer UllOn the market and injuries occur by the ¢o~nmptioa thereof then the law shoufd supply the jDjnre~'~ persoll an ad~uate and ~peedy remedy. It Js our conClu- sion tha~ the img/ied w~rranty z~- cdy of enforcement will aceom- ~llsh the d~i~1 endd' (19 go2d at In Client v, Lauderda~e Bll~mnr~ Cor- poration, Fla.1949, 39 $0~2d 476, a guest ~ued the proprie~or o~ a ~ole~ &~ing rc~m, elaimivg that he had becom~ ilI as e~me ~d, The ~ctl~ was I~s~d "on t~t~ of ~a im~ ~arrau~ tha~ the food was fit for human cons amption." (39 So.~ 4~6.) T he tdai CVU~'~ su~tnined • demtIrrer to the complaint. The Flor- ida Sugreme Court reversed. In the co~rse of its opinion, it quoted frvrn Cushing" v. ]~odman, 6~ App.D.C. ~8, 8~ F,~d 864, 868, 104 A.L.R. I0~. a passage heFinnlng: " ,The basis of ~m~lled war- ranty is justtflable rellance on the jud~ meat or skill of th~ warranlot" " • %'" Cnnt~nui~g, £h~ ~p~eme C~t ~ FI~g- ida said : "Indeed, i~ w0u]d seem t~a~ i~ any dis~i ~ctlon were ~o be drawn h e~ceen er in such a ~ransaetion, the duty of t~e lgt~r ~out4 h¢ g~eatet: thou that of the retailer who in ~any hlstanees ~as n~ bett~r o~portunity for knowledge of the fact that eer- taln foods may contain delecerious ~ubs~anees tha~ has the ultimate cnnsumer who purchases the article. For in a sense the res~ur~nt k~eper is the direc~ manufacturer of the r~eals he ];repaws in his own kitchen and ~erves to his guests in his dining r~m. ~t is hardly ~sib~ to think of iny dishes prepared bb him veherei~ hL~ e~er~nity fer k~-(- edge of the ingredients is not far greater than ~at of the customer, hence he [s in a position ]arge]y, if not entirely, denied to the zue~t to Judge of their fitness before he ~A~, ".~DEEAL EZPOgTEI~ 2d S~RIES serves Chem. AS between the ~gay- ing gun.t, who has no real means ~£ determlnlt~g whether the meal served is fit f~r human e~:4lsumption, and the l~estanrateur, who is in a posltio~ to determine this ~t ~ef~e ~u~ during th~ period of preparation, the ~ofeu ~kI ~p~cp~ [~r re$~ ~r[~h th~ one ~vho has or sh~ulcl Ii~ve such facilities to keep the food pure and fresh ~a to mske all injury tO the customer from their use hlgh]y ira- probabIe if not imposs~b[e." (39 ~0.2~1 at 478.) In Lambert ~ Sistrunk, Fla.19~2, 58 ~0.2d 434, 4Z~, the FInrlda Supreme ~ourt held tha~ there was no impIied warranty ar~ing from statements by de- fendant's sa~esm~n ~h~t a s~epladder was ~trcng and ~vculd last ~ lifetime and ~hat plaintiff would never break it. In ]par~ the Supreme Ceu~t of FIor~a said: "It has been said tha~ the ccnuep~ of impI[of warranty rests upon 'the fo~rldatinn of buslIless et~ie~ an~ constitutes an e.~ceptlon to the max. im 'let the ]~nyer b~ware/ ita~f en- eom~asslng the ide~ that there i~ i1o "~ an~y implie~l W~ ~ect ~ Gu, e quality of the goods bein~ avld. TO e~m~ [~ play~ ~h¢~ except[an must therefore spring ~rom some moral ebligation on the Imr~ of the seller, c~ l~erhaps more a~cura{e]y, on the breach of ~ome such duty air, aunt~ tug ~:c* fraud or the {siGnE advantage of the buyer by reason Of some su- perior l~anw]ed~'e i~ ~he seller, or ~h~ re]~nce by the b~r on the seller'~ judgment. "There fs n¢~ need Co dwell on ~he elass o~ ca3es ~vhere ?.he buyer relles upo~ lho selIer*o ~udgrden~ o~ lhe fitness of a partieuI~r ar~ie]e ~r the l~nrpo~e i~ten~l, because ~he use of a stepTadder is as we][ known to a buyer ~ ~ a seller ~.u~ ~ ~, lilu~tcd as it is well known. This feature is ~mnlon ~ ~e ]ipst.lek [t~ve[ved in Smith v. Bnrd[ue's, Inn. supra IF[a.1940, 198 i~o. 228]. The dif- terence, ss we have ~Irea~y ob~ ervecI* 5~
Page 8: 0060119034
J
Page 9: 0060119034
h~o~ ¢ot~cut~:iP.g ~9~c~aIly, iR in which he was Joined by re]I~ st atrJd : ermure, I am of the opln- he retailer ~¢¢ho Js s'~d and vhom judgment might be ~ho~kl, in tur~, he allotted e manufactut'er, which is ~p. ~r r~F ~Isa~-~erc~tl~ ~ews expressed by A~s¢~i- ¢ Tfllman. [ do a~ follow 4~ that holding a retail ble in a case of this oKar- dd ~esul~ in bankrupting [dupl independent gro0er. nlerehant can avoid p[ac- ~If in a position wherein mr. in tt~rn, sue f3ae tuRn- by elcttlng to pttrch~se rel*ponslble l~anuf~ctnr~rs jurIsdlotion of ~he courts ze mi~t enter atfi~' (45 ) plied w~rranty b7 the retail. ined not only because of the ter ~usltion In ~electing and the mantlf~eturer, bllt ~e° ailer ha~ a righ~ of i~em° d~st the m~Ilnfacturep. ~, ]~ec~r Sllpp]y Co., Bupra~ ~s by all injured employee of of a riding sulky agalnsg The Florida Sllpreme Cour~ ~mployee co~l|d lint jtwpose he retailer on the basis of a~ty because of ~z, rtce ~y~ ~ttract. That point is net ~ because i~ this [itisati~. !gn~e was raised~ -~e of its ~pinion, howevc~ :tlprerd~ Court did say ~hat "re]i~d e~i~y on tm el. warranty in order ~o ~mo liabillty ~egardless of fault er w~th relation to whom pr~ity~' Furtl~er ~ %he opinion, ~he Florida SU- dlsag~end ~k the K~Idi~g t Court of Appeal (122 So. effect that proof of actual ~wledge of the defcot on the !&iler i~ essential to his l[~t- 7~ b]l[ty on an implied warranty. The SU- ~Teme Cout~. el F~Drid~ 3ai~! "The ultimate hell{lug of ~he ~our~ of appeal is to the 0~'~ ~at prc~ of actual or implied ~ow]ed~e of a dele¢~ on the part o~ a ~etaBt2t i~ ~rltial to h~s liability O~ ~ im- pl~ed ~rl~Ydy ~n ~n ~,~io~t h~gh~ by erie o~her than ~he p~rch~aer. bert v. ~istrunk, FM.1952, I~ ~o.2d 434, Her~ a~.in we think it~ ¢oufi~ denew Wa~ mis~]ace~ for the simple reAISOR thP*~ Lambeth ~nvek'!d ~t di- t~et pur~haser-s~lleg sit~t~o~ iR whi¢~ the purch~er h~d ~ opr~r tu- nlty equal /~ that OE ~h~ seller to i~[~ct the ite~ purebred. It did not involve a ~lrd party effot~ ~o linguae ~[~plied w~r~nty ~-~n~i- ~l~he in~a~t ho]dI!~ O~ ~Ite ¢oHr~ of appeal, however, i~ esseutlaliy cor- ;~ct ~n finding that a retailer Oo~]d be h~ld lhblo to a ~hird p~rty in ~nLp Only if the re,tiller could he charged w~th a~tual 0~ implied knowIedgo of the d~feet. Ags.~ we ¢~,lph~size that in the cflse ~t bar Carter relied enti~l~ on a~ ~d]eged implied w~r ~an~y ~n Ol~Op ~0 impose absoluh~ llabillty regardless ¢,f faul~ un the r #~i]er with ~elation tn Whom the~w was no privily* ~]~dinll ~ We do that the lack of prlvi~y between these par~i~ precluded the implica- tion nf S w~rl~ntT, the plaintiff action in tort for ~eglig~nce, Ac- ~]~i~a~e ~dgment of the cmlr~ of ag- peal pl~ee~ him. I~1 hhat event~ i[~ the type of sitnatio~ immediat ely be~ ~ore U~, It would be ~ec~ssary for h~m (o ]~ ro re* that ~a retailer kx]ew, or should haw know~, of ~he delete tlve condition o~ the commodity, To this ~xtent the court of appeal r~led c~rr~ly i~ holding tha~ pro0~ of this element wnu[d support a finding o~ ~a~l~ ~t th~ ~art o[ the ~%ailer. $04 l'Ig)~?.AL R~PORTER. 2~ S]~RIES This is i~ diree~ contrast with the ~te tha~ such proo~ i~ wholiy un- nee~ary in 3n implied warranty situation." (128 So.2d 392.) The actual bc]di,g of the court w~s ~hus ~pr~ed: "The ~m of our ho]dlng here siren plv is that one who is ne~ in prlvity wifl~ a ~etail~r has no action agains~ him for breach of an implied warran* ty, except in siU~tlonll invplvinff foodstuff~ or ]~erhap~ daugeruus in° ~rumentalitiea, a prob]e~ not pres- ently her~." (128 Sc.2d $93.) If the language in Garter v. ~I~tor ~upply Co.. ~upra, re[led on by appeliaIl~. I~ anything more than dictum, it ~o~a lint g~ an far as to sustain t~2e appe]lartts' position in ~he present ~se. ~[t doas ~o~ ~ay that it l~ immaterial f~at the maau- ~%urer could not h~.~e ~o~n. oz h~d no cpportunity to gath knoWlcd~, or In ~alities of ~he product manufactured ~2] We thlnl<, therefore, ~hat ~he J~r~"s g~neral ~erdk4s ~c~ *,h~ fief ea~dau~ ~re ~tIsta[ned by it3 ~egaflve auswer to s~cial i~rrn~at~ry No. 4, "No. 4. Could the defendant on, cr pri~r ~, F~br uat~ 1, ~.9~, by the reasonable applieat~on o~ hamait akti( and foreaigkt Imve ktmwu tha~ user3 ~f Lucky Strike cigarettes, ~ueh as the decoder Green, Would be endangered, by the it~halatlon of the main stream stroke from Lucky Strike cigarettes, of contracting can° ce~ of ~ho it]ng~" The defendant could not be held liable aa an absoiut~ in~urer against cotl~e- quences of which no developcd human skill and foresighL could afford knc'~I edge. The district cour~ dld not err in charging the ~ury that, ,,~ ~ ~ The lnanufaeturar of products which ~rs offel~ for ~ale to the p/tbHe ~n their or[glna[ ]Pack- age for human consumption or use impltedly warrants tha~ its prod- ucts are reasonably wholesumo or fl~ £or th~ purpose £or WhiCh they are 7a
Page 10: 0060119034
GREEN v. AM~RIC/kl~ ~0BACCO ~0 MPA~J~ ~oId, bt~ such imp]iec] warranty ~oes o~h~rwi~e, ~he buyer knows as rJluch no~ ~v~ ~b~tz~ i~ th~ r~l~- abott~ Lhe ~rt/cI~ a~ th~ ~e]Ier~ ~nd r~[ie-~ fae~ured prod~, the h~rmfuI ~cts u~o~ hi~ ovr~ j~dglaen~ r~thcr th~n ~ha~ ~ whi~ no dewlo~ed human skl]I of the ~e]ler. As to (3~, th~ dec~ri~e or ~oreslght ¢~I1 alror~ ktlow[ed~'~." l~ve~ as a qtIe~i~ o~" f~c~ to be d~er° m[n~d ~y the jury under al~propr~ate in- F~und~d en the presumed i~ten~ion of ~u~i~ w~t,h~r t~ ~1[~, ~l t[~ e~- [be o~rt~es ~nd upon rea~¢~ is t[~e do~- t[~a~io~ of ~he p~rtles, hacl tt superior ~rill~ that ~h~ exi~el~C~ or llOnex[st~rlc~ ¢~ a~] ~mplieei warran~, ~ fitn~ ~or a °Pp°rt~tn~Y ~o g~[n know]~dg~ of the p~rt[~[~r purpose d~t~nds up~l~ wheth- ~r tho buyer, a~ ~h~ ~ime ~f purchaser re- ar ~r no~ the b~r~ ~l {h~ t~me cf the li~a] ~n th~ ~udzme~t ~ th~ s~I~r. ]~ ~ purc]~sc, ~e ie~ o~ ~ sk~l ~ d jud~~ th~ doci, rlne• , thus founded upon re~son men~ of ~he ~c]Jer. ~rhe bnyer is pre- ~rt~ o~ the ~r~u~led i~ntion o~ the ~um¢¢[ s~ to rely o~]y when the ~eller i~ ~hou~'ht to have a super~ oppo~'~i~y edge o~ the produc~ or o~ its ~our~¢, ~d hence to ~rm a bet~r judgment of i~ fi~e~s. T~e eor~mon ~e~e o~ lh~t d~- ~rlne may be appreciated by for~s~elng ent ~e~ ~ produz~B inte~ed ~or h~ m~ ¢~m]~ti~u: (1) ~hose b~lieved by ~]I to be ~v]~oI~nme, ~r e~amp]e, mo~ f~; (21 tho~e kno~vn by ~H to be i~- jur~us t~ ~om~ while p~rh~p~ benen~ ~ia] or ple~r~b]~ to ot~ers, for ~m~ tofore thought by ~I[ to be who]e~orn~ ~r ~o]er~b]e, bu~ which cor~t~tI~" exp~id- iu~ s~en¢i~c researzh, ~he~t and ~w]edge have now ~r~ve~, or ~ ]e~ s~ ~rctte~ in th~ smoke ~f which a~ ]lear poI~yclic a~or~t~¢ l~'drcc~r]~on~ ~ud mi~{e qu~title~ of ~r~e~ic, ~n~ ~, ~i]k and b~t~r wi~ ~heir h~g~ c~o]~ter~] ccr~n~ ~nd w~a~ th~ future ~y dewlop ~ ~o~ vi~id ~magI~io~ ~ ~et~[I. ~p1~'iuz ~b~ ~n~Lriv~, ~ we h~ve ~atc~ it, to (i)~ no absolu~ I~bility i~ ir~po~cl upo~ th~ ~el]er un]~s~ t~ prod~ contains ~om~ foreign ~ub- ~r~ t~ ~r~Au~ ~ i~ ~l~r ~i~*~i ~ be. 187 F~ 61; ~Ile~th~rn ~l~r~ ~. 1019, 26~ F. ~9~~', 7~U~ Fir t~ ~ ~r ~i]]c. 10~r~ie~, which, we think, i~ clearly t~ be deduced from all of the Florida case~* [3] Under ~he pre~eat statute, 2~ U. S*C.A. § 1B21, ~he district court ha~l no a~thori~Y to ~s,~ eo~t~ for ¢o~tpen~$,~ion ~ ~n expel~ Witness Jn excess o~ the ~tat- ~y ~tc~t~r~¢~ !~r daY. ~i|~ ~r~ ~b~[stence ~[Iowanc~~ The ~os~ Jiltlg- m~n~ ~ therefore rever~cI for entry ~y ~he dis~ric~ eour~ of a judgraeu~ ~rl a~- e~r~an~ wi~b ~his op~n~Orl. ~he jvdg- Costs of app~[ are taxed ag~ainst the ~p- CA~[~ROIq, Citcu~L Judge (d~s~nt- ing), • hc j~ry in ~hls esse found that Ed- can~er o~ ~h~ lung, which was prcxima~- I~' cont~ibut~ ~o by hi~ sr~okin~ of L~cky ~r~ke C~g~rettes, produced for ht~man ~n~lpt~oi~ by ~e~]oe Ameri- can Tol~cco ~mpa~y.• Hav~ng ~hu~ ~nd, ~he j~ry re~cted the ~ppell~nt~ ~l~tim ~ Gr~ea'~ deafh~ b~au~ the trial court required tha~ they ~u~t find ~ha~ ~ho illj~r~ou~ substance s~ e~ab ]ishe¢~ to ]~a~'~ b~en i~ [he ~igare~te~ and i~s h~rrn~u] cf~e¢~ ~-o~]d hav~ bc~r~ re- applica~i~tl oJ~ h~m~n ~kiZ] ~nd ~or~- C~mm~ree Oil R~/in~ CQrp~r~t~on • ~ filt~ r. Di~I ~l 1~ ~.~ 198 F.~p~. S~,~I 897- ~03~ 6 ~l¢~re'~ Federal Pr~t~eeI § Z4.7"~ (5), p. 1~67. of p~ivI~ between American an~ ~r~e~ 8a
Page 11: 0060119034
the buyer k~ows ~s muc]l r tibia ~m the ~er, ~.~ ~eI~s m judgment ra~her than that r. AS to (3), that doctrlue te jury under appropriate in~ ~eth~r the ~e]ler, in the es- Lh~ ~rti~, had ~ ~u~rk~r to gain knewiedgo of the Is so~r~, al]d, hence* wheth- ., ~ tke ~me ef 9uruha~, r~- ud~ment of (he selle~ It Js e, thus founded upon reasoo pre~me~ i~.b~uC~u of tb~ 2h, we Lhinlr~ is clearly to be m all of the Florid~ case~. ~r ~he present ~k~Lute, ~ ~. ~1, the disrupt court had no ~a~ costs fol" compensation witness in excess o~ ~e ~4,a~- [anec pep daY, rai]~age and aliow~n~e~ The cost ~udg- afore r~versed for entr> eour~ of a ~udg-me~t in ~- h this opinion. The judg- ~ ~$fm~6allts are a~Fm~. ~al ar~ ~axed against the an- ~'. Circuit Judge (dissent n this ease ~ound ~hat Ed- It, age 49, ~[ed of primary ]un~, which wa~ proximate- ~ to by his ~oking of Cigarettes, produced for mptlon by appe[]cc Ar~erf- ComF~a~y3 ttuvlng thu~ lry rejected th~ appellants' reeil~s ~th, b~use t~e ~I ~at ~ey must ~6 • rlou3 au~tance flu es~b* ! been in the cigarettes and ~¢ricaa "by the r~ason~[e ~f bureau skil[ and for~- D.C.. 1937. ~2 F Supn 2"2~; ~Jl Refining Corpo~t~on )t R.I., 198 F.Sanp. ~95, 897 ~teude,l rhn~ thor÷ was Znck Lw~ Ameriesa a.d ~r~. ~S ~I%EL" Thi~ HmK~tiou on the jury '~a$ in e~£ the equivalent aE a charge ~hat the ~erci~ ~f r~n~bIe c~re on ~he part of American woaM exonerate It fr0m liability. I think lb~ charge wag dearly e~oneous. This ~ppeal i~ p.~Ji~at ed Jol~Lv on the thear$ that American breached its im- plied warranty ~o Green, I ~o not ~ink t~t one w~o ~'r~&nts ~,3[¢~or~¢~ess can ¢~eape l~bi[ity by showi~K that it exercised reJ~uable care in its efforts to achieve i~, Such ~n ide~ is, ir~ ray opinion, a z~futat~ol~ of the whole con- cept of w~rranty. ~eeause I do not be- lieve that the inclusion of lh~s ]imi~a- ties ~pon Amel'I~n*s du~y a~ ~Icr in~ piled warranty w~.~ ~ustified, I s~ unable to ~oln |n the ma~oflt~" opinion affirming the ~tlon of the eotrc~ ~]ow. L This Couz~ recentl7~ d~lhlea~ed the ~nera) nature of ~mplIed warranty : "For the purpose of ~EIs appeal the defendant~ aptsarent]¥ COncede that the evidence i~ au~cI~nt to ~US- ~til] the flndiuga O~ the j~ry that the p]aIntiff ingested ¢~e crab shell at Ar~ud's ~ud tha~ it caused his in* jury. In our view there w~s arapie evidence before the for~ to ~ustlfF the~e findings. It i~ co]atended, howel~r, that the court ~e(I f,z ~ry- in0 t~e e~e on lhe theory of im~lled ~'~l~ and Jn huIdlng ~h.~t plain- fiff was not required to prove that Arnaud'a was guilty of ne~'Hgenee, either actttal]y or by the appiiea- tiott of the doctrine of r~s ips~ )o- qultur. [p. 885] * ~ * "The primary qllestion fo! deter- mination is whether ~nder the de- cisions and law 0f Lotljeiana the ~roprietcr oJ~ a p~bIic estiu~ pIs~ ~o ser~ ~ food ]~br/~ted by him and containing ~ foreign substance ~,~l~v for d~msge? proxi~alely re. suiting from the impurity under the ter~ ~ Cir., ~, 212 F~?d ~, el r~iornrI theory of ~n imp~d ~rranlV ~ ~. ~es~ Our r#vlew of tile authoritles ~onv~nces u3 ~at etteh is the law of I~uislan~ Consequently, the trim court eor~[y enforced and app}[ed this prluc~ple in the trial e~ the pre~ent ca~. "This ru]o of liability was first announced II1 Do~e V. Fuer~t Kraemer, 1~9 La. 838. 56 So. 906, 907, 40 L R,A.,N.S., 480, ~vhcre the Supreme Court of Loulsi~na held that the seller of food at a pub]ie eatfn~ piace is ¢o~us~v¢Iy pre- co~dit~an of ~e ~od and ~ an~. 8o~e~eee. The basi~ af fh~s holding was said to roe theft . ,~ ~ ~. evel~ one ought t.o know the q~itles, good o~ bad, of the things wh~h he ~'abrlcutes In the ~ercize of the art craft, or busi- ness of whleh he m~kes publi~ pro~ fesslon, and that l~el~ of such knob- edge ~ ~m~u~d ~o 1~im ae ~ ~aul~. which makes hlm [{~bIe tc the !~ur~ chasers of hls fabrications for th~ da~go resulting from t~lo vices Or defects thereof which he did not make know~ ~ ~hera and which they were ignor~ut o[.' "While the Court was there ~Le- R]~nc v. Louisiana Coca-C~ia BO~ tiing Co., 221 La. 919, 60 So,2d 873] deaEug with a manufacturer's li~- hiiit y for injuries caused by the con- sumptic~ of dcIeberious ingredients contained in a bo~L]ed bevur&ge, i~ uarefully pointed ou~ that under Loo- islana jur~sprudeuce a :o/~f.ti~ ~h ~ ease ~ en~t~e~ to rely ~po~ the manufo~r~r~ ~ ~pIied *~rran- £y lh~;t i~ ~roduc~ ~ ~afo for hums~ co~ump~on/" []~nphasi~ ~p* piied.] WhiIe we were deallng in Arnaud's r~se w~th the presence of a ~re[ER oh denied¸ 345 U,S. 915, '~ S.CI. 2D:~, 99 L. 9a
Page 12: 0060119034
¸:3;2 : O~ V. A3~F~tICA~' TOBACCO CO ~AN~/ ]ect, that was not tile dete~ninant fact; we placed grea~ reliance upon and quote~ ~rvi~ the ~oyle Case ~ ~e S,~pr~r~ C~r~ of I~ni~i~a, w~re Lhe eo~qumer I~ been made ~Jck by" egt~ng food plt~ ebbed from the sailer ~vith respect to whlCh ~he ~elier made rJ~co~radleted proof of file exercise of tile ilighes~ de- gree ~ care in l~e prepaJ'atio~ Never- ~ele~, the ~uprernv Court of Lo~i~n~ ~qd ~ the ~el~ v:as "~t f~ult if t~a~ ar~[cMs O~ed ~o be vitiated and de|e- The l~w the~e appl~ed w~.~ the I?,W of Lmtisi~, ~hil,~ b~re ~ ~r~ ~i~t(ug s FIorida could; and applying Flor[da!s law. The Ouoted language i~ of ~om~ Importance £or the rea~ that the SU- proms Court of Florida, in a casea which it deeeelbed as vre-~enting a ques- ti~t ~f first im:p~es$1~a, ~fcrred %o %he ~'i¢ e.~e, s~prg, a~ ~ae ~f ~he au~horl- ties i~ rel~e~i upon ia fashioning the F~r~ ida rule goveYning the dcctrlne of im- plied warranty• In Cltett the Florida court crated: "The sole question for determina- tion on the pleading i8 wl~ether t]~e pro#r~eto~* of a ~z~bll'o ~e~taur~nf or d[~ng ~oc~m who sere'as ~ ~a~ eo~. ~9 ~me?tol~fme foo~ to a paT- lug guest for im~n~dia~ ca~aum9. ti~a on the premises ~ ~mier an ab- solute b'abilit~ for the damages proximately re,ultimo fro~ t~e i~n. ~'l~ie~, on gl~ fheo~,t of an ~'~ pl~ea waeeant~ o~ fitness. ~ * "Some courts have held that in the ab~e~ce of ~tatute a victualer serving food fo~ immediat~ eoi'~- ~umpt~on on ~he p~emlse~ r~a~' n~ be held liable fo~ food deleterious ~o health, wlthou~ proof that he was guilty o~ negllgence~ while others have determlned that aside from any question of ~egligenee such a purveyor of f~ds fo~ a va]uable ec~- ~deratlon ~ ur~d~r ~n absotute Ha- bilfl~ for ~OI~SO*~e fo~ ge~'v~ by Aim, ¢a the theor~ of a~ {rap/fed 79 "In our oplnlon the implied war- ran~y theory o£ llabillty eumpor~s wi~lx the ~eneraI tread of the hett~ reasoned cases and is supported, on prineiple at lea~t, by decisions from our own juri~dlction. ~ ~ "These c~es es~ahllsh the prin- ciple that a~ to items of f~od or ottl+ er prod~e~z in the opig~na] package which are offered £or ~ale for hu- person Who pur~hase~ s~eh i~vrn~ tn rel~anc~ u~n the ~px~$ ~r imphed ¢oi~41t~on ~r assurance t~ they a~# wholesome and fit for the uses or Fueposes for which they are adver- tised or sold, and who i~ injured a~ the resttit of u~wholeso~ or dele- teriot~ a~b~ta~ea# the~'elo which are unknown to the buys, may h~ld either the m~m~facOlre~ o¢ the re. tatter li*ble 1o dam~ for iaiuriea su~taSaed by him, on the tlleory O~ an ifaplied ~rranty of wholesol~e- nose or fitnese of such article or product for the purposes for which it was offered to the public." [Em- l~h~l~ added.] In Sencer et a]. V. ~art's ~f arket s, 111¢,, 1850, 45 S~.2d 671, the IIiorida Supreme Court, en bane, wa~ considering ~he el*ira ~gainst ti~a de~!er, ~a~ th~ m~u- ~r~t~er, of ~ee~ns m2de ~ick h~' eating ~rdine$ from a can from which they were served to the consumer~. It held ~hat both the man~facture~, and the deal- er were Iiable if unwholesome food were offered to the consuming Imblie, quoting fx~m VOl 1, WiBiste~ on ~ales, Rev.Ed., 9ag~ 636 : abfUty ui~u a dealer w~ selh eavn~d goods of reputable manufac- ture ha~ been denied J. afev¢ deaf- sinus on the ground tha~ the seile~" cannot i~ssfbly discover ~:h~t ~ par- tlcular can i~ defective, and that it i~, ~herofore, unjust to subjee~ him t~ ~abilltF. The ~ame argument, h~wever, may h~ read~ ~ r~gar4 ta an1' implied warra/~ty, no~ only o~ ~. C~qi©tt ~ 7~uderthtl~ ]~ilfrd~re CorD, Fig,. ~04.~, ~9 ~0fld 47C~ 477* los
Page 13: 0060119034
Y9 op[nlon the implied war- ~ary of I~bilit¥ comports ~e~era] trend o~ the better ~ase~ and is ~pDorted, on ~ le~t, by decl~lnn~ fror~ case~ e~tahlish the prin. ae to iten~ of food or oth- in the origlnul pae~g~ ~ff#re(~ for sBle for hu- n porchaBes s~c~ iLem~ i~ Ion the ~pres$ or il~p|ietl ir ~Bur~ce that ~hey are or Whic~ they are adve?~ ,1~ ~od who i~ in~u~ed as ~b~n~e~ the~eln which vn tc the buyer, may hem mant~fa~ure~, or the l~- in dam~ge~ ~or injuries ~y him, o~ the theory of ~e~ of such artIcla or ! t~e ]~rDo~e~ ~r ~vhlah red to the public." EEm+ ~d.] ~t aL v. CarPs ~TiarkeL~, ~e., anc, was considering the the de~Ier, no~ the ma~lu- ereona i~ade ¢iek by ea~ing a can fro~ whlch they LO the ~o~ui~ers, It held m~nu£~Lurer ~nd the deal. if unwholesome ~ were ¢~n~u~l[nE pubI~, quoting zpo~o~ of a~eolu~e ~l- dealer who ee]]~ eu denied in a few decl- ~rou~d tl~g~ th~ se~er [b]y (tlecover that a par- is de~ctlve~ and ~haL Jt !, un3~st Lo ~ubjeet him The sam~ argument, ~y be made hi re~nrd to [ warranty, ~ot only Of , S~.2d 476, 477. 80 buyer must have been swale that the seBer could ~ ~iseo~er ~ de~eet ifite~e~. Aceordlagly, if canned g~ ~re t~ ~ ~ an e~tiou to tl~e ge~era[ ru~ governing ~le~ o( ford, the wlmle law of implied warranty Bhould be re~'tsed and placed on ~nother ~e. " 'But tl~e ge~erM prlncip[e of the common law Js oppo~a~d to th~s, and certainly if a dealer is ever to ~e made liable for injuries ~u~ed by dete~ive goods ~m'e Y~e ~i bee~ ~t~n~r t~ ;a~tdi~ hlm ~ahl~ for selling d~l!e~ive 1:nod th~n in any .t~er kited of ~ale, An~ ~y the ~eight of a~thoriiy, preeumabIy for tbe~e re~n& s dealer is ]iaL,le for ~lling euch food c~'en t~ou~,h i~ sealed confiners of a reputable Ir~ Miaw.~ Coer. Cola B0tt]tvg Com- pany, Inc. v. Te~d, 1958, 101 So,2d ~4, the Florida court r~coBui~d the rule of the above cases ix~ thi~ C~m~l~rd : "The bottle~ recognizes that F]or- ~ law pl~es bottlers o~ enid drinks under the ~ame rule of ab~o[~l~ Ha- h~tit~ ~f tmpLie~L we.rmuty a~ ear- ners of food, Floridg Cec~.-Coia Bot- tling Company v. Jer~an, Fh., 1953, 62 So.2d 910." [a exteadhtg ~he implied w~rra~ty lmie t~ a seller o[ seed, ~he ~upreme ~our~ of Florida, en bane,~ r~ognlz~d the cont[nulng validity and vlta]ity of the foregoillg rule3 in these words: 'The general rule that ~n ult!tnate purchaser may not sue the ~,hoIe- saler i~ ~ot an a~o]ute one ~d it s~ems te be Ic~ing force with the 4. ~Phe m~jorit~ oplnlon ~ke~ ~ote of t~ ~a~ th&t two Ju~tlc*s ~neu~d s~e~ all~ ~nd tw¢ Justices dl~eu~e~], ~OS~ O! ~bor~, I,ow~vcr. diff,~r ~4 with ~e m~Jot[tr in ~aoldln£ Ih~t ~a~ duty Of the ma~ufaq. t~rer w~$ ab~o]nte. ~,tg~ Terrell ~ in I~vor ~f holding th~ remll grocer, be. c~e ~the~[~e the consumer ~n r~auy court has recognize5 ~he pr|~e 'that a# Io ~[eme of foods or other ~r~c~ ~ t~ ~igit~t ~aekage whlch are offere~ for sale ~or hurrah ~onsumpLjt~ el~ ~/~e ge~e~, a per- ~on ~vho puceha~es eueh ]gems Jn reIlallCe upon th~ express o1" ~rrlp~c~ ~ohole~o~e ar~ fit for the use~ or purpese~ ~or whlc~ ~hey ~'e ad~er. t~ed or enid, and m~ ~ /~)e~ ~ ~er~o~ ~b~ce~ ~here~ which are uuk~ow~ t~ the ~ycr, may hold elther the m~nufacturer or the r~ tai]er liable ~ ~ ~, "There Js a conflict cf opinion about the aceou~abillty of a manu- facturer ~o & consumer on the the- ory of impIled warranty in the ab- eence o~ privily, but thls cour~ ha~ become &ligned with rhode ¢ot~r~s "aoldi~$~ ~h~ ~ui~ racy be ~o~ough~ again~ the ma~lufacturer not~ith- [Emphasi~ added+] irnp[Jed warranty l~ produo~s ca~es arose from co~t~c&~t ~r ~rom tert wa~ eeL~lcd by the Supreme Court of Florida i~ Car- ter v. Hector Supply Co,. 196L 128 S~.2d 390, 391 : "Ferha~s in it~ jud~clal incipl- e~cy ~he rule of liability on ]mpI[ed war- ~o~Ly was grounded in $O~le measure o~ the Iaw en~ering deee~ ~nd therefer~ ~urned ~he enrn~i~ ~£ a tort ~i~n. However iL is now generally agreed ~haL the implication of a warran~ arises out ~l¢ a eontra~uaI r~]at~onship. ~ ~ ~,, Tha~ e~e involved an effor~ by ~ p~r- cho~er Lo ~Dp]y the implied warranty rt~le agalost a seller wfLh w~om he ~-a~ ~ot in pr[vi~ the subject of the ~gle ao~ bein~ for huma~ ose. ~n rejeetifzg" ~he uppl~lon o~ ~he ~mplie5 "~arran~ c~e~ coul~ not reach the manu~ct~re~ The ~i~sea~ing Justices v~ere J~, faror o[ holEl[~g th* manufacturer, b~t ~ot the deab~, ~ ~ ~ ah~t~t~ liahiLit~ t~ r~aj~rity h~ deeP,red t~ be ~te ru]~ i~ F)orlda 5. [losk[~,s v, ~L~ek~on (~r~u CO., I8~& 63 So~l 514. lla
Page 14: 0060119034
GREE~" v. ~ERIC~ TOBACCO COMPANY Cite as ~4 F.2~ 70 (1~) rule in s~ch a ease, the court (p, 392) used languago indicating clenrly tha~, i~ product~ for human use cases where privily aIways exlst$, the implied war- tasty of the selIer ~s absolute : "Again we emphasize that ill the case at bar Carter reIied entirely on ~n alleged [nip[ted warranty in or- der to i~pose ~bs~lu~e ~iahility re. gardles~ ~f fau!~ on the retailer with ye]ati~ to whom there was no priv- ily Finding as we ~o that the lack of prlv[ty between these l~a r~ie~s pre- cluded tho implication of a warran- ty, the pIalntiff would necessarily be relegated to an Re,ion in tort ~or negIigenc~ Actually thi~, ~n effect, is where ~he ultimate judgment of lhe ~oort of appeal placed him. In tha~ event, in the type of situation immediately before us, it would be necessary for him to prove Chat the retailer k~ew, or should have bwawn, of the defccti~'e condlt[on of the commodity. To th~s extent the court of appeal ruled correctly in hold- ing that proof of this element would support a finding of fault on the par~ of the retal]er. This ts in di. rect contrast with ~he rule %hat ~ue& proof ~ who~y u~cv¢*sary ~ an [Emphasis added.]~ A reading of these eaae~ and authorl- ties demonstrate~ to me clearly that Question 4 a~ framed was effective in presenting' to ~he jury only the- claim ~ha~ Green's death resulted ~r~m Amer~ teen's negligence and that it ignored e~tir~iy the liberal Florida rule based ubon impIi~d warranty, which was cov- ered by another coun~ in the complaint. ~. ~r~m these cases [t ]~ plain that Y]orld~ is in the vanward of those stat~s, as yet rmmerieaIIy iu tile minority whirl ~ e bold~g p~r reyor~ of f~od an~ ~ther prod. ~ets foe human ~naumptlon to ~n ab SOI~tc liability under the d~ctrlne o~ ira. Plied warranty The ca~s on th~ subject are le~ion a~d aro eoIiected [n ~no~a. tmns found [a 7~ AJ~R2d J]11, et ~eq., 75 ALIL2d 39. et seq. a~4 44, et ~q., and 77 A I~rt.2d, pp. 61. et seq, 0~ et seq ~md 12~, et ~q. ~ad see "Iloplied 81 !Po establish their claim ~ased upon neg Hgence it was admittedly incumbent up- en appellants to prove that American knew, or by the exercise of proper care-- probably more than reasonable care-- could have known, ~hat the nlcotlne~ and arsenic pre~nt in the smoke fronl I.ueky Strikes were likely to do harm to the decedent. The count baaed on neg- Ugenee was submitted to the jury, which found in favor of American and no ap* ]:eaI was taken from that portion of the verdict But the duty of tho appellants to prove that American could, by the reasoltable app[icafiion of h uman skill and f~resight, anticipate that Lucky 8~rikes would endanger deeedenff~ health was not* under Florida la~, a part of an ac- t[on based ninon impiied w'~rr~alty. ~Jvery warranty is a ]promise by h~m who makes it, a contract, a stiptllatlon, an assurance that the subject of the war- ranty w~]l be performed or that the warranfov will make good the loss avis- ing from its breach. Under Ftorida's law, the implied warranty was an uncon- ditional guarantee to Green that the use to which the elgar~ttes would be put, a~ ur~der~tood by a]], would not de him harm by reason of any deleterious sub- stance er ingredleu~ contained in them, I think the Florida cases establish a l~]e of Jaw which constitutes a conditien of every sale of ~ product f~r human consumption or use, which has the same legal effect in this case as if appellee had elatered into a written ¢~ntract with d~eden[, covering every ~aekage of cig- m'ette~ purchased by him, couched in these words : American guarantees that the cig- arettes contained in this package are Warranty in F]orbla," i2 U. o~ l~a Law Review, 2tl. 245 2t6; p~sse% "q~he As. ~ult upon the Citadel (St rk~ Lie bility" to the Co~oraer)," t~O ~a[c Law Jouznal 10~9; and J.'rumer and ]~'r~edman, -prod. uct~ L~sbiliI3.', (~[CC*), pI~. 1~, 7. ])efined in W~.bste~'s New ~orId DiC. tionarF, Cortege ~?didon, p. ~J9I, n~ . * * * a lmlsonoua alkMoid * * * £~uad in tobacco leaves, from which i~ i~ ext r~cted ~S a colorless, oily. ~.rid, trans~ parent Hquid * * *.,, 12a
Page 15: 0060119034
81 air c]alm h~ed upon neg- adra~ttcdl¥ incumbent u~- to prove t~ Amcrica~ ! e~erc[~ Of proof car~-- ~an r~asonab]e c~r~-- iow~, th~ the nico~n~~ ~nt in t~ smv~ f~ we~ likely to do harm to T~ cou~t ~sed on nQg- bmitt~d to the j~, which of Amer~an and no a~- i from that portion of the fhe du~ of ~he ~ppel/an~ Amer~a~ cnu]d, by ~he ~l[~tlcn of human skil] a~d lcipa~ that Lucky Strikes er d~cedenUs hea[fh was )rid~ law, a ]part of an ac~ ,on implied war~an~'. an~y is a ~romise by him , a cont~, a S~lpul~ticn, :hat the subject of the war- performed or Ch~ the I ma~ good th~ los~ a~s- breach. Under Florida's ed war~n~ WaS a~ unco~l- an~e ~o Green that ~he :he efgarekl~s ~ould be p~t, I by all, wouM not do him Ion of any deleterious s~tb. 'redien~ contained in them. ! FI~r~a cases cs~bI[sh a h~ch constitutes a ~nditi~n of a product for human or use, which has the sa~ :n tl~is ~ase as if appellc~ ~to i wr~n cont Pact wl~h ha~d by ~ couched in n gn~ra~¢s that ~h¢ ~ig* taln~ in this package ar~ , 2~5-24~; P~o~s~r, "The As. :he Cit ad~l (Strict Lia~ilit y to ~erl," C9 Yale Law ~o~na~ ~rnm~ and ~rledmau, ,,p~. ty" (190)), p~ 1~. Web~er's ~e.~ ~o~ld Die. ol]eg~ Editio~ p. ~91. aa • poia0nonn ~lkalold * * • b~cco leaves, f~m whleh i~ is fit to be used by purchaser, a ~uman [~ing, by Ughting and dI'~,wfng amoka from them lute the Iu~gs, so that the. ingradiants of the cigar~ ettes carried in the ~moke may be deposited on the wafts of the bloOd vessels ~itaated ~hereln. to the end that said ingredlent~ will t,e ab- aorbed into the blood streara and wiil produce in tho smoker the a~othing and relaxing sell~atiovs normally attending such use~ tha~ ~ald cigarettes do not cnntaIn any harr~ul or deleterious ~ubstance; alibi that it will indemnlfy the user" against ~my injury, lo0s vr chma~e Which may restlL~ frol~t the snle]dng o~ said cigarettes, ~L As I und~rStan~ the majority op~uion, tha effort is m.~de to d~(ing~!ish the Flo~,ida cases from the one before tin ©hhefly on the ground ~at the decided c~s deal with aituation~ wh~re some foreign object or subst.~i~ce wat~ at the roo~ of the injury caused the user. Iun- ders~and further that the ~ajorJt6" ~hi~ks that the fac~ that the Florida Court has, in several o! the cases, ad vetted to t~e eas~ ~]J~ W]~joh ~ ~n~- fnc~:u~r could determine the l~resenee ~d ~n of deleterious subsidences, a.~ set, pared with th~ oppor ~ity ~en the purchaser th gain sttch knew]edge, dem- onstrates that the Florida Cou~t in~end- ed *.o make proolr of fvre,~e~b]l]~y 0£ harm by the exercise of reasonable care g #fne q~n ~ton o[ recove~, under the ir~- ~Jiod warranty tale. I gee# tlo~ able agree with the majority 0n either ~core, and 1 think the italicized [~assages quoted f~e~ tile F~or~da de~isloas, suf~r~, da~. ongtrato the error into which, in my opinion, th~ majority has falle~. A brief r~Pm~ of ~lw e~e~ w~tl ~e helpful. l~l Arnaud's the presence of a piece ef shell which should net have heel~ in ~he dish served to ~he 011s~o~ter wa~ Mart. tioT~ed, but what w~ stressed in ~hat opitlion was that the f~od ~a~ i~ [~6 u~zAo~esome ~'fie~. served. II" i~ clear front our opinion that the ~nwhclesom~. nes* alone fastened liability', the herd. SOd FEDEJTAL EEPOETEJ~ ~ SEE;ES jn~¸belng that the sa[~ W~S conclus~.~. ~y presumed to ~ow of the e~fstence of any unwh©~some conditlon ~gard~ss of it~ cause, and that lack of knowledge is ~m~I~ed f~ [tim aN a ~u~t. This ~s p~i~ ~ro~n the l~nguage of the oplnion, as well as the fu~iher holding that the im- pH~ w~rrauty iq tb~ the product is s~e ~or human ©ons~np~on or us~ ~ F~v~da C~F~ in Clle~ held wltho~ equ[vocatlon that the seller is under an ~bsolute ]ia~lity if he se~'e~ unwholesome or Impu~ f~o~ ro~a~le~ of t~eir chara~th~ or so,roe. It ~mpha- s~zed too that the warranty applted in p~ud~c~ for human usa generalI¥--no~ ~encer was de~ded on ~he ~]cgatlona of the c~Inpl2~i~L A ~or~per had ~r~ed ~ ~ o~ sardines which, when ea~n~ produced $1o~n~s, The oomp]nJ~t alleged, alt~rna~Ively~ that the sardines "contained ~orei~ or d~+ngere~$ ~latter d~erJo~ WJ~hi~ i~s~l~~' ~he 6o~ d~S not r~t the ~0mplaint on the ground that i~ did nb~ allege that th~ sardlnes or ~herwl~e. It was enough tha~ ~,h~ dele~u~ ~th~ ~. Th~ was ~eld ~u~nt by the Supreme Court ~ Fief ida. As to tha r~a~er ~f knowledge of ~ w~ In ~he can Of sardines or abii~ to acqulre ~uch k~owledge, ~he ~torokc~- er of ooui.~ wa~ wholly wit~ou~ ~y means of obtaining k~ow~d~ abso~ hlte liability wa~ fa~ten~d upor~ him. I~ l~osklns ne~her k:~vw]ed~e ~ the 9~en0e ~ a specified f~reign Substance was mentioned. The opinion holds simply aud ~Se~-]y ~hat ~re is ~b$o]ut¢ ~abili~ where prod.cts in toe original p~ka~ are so~d ~r human t~se or cor~sumption pre~enoe of som~ unwholesome op dale t erlr+u~ substance. The F]o~da Court in Carte~. emph~ si~ed aga~ th~tp where product8 were sold for h~!ma~ ~or~umption, proo£ that the se~e~ kDew or ought to have known of the unwhol~ome ~ondltlon w~ "wholly unnecessary~
Page 16: 0060119034
G~ v. ~l~[ EP~C~q TOBAOCO C OMPA~TY Cite a1304 F24 ~o (19~I I am unable to read ~nto the FIoridz de~Jsions the ideas which the majmdty advances as the basis for its failure to folbw what seem to me to be the dear and unequivocal holdings of the cases discussed. IL is truc tha~ the court ad- verts, more ~haR once in [~hese cases, ~ the plain fact that the manufacturer or Belier was in much better po~itlon 1o ac= q~[re knowledge of the n~ure and oha~ acterlstics of the ingredients of the thing s~ld than the purchaser for u~e. Those dI~eussloI~, iL seems to me, were iB Jus- tification of its determination to apply the strlngcnt implied warran~ doctrine to this limited field of sales contrae~s instead of imposing on the purchaser the dif~cult task of proving negligence. There is, as I see it, no indicat~n that the court was threading to water down the absolute obllgation~ of a contract of implied warranty to the 1eve[ ~f proof governing tort actions. It is significant also ~at American does not rely on a single F]ori&a case to suppnrt ira position. It is content rely on the contention that, granted that Green died because he smoked Lucky Strlke elgarettes, thc maker of them should not be held liable for his death unless the Jary could find from the evi- dene~ that it could, in the exercise of reasonzb]e care, have knov~n that the dele- t~rlous substanc~ in Lucky Strike ciga- rettes would do him harm. Little good will be done by diSCussing the cases from other states which do not £ollow the rule embraced by the Florida Court with re- spec~ ~o impI[ed warranty as go~ernlng ~ttch sales. ~ince Amerlear~ prints, as an appendix to one of it~ briefs, the entlre oplnlon 5f the Courl of Appeals for the Third Circuit hl Otto E. Pri~hard v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 1981, now repori~d ~n 295 F.2d 292, I will comment ~. I. the is~u~ of N~wsweek Magazhte of March 1~ ~9~2 ~s ~. article ]/emle4 .,0~ th~ L~ Again,., which deserlbes a report J~t made by the Royal College of Phy~l- claus i. Lond,m bearing the titI~ "~mok- dug a~d Hes]th.,, I~ is ~tcted that the ~o. c~ety issued a~ u~equiv~ca] i~dictmen~ of mgarettcs. The statistic~ iaeht4ed in Ih0 83 on the holdings of thai co~se which, it seer.s to me, eoatains inore wldek is fo~- vorabM to ~he Greens than to American. In his actio~ for damages hosed upon the claim that he had eolltrao~ed ]uIIg e~neer frora ~okiug Chesterfield elga- let~e~ betw~n 1921 and the time his lung was removed in 1953, Pritchard based his claim of liabHRy upon implied warranty of merchantability and negligence. The Distrlct Court for the WeStern District of pennsylvania dismissed the action founded upon breach of warranty, and granted the Tobacco Company's motion for directed verdict as to plaint Jff*s eharz- ~s of negligence. Tke Court of Appeals for 5he Third C[rcult reversed both rul- ings. Since Pr[~chard'a action was predi- cated upon Pennsylvania's Uniform Salez Act, 69 P.S. ~§ 1 3Z9, which establishes quite differ bages of liability, fmelud- ~ng the element of knowledge, from the common law of Florid~ aa recognized by its court decisions, very little e~n be ~ained by discussion of this phs~e of the derision. It is su~elen~ to observe that the Court. thought tha~ the evidence ad- duced to the t~ial court was su~eient to support a ease based upon Pennsylvania's re~trieted rule of implied warranty or upon negIigenee, and indicating even float i~ wo~ sufl~elenL to sustain ~ claim based upon e~resa warranty. III. In Pritchard the plaintiff offered evi- dence, held inadmissible for insufficient proof, of the existence ~f 795 articles allegedly dealing with the harmfal effect of tobacco upon the human body, Cer- tainly such evh~ense, coupled with that in the record before us and informatiaa passes~d by everyene,a make it certain that we are de.ling with a situation of recog~liZed serlousr~ess. rep.r t are anything btl~ t ~sst~ dug in ¢~- ~eedoa with tobacco a~d ]un~ ~ncer, coronary hear~ disease, and gastric ulcers, Ancl th~ publk~ press of April T, 19~2 car. rit~ a U. ['. ~. release whieh states: ',Th~ lie]dan padlarnent has passed a hill out~h~g ad,:,r~iNng for ¢igarets ~d od~er tobace~ productm" 84 An [I]umi plied Wart ~. the L*aivers FaiI 1959. 1 $eq.~* A qu¢ graphs wi~l ; I'Th~ s~ is probab~ lag area present t thr~e tea ~,[or~over aged in ~! ~he parch: ~y, the o~ make ~ pBr~has~d rea]lztic Ic in the fa~ Motor CO given to . imperil5, ~ the n~ce~ 'prev~ou ~ [Pag~ 211 ,,By ~ ~eeB that MaePber~ been ro~p( eficial che product~ great deal of the s: among t~ llrinciples varlokls jt~ ida has g stRtes ~htl tigris ill/o and just : 247~48 9. Whil,, ~ ~ -Th,, ,,~r~ d.. q~;.,• ~,dd • 14~
Page 17: 0060119034
83 ~g~ of 'that e~e whieh~ it contains more which is fa- e (]r~en~ than [o American, on for damage~ based upon at he had contracted [ung smoking Chesterfield ¢iga~ n 1921 and the time 7aia lung ia 1953, prkehard based his i]ity upon implied warranty bility and negligence, The "t for the W~stern District mia dismissed the action breach of warranty, and Tobacco Company's motlan erdlct a~ to plalatiff's charg- nee. The Court of Appeals l CircuiL reversed boLh ruI- 'ritehard's action w&$ predi- mnsylvania'~ Unlforra Sa]~ §§ 1 B~9, which estabILshe~ kt bases of liability, includ- !at of knowledge, from the of Florida as recognized by :iaions. very little can b~ cussi~u of this phase of the is ~uffielent to observe that lua-ht tha~ the evidence ad- trial cot~rt was sufficient to ! baBed upon Pennsylvania's le of iraplie:l warranty or ice, a~d indicating even that ~nt to su~aln a clalm based warr~raty, Ill. rd the plaintiff offered evI nadmi~ib~e for insufficient existence of 795 ar~ic]es ing with the harmful effect )on the human body. Cer- ddeuce, coupled with that in pefer~ u~ and ~n~orm&tlo~ everyone,~ make i% eel~ain deMing wlth a situaHon of riousne~. ~ything but reassuring in ¢~n. t tobacco ~nd lung eancer, LrL ~Iisea~e, ~nd ga~tr[e ulcers. lle press of April 7, 19~2 car. P. X release which stat~r: par]iaraent ha~ 0~SSOd a bill dwrt[rinff for 0igarcts mud ~o ~,rod,~vts." 84 804 I~]DEICAL ~OET~R, 24 $E11~8 Before summarizing briefly %he po~nta An Illuminating dissertation an "Im- plied Warranty in Florida" aplx~ars in the University of F]orid~ Law Review, Fall I959, Vol, XII, No. 3, pp, 24I, et seq~~ A quoLatlo~ fro~ two of iK~ ]~r~- graphs will be found interesting : "The su~ect of products li~billty ia probably the most rapidly e~ pond4 ing area of aubstantive law at the pt~sen~ ~ime* There are a~ ]east ~ree ~easen5 ~or fhi$: ~ ~ Moreover, ffood~ are frequ~i~t]y pack- aged in sealed confalne~3, an~t o~'ten the purchaser dc~s not have the abl]i- ty. the opportuulty, or the de,ire to make an inspection of the articles purchased. Third, the masterful and rea]istlc logic of l~ir. ~siiee Cardazo in the famou~ MacPheraon ~ Buick Motor Co. ca~e (217 N.Y. B82. 111 NE. 1050) in the year 1915 has given ~o eaurta and counsel ~roag irapetus, and in some cases perhap8 ~he necessary, courag~ ~o l"~exsmine previous deci~iona on the ~ubject [Pag~f141] ~ * * "By way of s~mmary, i~ v,i]] "0e seen that alghcugh the d~trine of MucPhers~n v. Buick Motor C~. ha~ ~een r~ponslb[e for a great atut bert. eficlal change in ~hc law relating to products liability, ~here is ~}]1 a great de~[ of confusion in a ma jot it)" of the atate$ an~ gIaring contrast among the eomlm~atlvely few settled prin¢ipie~ a~ they are a~ied in the varioua jurisdictions, ltap01]y, Fief. ida haa gone to the forefront af the orates that have r~olved the qu~- tlons involve(] ill this area in a ~plea] a~d ius~ manner • ~ ~.,, [pages 247 248] 9. WhJb. a ~.rl m,mhrr af the ea~(~ di~. cl~, ri in thi~ d:~nt and m the majority ~1,11i,,n a~ ~n~ly~ed iu the ~rti,h,, its lu:L:n ~n,tu~iua~ ~re in~pl~lieable ~o tile pr,,bh., h~fi,re ~ [na~m,~eh as it atate~. ,'l'h. ,,Lrv.y. hDWE,~.r will be eouSned ~o th~ (lll,,~tioa~ of dl,f~et~ ia the ~tich~ s,,id • , ,,* tO Th r,. w.ul,I s~,,lu t~ h, n~ ~.r,s~.,~ a~ t. t~,i, sire,, the ~,a~,~. h, gint,in~ ~ith tim of difference between the m~jor~ty and myself, I queue a rulo which the authors of the Law Journal artle]e distilled from two of the Florida cases which the ma- jority and I have adverted to ( Pages 253- 2~4): "Five years after the Blatltou ease, Cliett v. Lauderdale Ell[more Corp. nailed down the liability in food e~cs. "Rulv XL A seller of faod for ~alue to immediate consumers is ob- scurely l~ablv for in§urle~ e~ ~ re- aul~ of u~whele~omem~s o~ the food~ tm the implied warranty of fitne3~ for hu~t~ ~o~um~io~ ~gardlc~$ Of ~egllgen~e, ~he ba$i~ being ~he re. l$~nee of the ¢o~uva~r o~ ~he 8¢ller' ~ ~ill and judemen&" [Emphasia in the originaL] I understand to be basle in the zule of implied warranty of K~.ness announced by ?he ~t]ajori~F "whsther or not the })uy~ er. at the time of ~h~ purchase, relies on the skill and judgment of the seller." There is no disput8 on ~hia questlau here. Green, before his de~th, ~e~tifie4 %hat he bought Lucky ~trike cigarettes in sealed packages from the grocery store jus5 aa he bought many itam~ o£ food packaged by reputahIe manufae~urer~; that he had ao no[ice that, and made no ]nve~tiga~ion to determine whether, harnlful ingredi* ents were pro~nf, and ~hat he had never had a cigarette subjected to chemical ana]~ISiS and ]lad novel- ]md a~l occa- sion ca do so. He stopped a~ing them when he was advised that he had corn traetcd lung cancer. The majority treats clgare£tes in tile orlginaI package as belonging in the cate~ gory of foods as respects appileatlon of the doctrine of implied warranty,to ]Bat Clict~ ~a~, referred to "]o~4. or 0l~¢r ~dgels" and ~dded the w~rds ,,uz~ gFa. "human eenaump[iea?* As i~ ~olated out a~ve, the "consumption*, of a D.r ti~a of ~he ~moke ¢omlng from ~aeky ~tr[kc clg ar~*t[~ is as r~al a~ the "consumption*' of a ~,,rtlo~ of any item ¢,f Cm~d [ntr(}- due~d [nt(~ the hum~ ~ystem ~hr~ugh the aHmen¢~ S ~.ms 1. 15a
Page 18: 0060119034
GP,,E~W v. A~R~OA~ TOBAOOO a0~FAI~E 8~ Cite as ~ F ~I S~ {~ it segregaf~s "produc~ in~nded for hu- plicati~n of human skill a~d foreslght man ~oIlsump~o~" in~ "thr~ di~ W~u~ n~t ~¢~ez[ ~ ha~f~L {~gr~4~n~, e]~s~es." [n ~I~ss o~e. it places most ~c~6~; irt class LWO~ iL plY.cos ~]cobo[[c beverages; and cl~s three includes c[g aret~¢s The h~{~ for this cl~sificatlon I ha~o beelt wholly u~able to find. Cer- Lainly, as I understand them, the Florida ¢~ses ~o iln ~ give Imy "nlnt of mleh a. cla~b~- fication. 8~rangely enough, ~he ma~ori~;y hol~s that ~o absolute liability is Imposed upon which the Jur~ had found the accused e~garoltes contained. For ~hese t~aso~s ~ respecLful]y dfssent. ON PETITION FOII REHEAPJN~ PE~ CU~I&M~ $o far as concerns this raze. the fol- ios.lull facts are e~xbIished, by ghtl iury's ittlswers to interregatorie~ under Rub 49 ~e toiler o~ f~Is "betieve4 by ~.R t~ be (b), Federal Rule~ of Civil Procedure. wholesome." L[~bilityastofood. accord~ 28 U.S.C.A.: (i) The decedent Green ~g to its ~hinking, exls~ only wh~re ]~ad primary cancer in his loft lung; (2) the Ibod contains ~ome foreign substance, is spoiled, or differs in some way from the produc~ ~t i~ represented ~o be. ~f the 19ajnri~ is 0effect in t, hi~, Lhe wr~L- i~gs ~ gh~ FIozld~ etntr¢~ I~a'te~ i~ ~y opinion, been in vain and ilia law of im- plied contracts govern lug sales o~ food is the same tha~ j~ w~ before Mr. Justice Cardoze wrote the MacFherso, opinion and ilte Florlda Supreme Cot~rt decided the Cliett ease,It Nor do I find any siatemea~ in a~" F%rtda ease which jus~i~ the dlscrimi- ~,ti~n w~ich the ma~ox-iW ~pln~t'. m,%h~ in favor of purveyors of s~eh artlole~ as cigarettes. Finally, as I read them, the Florid~t cases do no~ ~ust[fy the chortle q¢oted in ~he majority opini0n excepting the man t* lecturer from the ab~ ~o]ule liability /mpo~ed upon [# if the jt~r~ sl~uI6 ~,nd, the% th~ ~¢a~onaSle al~ II, ~ight ~ems to have ~ee~ lost of the aeN0us o~ tile c~urt b~Io~f which ar~ br0ught be[or~ ~s J'or ~svlew The ~ppe]- huts ~]ed i~ w~ith~ r~q~e~ts tlmt ~te court ~peII ou~ for the ~ry the }Piothb~ law of [r~y~Ti~] rontraet~ ~; e~abl[shed W~th e~sg~et ~ itr~du~ Me huroa~ t~it. • utn~tion, These severM [n~trt*ctJo~ r~ ftmed ~y Ore ,ourt be[0~ [nenrl~orafcd c~e~ II]us~rar We oI them is In~rBet]~ ~, ~2 re.d~n~ as follows: "Imo%ie,~ "rear r~.ty "The ~upr. m,, C~urt of ~'Iorid~t ha~ re~uized that the prhleiDle 'that a~ f~ R~ms ~f ~om] or other prodm.cs [n th~ odg~naT ]mr.l~nge which a~e o/~ered [or ~ale for h,tman omsuo~p?i)n or use ~e~- erltly a person Who purohas~s SUCh items in re/iauee upos the expr~s~ or implied 1Ga the cancer in his left l~ng was the cause or one of the causes of his death; (~) th~ ~m~ki~ of L~ky ~t¢ik~ ¢igarette~ On th~ part Of ~le decedent, ~reen, was a ~roxi~t~e c~ltl $e or otto of {he ~o~ir~a~o @ause~ ,~f the development OF. ca~leer ]~ his [sfl lung'; (4) American Tobac~ Company could not on, o~ pt'ior t~ F'eb- i't~ary 1, 1S~6, by the ~.~a~ongb[e ~ppl[¢~- tio~ ~ h~man sk~ an0. foresight, have know~ tha~ users Of Lucky ~trlke ci~- ~eLt~ s~eh ~ the d eerie ~ t, Gree~, w~ul4 be e~da~ered, by the inhalation of the l~aln ~rear~ smoke item Loek~ ~trike cigarettes, of contracting c~ncer of the Th0~e ~terrogatoriefl wer~ propound- ed and answered uport the as~ulnptlon of terrain rants which appear without dispute, such as: (a) At all Imrtinent ~m~ Am~xi~a~ Tohae~ C~ml~at~y hlt~ ~ndlt]n~ or a~l~r~ne~ tha~ they ~r~ whobsome o~ fit ~r the ases or 0urpo~ ~or which they are advnrtlsed or soM, anr] who [s l~,]ur~d a~ the result of ~. wholesome or ddeLer[o~s ~ttbs~ces therein, which ar~ unknOwn to the buyer, u/a~ h~t~ eithc~ the ta~ual~tu~et ~ t6~ retailer liable.' *, Cited a~ sapport for ehis reqaested tn A lvn~ dlSc~slon W~ h~d betwee~ the l~wyers un~ the court ~one~r~ing the re. ql~e~ted E.s~ructlon~. 'The court stato~ that an exeel~tlo~ wouId be allowed w~th respect to ~eh hLste~ctIoR whleh wa~ n/~:ke,I re~sc4 ~md that ~t would not be ne,m~sa,~ ~or th~ l~Ialot~s CO 6ak~ au~ fur ~ll~r exceptlo~.
Page 19: 0060119034
85 human ski[[ and fores[gh~ eveal lhe harm~l ingredient6 jury had found the accused ~onta[ned. reasons I r~pectfully dissent. TION FO~ REHEARINCL RfAM. 3 ~ncer~s this case~ ~he fol- are established by the jury's in~erroga~orles nndcr Rnle 4~ Ii ~.ules of CiVIl Procedure, .: (i) The decedent Green cazlcer in his left lung: (2) n h~ left lung was the cause he causes of his death; (3) o£ Lucky Strike cignrettes Of the de~dent, ~'cen, was a ause or one of the proximate he devo]opment oi[ ~aneer ir~ ig; (4) American T~bacco ,uld not on, or prior to, Feb- ~6, by ~he ren~nable appl[ea- Lan skill and fo~sight, have users of Lucky S~rike ci~a- a~ the d~oden~r Gre~n~ "&-o aid 'ed, by the i~halation of the a ~moke from Lucky Strike }f ~ol~ractiilg canc.~r Of the erro~'a~o~e~ we~ l~ro~llnd- ~.ered llilon ~e assllmp~iol~ faeta which appear without h as: (a) At all pertinent ¸/nan Tobace.~ Company has )r a~surance that they are or £t [~r the u~es ~r [mrDose~ they ar~ adverclsed or ~old, i~jured a~ the result of v~ or deleterloo~ suhstanc~s 9,h ar0 un kn ow~a to the buyer, tiber the man.lecturer ~r the de¸, ., appart ~ar this rvqaested In rere th~ IYos~ins a~d Cffett s¢.~io~ was had I~een the ] the e~urt co~r~ng the re ~truet[o~s. The cour~ sta~ed :eptlon would b~ aIIow~d with each hts~ru~i~n which wan 1~ed ~nd tlmt ~ would n~t be ~r the plaintiffs to take any eptioa. 86 h~It and still [ll the ~nufacturer and dis1:ributor of Lucky Strike eigarett~; (b) by February I, 19~8, the primary cancer in the l~ft lung of decedent Green had been definitely dia~'no~ed. He died on F~br uary 25, 1958. ~4] In tl~is divel~ity action, Florida taw governs the Hghts and llatili~ie$ of the parties. Does the law ot Florida i~se on a manufacturer a~d dlsfribu. tor of cigarettes absolute liabiliW, as for breach of implied warranty, for death caused by using such ¢igaret~ea from 1924 or 1925 unit] ~ebrualT 1, 1956, the ean~en b~ving developed prior f/J Feb- raa~" i, 1956, and the death <,eeurr~nff February ~, 1958, when the def~ndan~ manufacturer and distributor ~ould no~ On, or prior to* February I, 195~, by tile reasonabIe application of human sMII and foresight, have known that users of such cigarettes would be endangered, by the inhalation of the main stream smoke from such elgarette~, ot corttl~ctill~" cancer of the lung? There [a no FIortda decision precisely in point and so clearly on all fours as fc be dlspositiva of this question or proposition of law. Iri view of the importance of the ques- tion, and in especial consideration ot the fact t.hat one of thv Judges of this Court dissented from this Court's dlupos[tion of that question on orl gln~ bearlng, and that the Judges of this Court, on petition for rehearing, remain of the 8~]e V~ews as expressed in their opinions on original he~ring, this Court has decided to grant the petition for rehearing to the extent necessary to certify such question or proposition of the laws ~f Florida to the Supreme Court ~f Florida, as provided for under Section 25.031, Florida Stat- utes 1959, F.S.A., as imDleme~ted by Rul~ 461 of the Florida Appellate Rules, 31 FSA. ¢In re Florida AppelIale Rules, Fla, 127 So,?.d 444, March I, 1961). See Clay v. Sun Insurance Office, ~!160, 363 U.S. 207, 212, 80 SCt. 1222, 4 L.gd.2d I170] ~tln insurance office v, Clay, Fie, I:y~ So.2d 735, pmhd b~ hrh.~ whhh m:~y he e~th,r t~l~d ~Oi rP, I)f~A[. REPORTBR, 2d ~ERr~S The pRrt[es are requested to sti[lala~ ff poss~ble~ the conten~s of the eer~iflcat~ as provided for in said rule, If they are UlIable ~ ~o stipulate, they should report to this Cour~ their respective views on or before August I, 1962,t To such extent the petition for rehear- ing is Granted, or i,r[,/ted, ~t lea~ ~ur lv~h[e cop~es to
Page 20: 0060119034
m ~ii~j~ G~IBI¢ *,, A~iBRI~Aiq TOBACCO C O~pA~/y Edwin GREEN, Jr., its AdmlM~tra~or of tbl E|~r~tl D| E~¥aa l~reetl. D~e|sedr Qfld Mary Green4 Appellants, "he AMEF~I CAN TODAGGD GDMPANY, Ap!~ell~. Ne, 3r960, ~up~eme C~urt of FI~rJd~. ~r~allt to 2 statutory eert~¢at[on procedure the United S~ate~ Court of Ap .oeals ~or file Fif~h C[rcu[~ pre~enled the FIofid~t ;:t~ there wa* imposc~ oti ~anlt. ~acturer and 4{~tr~b~tor o~ Ui~trettes ~b~o. {~te ~Io~]i~ tot br eac~ of ~nlt~l]ed ~var I'~n~ lung* c&~cdr ~n ¢i~arette user, eve~ ~ho~h p~or to time decedent had cow,ratted the U~lncer reaso~obM application o~ llomart k~wr~ t~ ma.ufae~urer ~nd dJs~rlbut~r that ~Sff$ O~ C~e~tLes W~I~ be i~ da~&,¢r o~ c~atraetlng cancer of the lung. Qllestlon ans~ered afl~rni~tt~l.oly • TIloraa s ~d Cald~l[, y.~, ~t~med 15q $~ f~--l~V* ~lal~tt f~e~urer'~ or sell0r'~ ~tt~al know|. ~,7,~ ~'~ ~ppor~I~ f~r ~tge ~f de. lecture or utxwhole~tom~ condition ~s irreIe- van! to his l~abi?Jty on theory Of implied w~rr~t~y. 2. ~.xl~ ~:~2~1~) AI~l~h ~:x~ey~f~ xt~er*~ ~l lo~g ca~eer h*l~] dev~lol~ed ~e{ore ~l~f~tcttlre~" and di~r~buLor the~eo~ co~]d ha~e, by re~4 ~tl of re~so~ab[e appJieat[o~ o[ ~ltlmar~ sk~]] ~t~]<] fore~g~t~ known ~ha~ tl~ers o~ ¢~ga- ¢~er o~ I~tl]~* ]~lo~da ]~w [n~p~sed or. ]n,anufzCttlrel- arid tl[~tI{butor absolute lJ~t- bil~y, as ~or breach of i~np]~ed wa~raoty c!~r~tte~. F.S.A. § 2SD3l; ~1 FS.A. ~lori~e. App¢lltte ~le~, r~ie #.6L 3. 8atlt ~268(IJ Proo~ of actual or implied I~nowledge oi ~]e{er~t i~ ~eL c's~e~al to ]i~bll~y ~r~ Ba~S of implied ~mr r~n~y is t~e ~ndee- ta~ing" Or ~g~eement, a~trll~u~ec~ by I:¢w, to ~n ~aet ~erchan~a~le or ti~ for its ordinary n$¢ t3f p~rpo~e, and ~su top,ion of respons~- biIiky ~s ~t ~eees~arily co equivalent ~lth ~i~ and l~xto~edge. 5. sale* ~208~ If defect ~ art~I¢ [~ ~;scoverab]e '0y s~[lle ob~er~a~;on theft law w~lI [IX]~[y no war~l]ty .~g~tin~ ~s e~enee, l~!]~JRe, Lawr~ne~ V, ~{astlng~, Mi,ami. Irtaa Fe~er, ~I~ml ~3each, for a~pe][anl~ ~'~ey ~'ancey, S~m~e] A Br~dna.% Jr., ~lather~ & Thompson, M~t~, R~T~h I~ Ray~ ~eIvi~ ~. Goo~Iman, J~et C. ~rown, ~w V~k City, ~ ~lle~.
Page 21: 0060119034
18(I) :t nret'm o¢ sell~t*~ Aetna] ~UO~- ~rt~L:~i~ ~or knowledge ni de. whol~lome ¢ondit'ton is ~rre]e lia~!i~ on t~eory o£ implied clgarett¢ tlsef's fat~] lung" eveloped beIare manufaetu~r ~r thereof could have, by rea- ~b~e applicat ~oa of human skill , known that users of ci~[~ be in danger o~ cortractiflg rig, l?~oddz I~w i~i~osecl Oa and distributor ab~iute Iiu.- breach of implied wartanLy ~r deaLh ca~s¢~ by use Oi ZSA. § 25,031; ~1 F.S,A. I~te Rule% ~le 46L ~ual ~r inlx/lled kn~,wledge not tsse~xtiM to liability On nty. (0 !emettt, at~ributtd by law. to in event thlug ~old is not ratable or fi~ tor its ordinary , and assumption of r espong/- ecessarl]y c0-equivalent with ~ledff¢, in article [~ d~covetable "vy tloa ~hen law will imply tin ns~ its exlsletme. [g'e, Milledge, Rut]edge & fence V ~'Iastlngs, b,llam[, liaml ~eaeh, for appei]a~lts. zey, Samuel A. B eoduax, Jr. 'b,~mWxm, g~am[, I~nlch O. . Goodman, Jar~el C. Brown, l, ior appellee. 120 ~'h. DREW, Justice. i~ltrsuant to statutory ¢¢ri]~¢atlon prt~e~- dur¢ 1 the United States Cocrt o[ /~pp~a[s for th~ FiSh Circuit ha~ presented to this C~ur~ a question no,terming implied war- runty ILabillty [or Lack of merchantability or fitness under ~]otida lav¢~ ~ti$~ng- ~n an aotlott [or wrongfttl dcat~ consolidated wlth • sult in~t [tnt ed by the decedcr~ Green prio~ to his deatJ1 from Iung cancer in l~ The trial of t~ ¢~.u~¢ resulted iu a also al,sw~red a nu~lher of special inter- roffa~orles h~te~na~teA- det.t~[ed Upon ap- peal the Court o[ AppcalJ a~rmcd, 3~ F2d ~ one judge dissenting', but in reeog- nilioa of the controlling effect of I¢[orida law ~11 a dlverqity tletloq ~. pctltlou ~ur re. hearlog was granted "to th~ ~'xter,t neces- sar~ In certify [the /ollowlng] questiou or proptl~ition n~ th~ l~ws of ~lOrlda~' to thi~ (~our I ; • *Does the I~w Of ~;'~orlcL~ impose n~ a manufacturer and dist~btRor of clan- of Implied warranty, for death caused by Ilsi~g such cigarettes ~om ~924 or 1~ until 1%hruary 1.1956. the cancer having deveIoped prior to ~dcb~th~ry 1, 195~, attd the death 0courting Febcuary 25. ]958, when the defendant mar~fac- tnrtr a~d di!tri~utor could rlo~ ¢,n, or pri~r to, February 1, I956, by the rea- son,hie a~[ea~ion of human skill a~d foresight, halve kflown t~at u~¢rs o~ st*oh ~tgacettes ~Id be ~ttdangered~ by t~te i~h~/atlon of the main stream smol¢~ froffl st:eh cigarettes, o~ con I. f%~ ~5~1 ~.~.A i F~AIq, 4~L ~11 ]~. IXD. 4~L 4gQ; 1~ Mlatai L(L 425; ~q?.~'.L. 4~--,; ~o ,~e~as L,IL ~I. 2. r2L Fo~ ~ir St~¢~a ol Florida v. Ma. Fr,J,~er nnd larxeffman, Produrts Lia~ oa tM. problem o~ ittdNidlla[ reaet~otta t~ 154 l~OI~2B~d~I gl~pOl~T]]l~ 2d 8~,RLB$ We note ~t th* outset flint ull questions o[ caugati0n and privily are ioreglo~6 by the terms o~ the questlnn certified, which expressly a~$~mes, ~s lot*rid b~ the jt:ry'$ response to i~terrog,xtorie~ i1~ the trim o~ the e~u~¢, that d~ [eIidan~s ¢~gar et ~¢~ caused plain[[if'5 fatal cancer, We eon¢ltlde also that the qucsdon thus l'rzimed ~oes not llresent for our ~on~ideration the ~ssuc nf whether th~ ¢[garlt~eo wIxich ¢~ttsed" at c~11¢e¢ ~n th[~ part[o~Iar iustanc~ were as ,~ matter o [ ]ttlv un~erchant ~bl~ ~ ill Florida reqne*t a s~atement Of the ~eope of ~v~r eant~ implied in the ~irc~mstance~ of this ease¸ 'Ihe ir~qttlry ~oet0ro us is. [llslnad~ I~mlte~ to the slatlz$ Of Blot ld,~ In.a, upon [n~ posltical of ILabll~ty "a~ for ~reach of implied war~ runty" when the mauL1 f~tur er or warranto¢ "oould not~ by the rta~onable appl~at ~on o~ human skill and foresight, have known of ti:¢ danger.*'~l=) By response to a speeifio ]nt~¢~oga[oty th~ j~ ~n this ca~e found th*~ tke defenda~t, hy (~is stand,~d. ¢s~uld not at the pertlneut time ~mve known of the danger ial-oIced. "[he genera] verdict for ~e~enda~. ~s lresplmsi~e i~ ~h~ t~eal court's [nstr~ctlon that "implied warranty dues no~ cover snbstances in the manu~ac~ lured produ¢~ the h~rm[al ~l~eets ot wh]e~ no developed human ~kill o~" foresight can [1, 2] Upon the erotical point, our decL situs conclusively ¢stablhh the principle that a manufacturer's or seller'l actual knowledge ot opportunity" [0r k~owledge of a. degect{v~ or nt~l~o]esorae ¢o~{t~nn {~ wholly irreI¢va~t to his I~abillty on the theory of [inpHed warrantys and the ques- t~/ cevli~e6 rn~ l~r e~o~ '~e .*~swer e6 il~ ¢~e of ~hr ]ael~ o[ ~[orida pre~d~t ~nd the llm~d i~ue p~s~d 1~ tht~ ~n. ll(l~. ~l]e not in¢~I~ Jn the question bdor~ u., we ~o~ ~hat tll~ def~ of n~u~pti~ ot rl~k i~ n~t ~rt~ o~ I~ 19~
Page 22: 0060119034
i¸ . • !> Gk~EEN v. AMI~RIC AI~ TOBACCO COMPANY t~ a~rmative, A~ alreac]y indicted, we *xot feel th~ Ih~ ~no~;ry i~ terms eJt~ev r~ue~ts a respons~ on th~ ultlm~te i~ue o[ liabili[y in th~ case or Teq~it~s ~y twin the court and ju~? under t[;e Ia~ re- lating to s¢op~ and breach of the implied w~rranty that a pT~u~ ~up~i~d ~r ~,~a r~fl~r~pt~o~l ~ he reasonably ~l ~nd Ft= 171 ~4] "NO re~sont**o~e di~tlncllon ¢mn* in our op~nlon, he made but~'aen the physieM or p~ctieal imposslbiIity of 0btai~ing ~nt~vi~:~ge of • dangv~rm~ cr, nd~{ca~, a~ sc~entflie ivt*billty resulfinff from a eurren¢ lack of human knowledge and skiI]. Settcet" s. Ca~'s }Aa~ket~l im~s~, u~u • ~aIe~ habillty for sale o~ a c~n of saedi~s which lie cotthl ~ot ]~v~ known wt*~ dangerous wholesome for tht*t g~aera] purpose {3] Ott~ ea~cLu~i~ o~ the ~olttt ~re- sent~d l'e~t~ not otl]~ ~lpon ~ determhmtion, acknoxvledgcd ~n th~ op{nlon 0£ the Court el Al~als hete~n, that lh~ i~ r=~ ~ive~ and ~ffirmafiv~ precedent in o~lr [~gw for tile "~um~ skill a~d fores{ght" Iim~tatlon on warranty ]~bility, bat g]~o upan what se~m to us clear and d¢fill~t~/,e pronounee- rae;lts in our et*~¢ It*w ~egativi~g t]~{$ lim~l~o~. One of the mo~e zeeent and extlaustlve opi~io~ i~ that JL1 Carter v. Hector S~pp]y CO ~ This Co~trt [n thai ¢011~ of a~pea] "t~at proo~ o~ ~¢~ua] or implied knowledge of a de~eet on the part ~o a~ impffed ~r r~nty." * "Implied knowl- edge" refer~ elear[y to ~he situatio~ where a ~e £eoda~t c~d, with r e~t~bt~ dLllgen¢~ or "applfc~tlon o~ human ski[I and fore~ s~ght," have h~ kalowledge, The d~i~ion in Carter on tllis point o~ law therefore effectively ~eg~*tes emy idea ~h~t proof o~ lack o~ opportunit~ for Imowledg¢ of a harmful eondltion might I}revent implied wt*rra~y lio.bi[lty. 3, l']a I9~, L~ So2d BOO. ~. F]a.l~50, 45 f4o.2d (]71, • 'The [~tpti~i aarranty th,.~y el H~- ~lt~r ¢9mp0rts ~th the general treud Ia~luree kao~s th~ ¢ontel~ anr] qo~lity of the. fp,~,~ Inodq,ts ¢~nncd and o~er~ , thereby destroying the pr0d~et's stOabiilty, The opinion quote~ wilh api~r ~v~[ frt~m te:£t a~tko~t~~ e~plt, i~g ~k~ pc~v~i[hag rum that the fact that a defect co~]d no~ ,uoss~bly ht*'ce been ktlown Or ~[Jseovered b~r a de= f~.lt~ d~es ~a~ 9r~vent I/ah{llty~ bec~e "file ~tJ~e ~xrgumetit ¢ * * ;~a} be ~iad© in ~egea'd ~o amy iz~p]~ed w~rr t*iIt~ ;lot Only ¢~ ~o~ 4' * * veher~ th~ buyer lxIR$~ have [~len awt*re that the ~[ler ¢ottld mot di~c~re~¸ a de=C¢ct if it exi~led~' "I~li~ ~as¢ i[]*lstrat~s, w~ thi~k, that whatever mt*~' be the ~cope o£ ~n implied waeranty hi ~ given case, the b~s ot s~ch l~a~ility is lh¢ umler- taking or ~gre~me~t, attributed by ]a~vr to be res~onslbl# ia the event ~he thlng zoId is not in ~a¢~ merehantabie ot ~t ~or ~to ov~. n0.ry ~e or purposes. 711¢ as~urni~tiola o[ respo~ibiI]ty, evett impffed a*Suml~fion, is with skill a~d knowI~dge. To the extent that ot~r e~ses hake note of a deEendant's uppor~n~ for kncwI~dge~ it is merely in r e¢og,~l ~[dltl of a su~p[ier's ~uper]or ~osit lott~ i'eI~iiv¢ to the ~llrchaslng" pttbl[~, ~ a ~¢tor ~.ff eeting po~c3t cul~l der*~l] on~ rather than dete~ini~g the Iinfits o~ impl{ed war- ratty ]iabl]ity ~n a particular situation. to the pub]te for etm~mpttotl, '/'he p=fi,]ie g~ne~y i~ vi~ty emm~r~d i~ wh~le~,~m~ food, ov it~ hea]~ ~¢~]] he JeOl~rQl~d. It ~oi~oa~us, u~alth~ut aad delet~ic,us food~ nr0 p~a~d by the mtmU~leturer ,~lm~ ~he ~ek~ all~i in ~urie~ occur I~ t]ze eon~umpt}oo ther¢- o~ thel~ th~ la~ should ~t~y the i~- ju~] pe~ua at~ ~dequato sztd ~pe~,l~ remedy, ]~t i,~ ot]r ¢onelusto~ ~a~ the impli~C warrant~ remed~ ,~f etl[o~ee~ me~t ~¢m ae~ml~lis'~ the d~iled end?' ~e aJ~O ~]le~t ~ Lt~ud~r,lalo ~i]lmer~ 20a 172 ad ti¢u: doe~ rehi the; the eI $1~tr ~pp[; ~iscu ~t~tu~ t~¢ Is tcrlz¢ th~b~ [, 5rE I0 Y2 fulL to ~r tl, t?40 tL of b~
Page 23: 0060119034
I~. 171 ~e made bet~,¢en th~ i~hysJeal imposs~b~ty o~ obtainhlg' z dangerous eQ~dltlon, ~t~d !~llty result~nff from & o~rrerlt knowledge attd ~ki~l. Seneqr ~ets~ impos~(~ upon ~t dealer • I~ of ;t earl o~ ~ardlncs which have known ~r~ d~ngerou~ i~g a ~e~led cDnta~n~r alld ~yi~g th~ product's ~alabilit~ u~tes with ~rovzl from ~t ~plaln~ng th~ pr*v~i[ing rule hat a de~eet ~x~ u~d not poss~ly owtx or discovered by a d~- no~ prevent llability, b¢caus~ im~e~t * • ~ may he tmtd¢ ny implied w~.¢~nty, not only • where the b~y~t" iflt~ ~re that the ~iler could ~ot 'ect ~f it exls~ed" This ~as¢ th~nk, t~at ~hatever ~ay be imFlied ~rranty i.q a glvetl of such ]iahi~liy is the under- ~emeut, a~Irlbute6 by law, ~0 in the event the th~ng sold is rehantahle or fit ~or i~ or~. e~en implied ~ssltmpt~o~, is e, nece~ari[}' e~ equ~valen~ know]edge. TO the exten~ fa2~e note o~ ~. defendant's : k~owlcdge,'~ it is merely irt ~ppller'~ ~t~er~or Foslt io~1~ e purch~inff public, ~ a policy eonaltI~rat~o~s rather ig th~ ]imiLs o~ implied war. ht ~ partlcur~r sltu~tlon. lie for eous~ta~i~. ~he ~us fo0da ac~ l,la~ by the ~t~n t~,e ~irk~t and in- by the eonsrz~I~t]o~ tl~er~. a~ ~dequat~ ~nd ~edy i~ our ~o~ ~ ~e rranty r~ed~ ~ e~for~e. ~eOmpli~h the ~i~ire~ ~d,, eft ~ Llu~ale l~Elemoro ~'}'~ Fin* 154 SOUTH]gk~I RBPO~,TE]I, ~I SgP~IES [5] The Florida declsiont s recognize llab~lhy to the situation where a dealer or distlnetlo~ ~aetween the ol*dlnRl-y mer ease and a warranty o~ fitrtees lot a par t ieular purpose which "tuust acid ae~ essarlty rifles depend upon whether or laot tie buyer relied upon hi~ OW~ judgmemt lit the time of the pttreha~e or rolled on the tkill or judg- ~nent o~ the Se]Jer." The ophtiorl$ refer t~ the classical statement of implied ~arranty law i~ Benjamla on Sales? ~oxt~aini~ g a full discussion of the derivation of lhese prln¢i- ~le$ gm'ernlng implied war~&txtles in the manufacturer could, by reasonable cave or of the da~ger. Whether or not reliance is justified, whe~ th~ d~[~¢t is une which a purchaser ~e~d n~at reasonably ¢xpc~t, wouhI del~end not on the actual ~tate OE human or indu~tvla] knowledge, which may b~ q~t~ ~*lktlown to the Fure~as~u~ pu~J]~c geuerally, bu~ on what htf0¢mati~n the b~yer ~ciay~ under th~ c~rcums~a~es, r~- sonably sullpose the seller h~s.tx ~l~ ~t*t~, ¢2ur ease l~*a, ~xffirr~atlveTy sup- Cmmon law. 7he ~e£6~ou ir~ 1dan~be~ v. Forts and indlgates Ilo departure ~rom th~ Sistrunk,t~ dewing • merehant'~ li~biI~ty ruIe that implied warraaty ti~ility is not for sale o~ ~ defective steplttdder, is an atpplie*tion off one ~f the limiting princlple* ~ise~s~ed by Benjamln a~d i~¢orpn~ated in ~t~tut~ ~tl tki~ ~ohjeet: |~ thli de~ect is dlscoverable by siu,pl~ obser~'atlon thou the law will iml~ly no warrant}' against ~t~ existence. The o~]Illott in tha~ ease ~har~e terlzel imldled warranty ]~ability ~ ml ~xeept iott to the doctrine of caveat ~mlptor, atnd r~lat es th~ [~ahHity t~ "the reliance by the buyer on the sel]er'~ ju~Jgme~t,'~ but does trot in t~rms or by implication I~mlt such -~a¢~ ~m~tb ~ Burdi~o*~ T~, 144 ~, 500, 1~ SO. g23, 9--'~, lgl A,I*,R. 11G It. ~th eO.~ Ch. IlL .5~,51. I@, FI~.I[~, 58 ~o~ .Ig4, ~alni~l¸ tho foIIo~ £e~elal comment : "It ba~ ~ e~i~ tllat t]~ e~te~t o~ im~Ii~I warr~u~ reata ut)em tho ~dat~on of buainc~a ethi~l and con. sti~ut~ al exeepti~ t* the maxit0 ,1~ t~e buyer beware,' ltaeIf e~e0mlra~t~ing the id~ ~h~ there is ~o wlirra~ty i~ ~lid wlt~ re~ix~t to the qulllty of ~1~ th~ ~xe~ti0~ m~ ~herefore |pri~ frDm some mo~a] obli~nti~,n o~ tile lmr~ of th,. ~.lh,r, or perh,i,~ mor~ ~'erlr:L~eI~ o~ the bre~eh o~ ~me auch duly am,,tmt. in~ to fraud or the tal~ a,lrautng~ of ~he buy~ by re~,n o~ ~0ro~ ~0¢ r~r ~owleLIge i~ the ~ell~r~ or the re~htuo~ I L C£ Smith ~ Burd~ne'l, IU~, no~ 8 ~U pw. Pot a ~m~m~ut o~ th~ ¢ouver~ ext.eet a ~rehasee to h~o~, ¢~[,ceh~t~y limited by the ~oresceability doctrlne, th~ "reasonable ap?Iiration of huraan skill and. ~oreslgh£' te*t of tort Iiabilhyl .* * * The "~,arr~nt¥ o~ merchant- able quality does n~t rest, atld ~rorri tll~ beg~nnlng d~d not re*t, upoci any such b~$1~ ~l is a m~vt~r of eoutraet, of interpretatiott Of the [angnage u~ed ill the light of the fa~t tk~t die seller i~ a de~ler, and de~lers deal in merchant- able goods. The onIy 'rellancc' which Jt ~nvo[ves {$ ¢~]i~l~c~ ~potl the se[Ier's ~dth t*gard to ~ub~m~e~ o~t~lal to ~roduet~ ~ee 10~Im e~ ~n~ ~evia~ m~ ~, u~t~ 2 s~ra. ~'~1. 11 ~, 571: • 'prob~bl~ th~ moat tho~a~k oualysis end ~Lt~'k upon the ~orelgu notur~I' t~t L~ matte i~ the r~emat de~s~a in ~e~ehia v, 12ape ~ocl 12orp. [I0 Wis.2d 85~% :t03 i.LW.2~I G4 (Wis.10eOIj Tho Wi*e~in ~utt. ~ t/aa~ ea~, In a ~ry eltensE~ d[~en~ion, rsfu~¢d to hold that there ~¢~ no breach o~ warranty oe n~i~e~e~ ss ~ m~tter o~ ]~w wh~re I~iur~ ~vas e~u~ed by a ehl~en boue i~ a chlekel ~ud~leh. ,L'h~ ~.~ur¢ ~do~ted th~ t~st ot ~r~a=oDab~e e~pe~tati~, s~at. in~: ~',~h~ is t~ b~ re~o~bl~ ~xiJ~ted b~ the ru,/~um~r L~ a i,/ty que~tlon ~n mo~ 0~ee~; at le~. we enfant ~a~ as matter ~f la~ that a ~a~r,~ ~f a re~- tatm,~t mu~t ~x0,~t a bone iu a ~,i,.k~ ~ ~n~lwlvh ~i~h~r because ehte~,m b,m~ are ov~,~ion~ Uy ~uud thc~a oe ~r~ ~at. urr~l ~o eh~e~ea. ,~ ,This t~st ~,s a~pIled to an action for br0,~eh of the iuci~lie~l w0rranty x~ ~yed to what ia "r~asonab]~ fi~1,, *, 2La
Page 24: 0060119034
.... ,
Page 25: 0060119034
jectlon to this distributlon of f the ~thl[e h~al~h is t~ h~ l~vo~ pr~ctlc~l ~ale f~'om exploits. $¢ w]loI ~or a pl'O~t motlv¢. , supply tile vast a~d e~er in- r~et¥ o~ produc~ which the ~pr~¢edent~d powers o~ com- ~as~ori &re ~J~ ~rg~d to u~ y, the que$(ion propounded to d by us to be witkin the c0n~ ~¢ ~ "~er~nabove sel ~o~th. of this Court shaII f~rthwith e certifying Court a true copy hail r~tt~rn ~o said (~ou~ ~ny r5 or do~um~rI~ whi~ ~ay n~m~ed here [oF o~lr inspec- ~red. C. J. and TEI~I~J~L. and ~IOBSON (Ret.), ~j', and CALDWEL~ JJ., di3- han.I~w Review. GREEN v. zl ~BRICAI~ TOBACCO tOMPAt~Y 673 whether ro~nl~a~ure~'*s clg~r~e3 Were riot reaso~]~Iy 1~ a~ld WhOI~orae fop s~ru¢~ion tha~ implied warranty cf fit ne~s did nc~ cover sub~tance~ in ~he manufac~ ~urer'~ produe.~ the harmful ~ffects of which no developed ~tmaan sk[]l or £orc~- sight could afford knowledge wa~ p~ej~ dieiM error. C~mer~n, Circui~ Judge, die,enid in part. Action for wrong£ul dea(h of plcAn- {iffs' decedent allegedly due lo 8moklng of clgar~ttes manufactured by deiendan~. The United States District Court for the ~u~hern I)i~tric~ o~ Florida, ~me~t C. Choa~e, J., entered ~udgmen~ for defend ant and piai~ffff~ appealed. The Coul4 of Appeals, ~ives, Circuit Judg~, after to the S~prem~ Cour~ of Florida, 154 ~ 2l] 169, [~eId that ~vldence wn~ ~uffi Under pIorlda laW, the manufactur- er's Or ~[{er'5 ~ct~] kuow]e~ge or o~por tunity for k~ow]edgv o£ a de~:~ive or unw]~el~me conditio~ in hi~ produc~ is irre]evan~ to hi~ ]iabi]i~y for breach of ~. Appeal ~nd Error ~215(1) :Par~ie~ were boulld by in~tru~tions ~t ~ ~actarer of ~r~4~et. ~er~ for ~ale ~ th~ public for human ¢oa- s~lmpt[on ~mpIied[y warrantfl ~/~at f~s prod~lct~ al~ ~e~ona~Iy" who]e~om~ or ~t ~or purpose $01~ W]ler~ nr~ o~o~¢ct[~ W~S made ~ ~uch I~rtlon of [he io~truct~o~ which ~hereby became I~w of ~he case. Under FJorid~ la~, a~ to prodt~c~s ~nte~ded ~r h~t~li consumpticr~ ~]e u~e of which rosy c~use iaJary or death, ~he jury may p~o~rly app]y a veIT $~ric~ ~vi~ence* in a~tlon ~or wrougf~] de~h ~f plaintiff's ~ececl~nt who al]egecI- Iy de~eloped f~tai Ivn~ can~r dt~ to Smokir~g defe~d~nU~ c~gar~I WaS ~t~f- fi~ie~ ~o present q~e~io~ for jury a~ fo whether m~facturer'~ c~gare~te~ were no[ rc~on~bIy ~t arid wholesome for 5. Courf~ ~z=~4~6.6114} Sales ~44~(8) wron~-fu] death of plaintiff'~ deceden~ wh~ ~lle~ed[y de~'e]op~d ~a~] lun~ can- cer due lo ~lnoklng ~endan~ ci~,~r~t ~ ~t imp/~ w~rr~y ~ fi~ne~ did noL 2~a
Page 26: 0060119034
• !@. : 674 product the harr~u] effects cf which de- veloped human eldll or foresight c~u]d a~ord knowIedffe ~-a~ prejudicial error, 6, Fed¢~l Civil ~ ~2~19 Pa~ could not ~[itiga~ issues ake~dy ~c ~ded unde~ ~ly submittal iilterroga~rles utlder guise of present- trig evidence o~ aJl issue WhiCh r~.qu[red retrial 7. SLI~ ~439 Under the elrcumz~anoe~, it would be ~ss~me~, i~ aeti~u f~r wr~u~ul d~, o~ pl~in~hT'~ dec~ent allegedly due to smoking cigarette~ raanufactured by de- ~d~nt~ that d~edent ~urchased manu- faeturer'~ eigarvt~es in reliauce upon mlnufaet~r~r'~ implied warr~Luty of fit- 3. plea of ecmtributory neg]iflence is i~apposlte to a clalm based on breach of implied warran ~¥. An implieA warranty eue~mgass~s only the ordinary use or purpc~e~ for which the ar tieb is soIcL Lawrence V. Hastings, Nea~ p. Rut- ledge, Rutledge & Mi]]edge, and ~reen & Hastings, Miami, F]a., for app~[]ants, Irma ~'eder. Mini Beach~ Fla. of coun- sel Samuel A. Brodnax, Jr., Hervey Yan* cey, M[~ml, FI~., Melvin D. Goodman, NOw York City. Smathe~ & Thompson, M[aml, ~'la. ~alph D. Ray, Ch~idbollrne, pgrke, W~itevidc & Wolff, New York City, for appellee, Janet C. I~r~wn, New York City, of c~e~seI. Before RIVES, CAMERON and BELL. Cireuit J~dges. RIVES, Circuit Judge. First, ~o the Jos~iees of the Stlpreme Co~r~ of Florida w~ wish to express pub- lic[y and wi~h deep aineerlty o~r ~ppre- elation for their a~wer to the question which we cert[6~ to tb~a~ Co~.~t, ~ Green v. Amerlca~ Tobacc~ CO., F]3.1963, ~5 FEDERAL REPORT~.~. 2~ SEgI][]S bacon Co., 5 Ci~ 1982, ~04 F~d 70, 8~. That ~swer ha~ saved this Court. through the "~dter js its organ, frem comm~tlng a serious error as to the law of Florida which might have resu]tcd in a grave m[s~rriagc of Justice. The Su- preme Cour~ of Florida h~ been a very r~al help in the administration of justice. Since the opinion of the ~upr~me CourL of Florida, the par~ies have lub- mitted to this Court adc~ional briefs and oral argllment. The appeilat~t$, plaiutiffz below, ~.c~ld have u~ eoter Judgm~n~ for p]alntiffa on the issue of liability and remand the ~e to the dis° trle~ ~our~ s~lely for the m~ccr~inmcilt ,~f dan~s, The appellee, defendanL bc- ~ow, i~s~ ~hat the judgments for de- ~end~nt should he ~rcoe4 ~u ~rouuds other than ~hat dteid~d by the 8upr~m Co~r~ of Flcrida, ~r, if the judgm~n~ for defeadant ~re not now affir~ed, ~hat the c~e should hc reronnded for a :[ui~ new trial The Supreme Coor~ of Florida ~u- ~wered in ~e affirmative the ~ol]owJng question c~rtified to i~ by this Cottvt; "'I)ves 4Jae la,~ of Florida ~mpo~ on a manu facLurer ~d distributor o~ e~garettos abso]~te liability, as fop breach of imp]ted warranty, for d~h ~used by llS[ng such e~, ar~t~e from 1924 or 1925 until Feb- • oary 1, 1956. the e~ncer having de. veIop~ prio~ ~o Fe~D2ary 1, 195~ and the death occurring FebrLmry ~, 19~8, when the defendant mantb fac~er ~ud dls~ri'0utor coo/d n~ on, or prior to, February 1, 1956. by the re~onable application of hu= man ~kill and forest,'hE, have k~own that users of such ¢igaret~e~ v~lcl be ei~dangered, by t~e inhalaEion of the main stream ~moke fz, om such, ci~f~zrette~ of cer~trac~ing cancel, ot" the lung?'" 154 So.~d at 170. [i] The ~s~ of the opinion of the So° plume Court Of Florida is contained in t~te fo[]0wi/tg res]po~: slon~ conclusively estab]i~h th$ 24a
Page 27: 0060119034
' Grin ~ American To- 3i~ 19~2, 304 F.2d 7~, 86. hss sa~'~6, this Court, ~Tit~r as it~ organ, f~m ~erlou~ ~rror as to ~he ~W ich migh~ haw ~sult~l ~u triage of justice. The ~a- ~f FIolJda h~s been a very e administratiou of justice. oplnloll of ~e ~uprem~ ~da, the parties bav~ sub- Court additional briefs ~ument. T~ appeIlall~, ~w, ~ould h~v~ us enter p]ainti~ ~n the l~sue of ~m~d th~ ~ ~ the dis- lel~ for the ~ce~inment the appellee, defendant b~ ]at t~ judgm~ for d~ d be affirmed on grounda it de~ided by fl~e Supreme !ida, or, if the jud~en~ ld be r~d~d ~r a full ne Coul~ of Florida aR- ~ed to it by thi~ C~urt : ~.w of Fl~rid~ impose ~rer and dls~ribuL~ of ~bs~lu~ IJ~ility~ as for implied w~an~ for by using such cJ~ 1~'¢~ or 19~ untl] Feb- ~6, the ~aneer having d~- ~r to Febr~a~ 1, 1956, a~h ~ur~ng F~b~ hen the ~f~dant m~aUo d~st~ib~ could not r to, F~r~ary 1, 19~6, ~nabI~ a~Ii~stlon ~f hu- ld foresi~t, have k~wn )f such cigareLt~s would red, by ~ inhalation of ~m smo~e frOl~ s~l 154 So,2d at 170. [s~ of th~ opinion of the SU- of Florida is c~n~in~l in re~.oou~e : e criLi~l ~oi~, o~r d~i- :Iusiv~ty ~st~bllsh ~he GREEN v. A~RICA~ TOBACCO CO~ ~rlnc~ple ~ ~ m~nu~cta'er's or s~lIer~s actual ~aow]~ge o~ oppo~ ~uaity for knowlcd~ of a defective ~r unwhoIesome condition i~ wholly irr~levan~ lo his liabili~ on t~e theory of ~mpIiod wa~anty, and the Qu~ion ~/~rti~¢d mllst ~hers~ore b~ ansl~er~d i~l the afl~ative." 1~4 ~o~ at 170,171. 675 liabiI[ty are those rel~tlng ~o ~mpl[ed warra~lty, AS Bhown ill our ol~gi~a] opinion, Green v, American Tobacco Com- pany. supra, 304 F.2d at p 71, the pIain- tiffs a~cr~ed in s~parate counts six theories of liability, four of which were de~ided by the district court as mat- ~ers of law a~ainst the plaln[iff. On ap- ]:eal, n~ error was claimed as to tho~e The Florida Court was care£ul to limit rulin~-~, its d¢clsion to that single response, say- ing: "We note a~ the outse~ that all f4uestions of causation a~d privfty ~r~ foreclosed by the ~erms of ~a question ~er~ified* which e~.oresslY ~s~tlme~, as :[otI~d by the jtzry~a re= spouse to interr~gatotle~ in ~he tz~al ,of the cause, tha~ d~f~Itdallt's ~ig- ~x~tte~ caused plain~fff'~ fatal ca~- oar. ~*¢'~ cf)n¢lud~ also that ~e quay= ti~n thus fra~ned does not present for our ¢onsideralion the i~sue of whether the cigarettes which caused cance~" [~ this izarti~u]ar ~u~tance vcere ~s ~ mat top of law u~ml~r~hallt- able ~n Florida under the stated e~n- ditiolls, ~or does it request a state- ~nent o~ the ~cop~ of warranty ira- plied in the circumstan~s of this ~.ase. The inquiry before us is, i~- stead, limited to the status of Flor fda taw upon imposition of liability 'as for broach of implied warranty' ~vh~i~ t]t~ In~Ruf~turer or W~rr~Iz~ tot 'could no~, by the reasonable ap- plieation ~f human skill and fore- ~ight, hare know~ of the danger.' . ~ ~ * As already ~,d[~ted, w~ do no~ fee] tha~ the inquiry iu ~u~rms e~l~er r~q~ts ~t ~esr~se ~lu the ultimate issue of Iiabili~y in thls ca~ or r~tll~ir~s a~y Coro r~ent ~n the disl~osltion of issues between the cour~ alld ~ury under the law relating ~o scope and breach of the implied war r~nty tha~ a product ~up~ied ~r ~um~n cousump~ion shall be reasoll- ably fit and whoIesome for th~ gen- eral purpo~." 154 S~2d at 170,171. ~Vh~tt issues ~hen rem~t[n i~ the c~se? C~arly~ th~ o~ly issue~ as to ~efeudant*~ The liis~riet court subm]tted the ca~e to ~he Jury upon only two theories of liability, br~ach of implied ~varrantyaud n~gligence. On appeal the plaintiffs accepted the jury's finding th~ the def~ndaut was llot liable for n~g- llgen¢~ T~ only theory of ]lability re- mai~[ng in the case is ~hat of implied w~trr~y. On Count i charging a breach ~f Im- plied warr~ty, the Jury returned gen- eral vordic~s for th~ de£~nda~ and als~ ~w~r~d. th~ ~our written inierroga- tori~s submitted under Rul~ 49(b), Fed. R.Ci~.p,~ WhiCh w~re quoted in our orig- inal opinion, 304 F,2d ~ 71. ¢/2. The defendant iuslst~ ~hat lhe scope of its implled warranty was so l~mited ~ ~her~ w~m a total tack of evldenc~ to ~uppor¢ plaintiffs' claim of breach and, hence, tlutt the judgments for the dc- f~lldan~ mus~ ba affirmed notwithstand- lug the opinion of ~he Suprem~ Court of Florida. In varying Ways the defend- ant describes what it claims to be the lim/t~d SeOl)e of i~a ~raplled warrant)-; e. g., (a) "that the article mus~ be of th~ ~ame quali~y, ma~erial, W~r~manship aud ~vailabillty for us~ as o~hers sol4 under t]~e sar~ trade n~FR~'~; (b) ~hR~ "~h~ra wa~ [no] ~relgn ~ubstanoe or * * * s~i]ed, colltaminated ~r other substaud~ ard illgredient which caused the injury, and stash substance or Jllg~di~ll~. r~- floetecl ~t m~t~rial difference between the a~tlc~ which caused ~he injury and the usual artici~ sold under the ~ame trade l~a1~e~*; (~) that "~he Flori(~ Supreme C~urt's rule is ollly that a product must be 'reasonably fit and wholesome' ~nd ~ave ~t 'reasonable z~tue~ for hu~u ~s~ or conjure plioR'." We lloyd llo~ r~view th~ Flor~d~ d~c[- sions as ~o the defendant's claimed limi. 25a
Page 28: 0060119034
676 tatzens. ~ch ~$ tE~s~ lettered (~) ~nd (b). sop~'a; for, whatever may be ~he ~a~eral ruI¢. ver.¢ elcarJ$" the law of t~i~ ~ h~.~ tslabli~II~ the s~oI~ v*f the ~mp~iad warranty sulxst~ntially as that lettered (c), s~pr~ There has ~ever ]~en presented by the evid~uce an~' com:~ufion t~ LIlcky Strike cigarettes wQre inore dangerous or hid ~a ~e~ter propensity to ~use l~og brand names. ~or has there be~n 8~ty contention that the cig~rettes which ~r. stan~, or a~y ~poiLed, co~t~n~in~ (,r other ~ub~taudard i~grcd~eut which ~-~st~ his ~nj~ry ~m0 death, ~i~d* h~s been that elgarette~ot L~¢k,v ~trike elgal~ettes alon~au~e ~ung ~n- ¢er. If defe~d~mt'~ claimed limitation;; ~uch as thos* lettered (~) and (b), supra, ~re true and sou.d limltat~o~s o~ the e~ope of tt~ imp[[ed warranty, Lhe~ th~ q,estton which we certified to ~he Su. preme Cot~rt of F]orld*t and the ~es~n- a(ve ~n~ of that ~t~ h~e be~l mere usele~ al~tr~lona. [2] I~ submitting the c.~se to ~he jt~ry, the di~tri¢~ court charged as fen "Tl~ nlataafttct,lv~r ~ R~ which are offered for ~ale to the pub* li¢ in ~boJr oriS~na[ p~ck~ge for ae~b~ w,~o~e~o~t¢ or ~ far t,~ ~'u~ ~u~h implied wmwtnty dc~ no£ ~over eub~tan~s i~ the ~u~acture¢I p~uet, the har~dul ef~ets o~ which ~o de,eloped human skill or ~oresigh~ ~an afford knvwledgc." (Emphasis supplied.) That instruction was taken verbatim f~m p~i~Lif[$' r equ~-~ted wr i%1~ t hax'ge No I~ (R. pp. 1127, 1128), as to which the pLzi~tiffs e:~ented to ~he insertion of the adverb "retsolmbly" to modify "whotesome or fit" (R. p. 10T~). The d~ fendan~ made ao object ~ot~ ~ that imrt of the e~arge which we have emphasi~eO, 325 FEDERAI~ R~PORT~, Zd SERIES ~up~,a. That 9~rt Was tdaa s~h~t:tnt[,'tl~v ineh~ded in p]a~ot~ffs' requested but re- fused Charge No. 10 (R, p. 1126). .~ tSe~ are, ~.here~ore, bound by ~he scope of the Implied warranty as s~ de~qned by t~e district cour~ Forther. ~.hi[~ t.be Sttpreme Cour~ of FIoidda, in Its ,~dv~ sory op~,lon, de~Iine~ b~ imps on the scope of wa2raaty Implied io the c~rcum~tan¢~ ~ th(~ ~ase, i~ f~- note 11 (1~4 So.2d 172) Jmplled/y re. jec~ed the "foreiga~nataraI" tes~, and in th~ hs~ qm~tat~n ~h~ch w~ l~ve rm~d~ f~'om the opinion, ~opra p. 67~, it r~ ferl~to,,~ ¢. ~ thcjmpIiodwarranty %h~% a I~ro~uct srppli~ ~r ~ur~an con. ~umption shall be r~asonab]y fit and whole~o for that geners.I Dttz])ose." T'nat ]~, We conel~ lie, ~ correct de fmitloi~ o~ the s~op~ of the implied war ~all~. ~l~t. 4or ~he MW of FIorida, ~ee b~cB~rne~te v. Phvffround ~quiptner~t Corporation, Fla.~6fl, 18"~ ~o~2d ~, 5~, Certainly ~t is the definition by which fbe parLiea ate 790und as a pa~f. of ~he L~w of this [3] The defeada~ ar~s, h~w~ver, that, even under tha~ deflai~lon, it was entitled to • dire~ted verdict becaus~ there w~ t.~ e~i,le~ that L~cky ~%t rik~* cfgare~tcs were not "rea~or~b~y fit and ~thole3om~." To product~ intended fo~ htt~n~.r~ ~lL~t}IV.pt ~on, and %h% ~ of which may emu~e i~jury OF death, %he jury may proparb apply a very etzdc~ sk.mdard of [4,5] W~tlmut ex~min~f$ the ~thez vo]umizlo~ evidenc~ ~ single re~er~nce to t~ t eatio~or,~ of Dt~ Er~es~ L,, ~,~yn der -will ~ul~ce t~ ~¢,w ~ht~t ~ze w~s ev$. donee from which the jeff could prop~c. ]y cer~ehtde that ~he sta~d~'d of r~ason~ ~Ie hess h~ h~n breached. D~ Vf~ rider te~ti~ed tha~ "s~ok~ng ~,-~ a raa~n fac* tor i~ lung cancer" (it 1~9); tha~ ths '%.i3k of a very hea~- ~moker ~o develop Iung cancex, is a£ ]east tw~n~ t[toes grea~er than a no~moker', (R. 135); that "the major cause o~ epidermeid l~n~ ~ancer Jn man i~ eigart~f~e smok~" (~. 142)~ ~hat "~e ma~or f~.ctor that prc- ,~uce~ )uilg Cancers Jn Am*riean maI~ i~ ~6a
Page 29: 0060119034
,IBB bal~ was also sub~Uantial/y tilltiffs' requested but re- NO. 10 (R, p. 1126), As law of this case the par- for~, bound by the ~eope [ wa~anly as so defined ; conr~. ilc the Supreme Cour~ cf advisory opinion, de¢llned scope of warranty implied antes of thla c~e, its foot So,2d 172) impliedly re- • elgn ila~lra~*' ~g~s at~ ~n Lio~ ~hieh We have made ion, supra p. 675. it re- , • thelmpli~dwarrtmly ; aTlppiied for human OOIt- 1 be reasonably fit and aclude, a correct definition ' the implied w~rra~ty uu- Florida, See MeBurnette Equ~pmen~ (~orporatlon, So,2d 663, ~65. Certainly tioll by which the parties a part of the law ~ this !fclld~nt g~l'~le~ how*ver~ ter that definition, i~ was directed verdict because vidence that Lucky Strike e lint ~yeaso~bly fl~ aR~ To product8 i~tendcd for ption, and the llse 0£ which tr~r ~r ~:~.Lh, tile jury may a very s~ric~ st~xudazd of z~ ex~m~nlng ~he cthe~ idence, a single refereneo y of Dr. Ernest L Vgynder show that there was evi- deh the ~ury could proper- • t the standard of reason- een breached. Dr. Wynder t~mokinff wa3 a 11~]r~ fac~ neer" (R, 119) ; Lha~ the is a~ least t~'enty times a non-~noker" {R. 1~5); ~r cause of epidermoid lung he ma~or factor that pea- l(Jet s ill ~.lller leall [I~S Cite ~ ~ F~d ~TS {1~) ~rnoklng~t (R. 18G). Dr, Wy~er coil- ~i~Tl o~ reasonableness 'oy not requesting ceded "th~ the vast majority o~ sm0ke~ the submi~s~o~ o~ anF interrogatory in do not get lung cancer" (~. ]$6, 18~), addition to the four q~0~ed in our orlg'- but bY "vast majoriib~' he meant that "ttlle ill lline or one Ell tell" do develop lung eallcer. (R. I85.) If tho jury agreed with th~ tear'molly o~ Dr. VCyrltler, it coulcl have reasonably inferred tha~ the cigarc~.~es WCl.~ no~ "rea$o~g,b~ fit and wholesome," We conclude tlmt the defendant was not entitled tn directed vord[ct~ on ~y of the ~rOllnl:I.q at'god. W~ ~.~Tcee mltb. the ~u~reme Court of Florlda that "It]ha g~neraI verdict ~or defendant was remponslve to the triaI coup's inatructlon that 'implied war- ra~lt~ do~ not cov~P BUbSIAII~cea fll th~ mauu favoured producf, the harm ~u] effect s o~ which no developed hllmall skiI~ or foresight can afford knowledge.' '~ 154 $o.2d a~ 170. In ~ollformily wi~h the opinion of th~ ~upreme Court of Florid~ thai; ~hat instructlo~ was erroneous, the judirme~ts for the defendant must be rever,qed. It (loes not, however, ~o]/ow, tm tlrgeg~ by ±he p[alntiffs, that we ~hould render judgments for plaintiffs on the issue of liability. The jury has no[, made any ~t~l~iol~t findillff on the qllesti6ll n~ r~ sonableness, tllat i~. as to whether or Rot the cigarettes were "gea~o~mblg fit and wholesome." The jury dfd find that the smoking of Lucky Stzike cigarettes o~ the l~t ~f +he decedent, Green~ was a plx~ximat e e~use ~ the developmenb of cancer in his left lung which caused kls death. IL is p~s[b]e, holvever, that those fm{]ing~ are consistont w~ti~ the star.dard of remson~bleness, for as thi~ Gourt recently said: "$trlc[, llabiIity o~ the Warl~nty of wholesomeness, without regard to ~legI]genne~ ~does Ill*t inoall that goods are warrRnted to be foolproof or i~lcapable of pr(~Ltleitlg ~RillrF ~ ~l ~* Lar t ~g~le V, R. J. I~yno]ds Tobacco Com- pan~ 5 Cir. 1963, ~17 F,PA 19, 37. The I)lalnti~ urge ~hat the defendan~ waived any further filldinff on the ques- [, q'a simnnr e~ect. ~a Chase v. I:~r~e~ $Iate~ 1921, '2~ ~S. I. If}. 4,t ~,Ct. ~,17. eJ~ I~Ed. 801: D~ia v. O'l£a r a, 11)2 t, 21Y~ U~, 31.4. ~1. ~5 S.Gt. 1~L (;9 inal opinion, 304 F.2d at 71, 72. It must be remombered, h~wever, thn~ the diatr iet ¢our~ did lint roquii~ th~ jury "to re- of a slpeeial written fllldlng upon each issue of lacY' as permitted by RuIe 49 (a), Fed.R,Civ.p., but, instead, followed the procedure outlined in Rule 49(b) to "aubmi~ to the jury, together witl~ up- propitiate ~orrn~ for ~ general verdict, written ~llt ~rr oga~ories ~o~ o~e or mor~ i~sue~ of fac~ Lhe dcclsinn e~ whleh ts ~ecemmry to a verdict/' I~ Rppears ~rom the district court's charge to the ~ury that the ~i~ten interrogatories were no~ i~ltended to cover ~ach and ever7 issue Of fact, but, *'they are inter rog.~t ories wh~¢ll counsel de~crlbed in their arguments. seokinff to find ~rom yoR your opinioit On ecr~a~t faettml ~t~er~ that have occur- red in this trial." (Emphasi~ ~upplied.) It undoubtedly is true ~ha~ the interroff- t~t~rle~ ~th~tiL~e~ wh~ Lke ~r~.i~ th~ can~idered to be the prime or important issues Of ~a~, bu~ in the absence of any other evidellce of Walwr, and ia tile ligh~ of that pa~ of the court's charge subm~t~lnff ~be issue Cf rea~onablene~ to the ~ury. which has been quoted, supt~a p. 4, we co~¢lude th~ the defendant is n~t foreclosed from ttr~nff tha~ i~stle on another trial. AS enid in Mo~llar Amerie*m Life I~tsurance Co,, 1854, 111 U.S. 335, 337, 4 S.Ct. 466, 467, 28 LEd. 447, th~ defendaat~ "w~lliagness, at ane ~ri~, to rlwk IL~ ea~ befor~ ~he ~u~, npon st BiIlg[~ olin o~ ~veral i~nes m~de, did llo~ preclude it, at & subs~uetl~ t r J~l, from in~istinff upan other defences, in- volvlnff the txte~its, wlllch had not been withdrawn of record or abandoned in ~ursuance ~f an agz~cment with the plaintiff?' z With ranch force, the pIstlntiffs urge that "~lit ~ gatlon of de fend~alt's liability herein "e~ould b~ tlnu~l/~l]y nrt~ro~l$ be. E~. 303; ~5 Amff~r 2d Appeal aml I~rr~r, 8,~i, p. 3,¢;2, n. 12; ~B ~Z~ appeal and ~r~r I 1959, p. ~ m 25. 27a
Page 30: 0060119034
QO
Page 31: 0060119034
! hJch he ~ys "The enly ~ictt it iuwtv~ tz r~tl~c.s ~r's .ndc~tak(ng, as it is re,- -robbed by %he buyer," TR~ is s~o to the decision In • a merchant's liability for fcctlve 8~epl~dfler, In thgt .ida Court d~w the dls~inc- , the cl~sa c,f cases wh~e eHe~ on Chc seIler's ~ud~- Ise in Which therB is no re- ]owm: s no nell to ~LWel[ OR the leo where the "ou~er tulles ~elle~R judgment of the par~ic~Iar article for the ended, ~eca~se the use of fs as well knewn to a a sc]/er and Js as llr~ited [ knowm This feature i~ the [i~stlck inwlved tu ~rdine's. Ino, supra [144 difference, as We have ~r~-d, i~ in ~.h~ ~ature c,f s0Id, One ea2~ot know. ~nts o~ a I~tick without alysis. One ~n know a~ ~alesrmtn o~ a stepladder ceking a~ it. And thin or~uni~y tO Inspect Was r in Llle e~ze of BIanton P~c~ug CO., sapra ~154 So.2d 813]." L~mber~ ~upra, ~8 So.~l 43~. rlrsp~t~me e~ the ~t~I~r~e da in this e~ze sta~s that basis of such liability la g or agreement, attributed respen~bl~ in t~ ev~t i~ not in fm~ raerch~n~able ~rdln~try uBe o1~ purpose?' 171, While the response • * * nlsnufacturer'~l o~ knc~vledg* or ~portuni~y o~ a defective or ~l]whole- is wholly irrelevant ta the theory of implied • * " ~i~4 S9.~d at 170), • that the ~uyer is as~med +2~e B~ll~r's jud~rment ~ buyer neither knows m~r ¢asea there ~s all uRder~]ng or SKeet" ]neat on the part of the seller ~ be r~- s;,ol~slble in ~he event the ciT.are~tcs 0,~ be specific) are not In f~t reasonably wholesome or fi~ f~r humau evntmmpden, [~ I~ would be obvioqs]y ImI~slble for the p[ain~iffs to prove any conscioum or tt~press reH~qce h~ ~fr, Gl'~en can de. feR(]au~'~ [m%~)[[ed warra~hy. ~]lat the evldence dues establish, and ,~-h~t~ the ~ury k~ iP* effee£ f~und, ~,~ t~.t %b~ cir- cumstances of th]~ ~a~e are such float l~ chased the Lucky strike cigarettes "in reli&nce t~pon" the defen~lmlt~s implied warranty. That Is no longer all i~.~ue ~n this e.asea [8, 9[ Finally, p~intlng to plai~ti~~ request ed inst ructlon No. i0. the defend~ an~; ~naists that before finding for the pin[attila, the |ut'y mt~t find th~ the cigarettes e~used injury "while being u~d in ~. net'rae.l u~nne~.," A ~)~ of contributory negligence ~s ob~otedy in~ implied warranty, However, ~n implied Wal'~an~v e]~Ccwa]~dtss~A~ onl~ %'n~ OI'~II~RFF ns~ or purposex for which the article Ie eolcL :It, seems to us lhat ),~r. Green's stocking or the Lnc~" Strike ¢i~re~te~, as ~escr~bed in ~ur original opinion (30~ F,~I a~ 72), eve~ to the exten~ of from c~e to tht~e packages per day, was ~ clearly p. matter to be e~Ipect(d an~ong mal~y si~okers, ~nd veithln the itse or lll]irl~ose~ f~ Wit{elK f~he ed~ar~t~a were sold, ms not to leave this ele~'en~ as ~qal a differea~ state of facts IS pre- ~entel. We believe that ~ ha~e discussed all of 9/~e remaining issues st~ggested by the de~enda~t We have done so ~n the hope of mere aharply defining th~ ~i:su~s yet t~ be decided, It is our p~rpc~e, Ilo~~ ever, to ~/d, ~nd ~o~ to ]imlt mare strEetJy ~tRct o~us~ary ~e Judff~teu~ Rn¢] dis- cretion of the dlstr~ct c~r~. I~ simple answers to the foLIr inten'oph%tories; if lab What has been m~id should b~ a sofficlent guide* for the diefriet court, by ~irther pretrial hearing or o~e~w~se, k~ep the i~sue9 wi~in proper ]i~ai~s. The Jl]~g~el~ ~re reversed and the c~e ~m~nded for further pr~eedln~fs ~t incons~ w~fh tb~a opinion, Re~r ~e~ ~d r~uanded. CAMERON, Circult Judge (~neur- fluff in part and in part 41~entL~g). The majority ~p{ulon in this ~ase ~s a ~re~ul a~d accurate portrayal of the ~.tue of the c~e a~ iS. new stand~ be~r~ tu~. And it, is a ~rre~ in.re,at ~n of ~he holding o£ the Supreme Court of F~id~ ~ far ~ R h~dz that ~I~ judg- ~en~ of the court beI£~r ~u~ he re. ~er~e~ Rn~ th~ case ~ded. ~ ~ join. however, in its ¢onckls~on that we ~oul~ not re~der judgment~ ~r pI~n- ~ffs on the issue of li~biIi~y, I. For ~nvoni¢~ ce, I quote t.~e paragraph o~ the ~ori~ opil~ion which a~nou~e~s thls I~tter cor~uslor~he p¢int ~ which [ ~r~ ~m~elted b0 9ar~ wmpany with m.v 5re~hren: "~t dce~ n~ however, follow, ~s urged by ~he plaintiffs, that We should render [~dgment~ for pint.- tiffs on the issue of liability. The jury has no£ made any su ffic~emt find- lug o~ t/~e que~ien of reasonable- ness, t~ is, a~ ~ Wheeler or not the £~garet~e~ were 'rea~on~]~ f~t and wholesome.' The jury dld fi.d th~ ~he sr~klng of Lucky ~ke cigai~ttes on ~h~ part of ~he deced~ ent, ~reen, was a proxlmat~ eau~ of the deve]~pment of cancer in h[~ ]eft lung ivh~eh eatlsed h~s death. It is posslble, howe~er, that these finding~ are consistent with the Btal]dard of reasonableness, for a~ this Ce~rt recently ~ald: 'Strlet li~- biI~ty on £he warranty of who[esome- nesG ~itho~t regar~ to negligence, "d~es ~t i~eaR [hat go~ at~ w&r. ranted to be foelproef or ~n~.~able 29~
Page 32: 0060119034
---
Page 33: 0060119034
m i~s hoidin~- on the porL~on 73-77) of this Court's or/g- which w~s rejected by the rome Cour~ upon our sub- h The ~itaI Ianguage of [7 F.2d 3749) wa~ based considerable part repeated, d holdings o£ this CC~urUa ion. it therefore seems ~ me, r may be the force of Lar- d two months before the ~eme Court au~wel~ our de~id[ag a Louisiana ease, rity at all in t~ia e~e based law. Under that law it is "By and Large, the atmldard he ~ds is the same t!uder theory as under the aegE- " The dJ~ opposite ~ ~tr~efi~u given bF th~ e~mt~. ~s aee~mp~41y[ng Qu~stlon redleated directly upon the .~ory. Florida r~jecLs that i]ds that sales ef gc~ds for nption are not e~ver~d by ~s with its e~ve~,~ em~otor or gllgenca with its doctrines care. Instead, they are irely by fhe l~w of con- :ontrae~ hera was between Jompany and Green. The odied by the law in every any n~ade to blm wa~ that purdlased by him would bqt~ets lu:d ~leM~Oli~ wl~ ty of whu!e~ene~ r~ts ~ ~auk for them. !er & Jame~ ~w ~ Te~ 4 i1961). ~ reaeo,~f~ egre ~n ~ o, ~5 P.2d 3~l.**' C~REBS v. AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY C~te ~s a~5 F2,/~3 (~S) It would, ia my opinion, be a complete rejeetion of the law of warr$ntY to held tha~ it could abrogate ~he reqnlren~nt that one adn~ittcdly injured by the use of tobacco could not recover unless he sh~ed ~u~tbcr that, ~b~ ~¢ette~ ~er~ no~ reasonably fit aud wholesome for use by the general publi~- Those words are used. hi ~b~ warrant ¥ to demonstrate lhe unlver~ali~y of iLs ~lpplicatlon. Every sale it makes carries a ~'ari~nt~¸ to ~acb. and every member o£ the public. Bat each warra~lty is sei)~ra[e and covers t]2~ llabil[ty ~ hhe Tobacco Compan~ to each sepa]~e individual to whom a sale ia made. The finding of the jury has settled ~he fset that the cigarettes sold to Green wore n~ ~asoaab[y fit a~d wholesome ~or use by hi~m ~o o%her ques~ un i~, in my c, pinion, involved trader the ]a~v of FIor~ ~a with which alone we are dealing. IIL Ths questlon here under eonsideraflon is, in reality, the ssmc question which was debated a~ grea~ length bet~en the ma]~.ity and the dissenting opinion~ in the Jllitial decision ~f this ease by this Court,~ A reading of t ho~e two ep/nlons wilt, it seems to me. cover essentially the point of difference which still ]~r~i~ts between the majority and m~elL I think no good purpose will be sel~ed by re]peating ~he argtunent made in that d[s~ sent ~ud tha~ it is s~ffielent to refer ~o it. I undertook to analy~e every appllea- hie Florida case a~d to demonstrate that under ~e ]?lorida cas~s, Question ]q~ 4 ~hou]~ n~ have bee/l submitted to ihe ~ury. The Supreme C~ur~ ef Florlda has decided the point submitted against the heldlng of the majority in that case and In favor of the arguments ~et forth [n my dissent. to the Supreme Court of Florida, which the ]Dt~xtles sLiptIla~ed as eIlcora[las$1ng ~e question ~hida Would decide ~e sat- come ef thi~ [itiga~on, the Svpreme 681 Cour~ e~ Florit~ answere'd in effect a~ fol]owa : "Yes, Lhe law of ~Iorlda imposes on a tr~anufacturer and distributor of cigarettes absolute liability, a~ for breach of implied warranty, Ior death caused by u~Ing such eiff- arette~ from 19~4 or ~92~ until Feb- 2"lary I, 1~5~, ~e Yanker h~ng ~- YCleped prior to ]Pehruary 1, 1856, and the death cecurr~ng Februazy ~, 19~, n~tW~th~tAudlu~ ~ke £a~L that the de£eadaat manufacturer and distributor could sot, ~n or before February i, 1956, by the reasonable application of human skill and fore- sighL have knC~vn that users of such eiga~rettes wotlld be ~/~dangered. by the inhalation of ~e mainstream smoke from sttch clgaI'ettes, of con- traeting c~meer of the lung." It seems certain that~ when we sub- mitted that qaea~ion, the members vf th~ Court thought its answer would dlspose~ of the ease. The parties evidently thought the same thing, because they agrm~d to the aoking of this question. 1 see nothlr~g els~ for the jury to pass Ltpou, unless the ~obaeeo Con]p~ny is to be permitted to bring ia a hundred or %hou~and w£tne~es ~h~ Lucky ~tr~ke e~garette~ ha~'e Dot yet harmed, In an ef- for~ to show that the warranty g~veu by the Tobacco C~mpauy t~ fi~een wa~ nth in fact broken. But the record before us reveaIs no ef- fort, by e~thev V~tty t~ show tha% %he clg- arettes were not reasonably fit and whole- some a~ to any person besides Green. If that he the thrv~ of the maic~r~ty ~u- ion, I think it is fair to say that neither" party raised sueb an i~$ue in the argu- ments before us on the trial of the orig- ival apr~aI; that this Court never con- ceived that sucl~ ~,n issue was in the ease ; that thc Supreme Cour~ of Florida has not intimated that such sn issue does re- main in ~e ease~ and that no Florida de- cision is eited-~snd none can be found by m~whleh holds suth an issue to be relevant to a trial upon Implied warranty. 2. Gr e~,~ v A~er[tan tlhlbaceo Company, Jt~e, 19ff2~ 304 I~.2t] ,~0, (liesennn~ oX~gla ~, "~7, 31a
Page 34: 0060119034
! m B~
Page 35: 0060119034
( Advan~r Slu'e~ ) G~EN ~ A~IEP~CA~ TOBACCO COMPANY CR~ ~s 3~1 F ~d 97 t 19~9) 97 GRE~ ~nd W~d~In G i~, Jr~ ApJ~n~, AM~JgICAN ~OBAC~O COM]PA*~I~, Appeil~, ~¢o. 2245~. United St~ Court o~ Appea[s F~th C[ratl[t. J~. 24, J,~. Action for brea~ of implied war- rau£y. The United S~tes District Court for the ~outhern District of FIo~d~, Em~tt C. CI~o~t~, J., rendered judgmen~ ~or de~ondazlt, and ~n ~p.~c~l was ~ci~. The C~urt of Appea~s, C~lema~, Circu[~ Ju~, ~R] th~ c~nsumcr wa~ e~t~]~d 33a
Page 36: 0060119034
:~i~ "~ m Court eon~uc~i~g trial of i~ue as [0> die~ory of ~'indl~g a* earlier trial +,hat W~her ef~tt~ we~ r~b]y flt ~Inokhlg de~e~d~li~'~ eiga~tt~ was one a~d wholesome did not err ill e~ludI~g of p~0xlma~e causes of ~[ntfff~' dece. evidence ~ ©~t ~of-~u~ ez~-Jme~t~ oI~ d~n~ e~uc~r a~ ~a~ caner th~s ¢a~ec~ Court e~tiug i~W trl~ ~ ~ue ~ f~ whether ei~ used by cance~ vi~m w~ rca~uahly ~i~ for huma~ use did ~t ~ i~ e~]ud~ng m~rg~on general's r~p~. ~ m~y ~e ~iui~ L~sed results of exp~rlme~ by ~the~ a~d, ~h~t ~n~o~, may ~i~ ~ueh ~.I perimen~. ~xper~ m~ not "~ ~$~i~ed by us~ ~ ~eie~ti~ work un,r~ he r~[i~ on very work w~h c~0~-e~mfner w~he~ to ~e. Any e~o~ in charging tha~ ~he~ ~v~ br each ~f Im~it d wa~a~y i~ ci~a~ ~t~ endal~gez~d a~y *~[mportant num- proper~ r~er~, r e~ie~,in g cour~ would no~ ~ns~er ~t. FCd.RUI~ C~v.Proe* rul~ ~i, 2~ U.S,C.A. ~lue of eviden¢~ an~ a]] inf~rence~ reasonably ~ be dra~ ~he~r~ v~ for ~ur~ to ~i~ and pI~intff~ were of liability, notwlth~nd!~g tlleir con- of Jmp[ie~ w~nf~v that elga~et~es ~ wa~ o0e o[ prc~ma~e ~es of death, and on ~m~nd ~r~al o~ ]8~ue as go whe~- er eLff~ret~es Wer~ ~ns~nabl~' fit and w~no~me ~or ~on~umpt]on b£ genera] publle~ it W~ r~Ter~]b]e error to re~elve e~rg £~[6F-~e ~¢ ~u unr~ krmw c~tl~l~ of cartier a~d th~ Lhere~or~ ea~e could If there had bee~ no material eha~ge of controll[~ a+~ ]a~ 8iil~e d~e of its f~rmer ~l~.~ionI Coul~L of AppeaL~ would be L~nd t[aere~y ~a appeal from j~d~- men~ on remand, btt~ i~ there had material ch~n~-e in eontrolI[ng stat~ law, either ~y e~aeLment or by clarifying ~n- t~rpre~tion, Cour~ ~ Apl0eal~ would r~e bouud to ~'oll~w law a~ i~ ~x~t ~d at time of appe~ from ~udgr~ent o~ r~I~and. Court of Appeal~ ha~ power and duty in prover ease to direcL entry of 11. ~al't~ ~=~li.1 FloIick~ r~q~irca ~n[~" reasonable f[£~ ~e~a ef product no~ inten~ad ~r human eonsump~:io~ bu~ impo~es, absohlt~ ILttbil- ~ ~or injury r~ul~ing from 41~ or ¢on- ~ltmption ~f ~r~duet iI~t~led for hult~an uae, ezen if such prod~c~ was reason~bly fit or r~L~nabIy whole~om~ Jr~pl[ed ~s~r~nce~ that cigarettes w~re and mal~fa~t ur~r could b~ h~]d ~b~oIute~ 84a 13 F~ agai: c~r A~ died. as pl undo: ",l~e, of irn t~ d~ ~edllr~ fir~ prima: hia dt~ oigal'e~ • of t~ t[Em 2. I[.
Page 37: 0060119034
~RIES fit for human co~umptlon may nat bc rcqulred to ro- ts on choices between rau- Islb~ pr~p~ltl~a. ~40~.9($1) mt could ~ave rebutted r~f as t~ i~¢idence o~ lung ~arette smokers without, pre- imony eate~or[caUy contra- inding at carlier trial that endantPs clgarettes was one caus0s of plaintlffs' dece- and t~a~ caucer thus caused proximate causes of death, ud trlaI of l~u¢ as to wheth- s wer~ reasonably fit and ~ o~v~t~oo, b~ general s re~ible error to receive nc~ thlt no one knew CaUSe d that therefore cause cculd d. 406~9 ($) had been nd m~terlal change g stat~ ]a~v since date ef its ion, Cour~ c~ Appca~ WOUldL ~reby on a~peal from judg- age in controlling state law, ~ctment or by clarifying in- Court o~ Appeals would be ow law as it e~ls~d at time ~m judgment eu remand. =4~6.9(8) • f AppeaIs has power and ~er case to direc~ ~n~ry of o.v. ~u~r~s only re.~on~ble f~t- let not intended for human bat impcoes~a~solate llabil- , resvltiug from ~se or eon- ?rodueL in~.ended for hUmaR ueh ~roduet was reasonably ~bly wholesome. $7 W~s e~ti~Ivd t~ rely ~n auces lhat ei~xc~es were td fit for purpose intended, urer could be held absolute ( Advam,c Sheet) 12 liable for cousulner*s death fr0~1 can- cer caused by sraoklag cigaretbes. Law.nee V. Hastings, Irma Rubblns Feder, Miami, Flu., for appellants. A. Lee.Brad ford, Miami, Fla., ~dward P~. Nosher, New York City, for appeIIee. Before PHILLIPS,~ COLEMAN and ~IMPSON, Circuit Judges. COLEMAN, Circui~ Judge: Thi~ i~ an appeal from a jur~ v~rdic~ al~d iudg~nt for the defcndan~ in the ~econd trial of a suit on implled war- yanty, gc'ound6d on a prior jury :~indlng In the same ease that pL~intif f's decedent died of cancer and tha~ stockinet ~]gar- ettes was a cause thereof. ~'~r the sec- ond gme, we reverse aud r~mand f~r a ~ew ~rlaL Nearly ten years ago, in December, 1957. Edwin Green, St. brought ~ult ~u~t th~ A~ne~ic~ T~hacr e Cl~a~y. ¢]alming that he had incurred lung can. vet as a ~esult of ~moking the defe~lanUs p~dnet. Lucky Serille clgare~tes. About two ~nf~tl after filing thf~ suit, on February 25, I958. ~Ir. Green died. HI~ admin~trator was sub~¢itu~d as plsJntif f and his widow aIso fried suit ~ud~,r the F[orid~ V~rongful Deal;h Stat- ute, On two theOries of ]iabillty~ breach ~£ implied warranty a~4 ~giigel~¢, ~h~ cases after ¢ousolidatlo~ were tried to a ~ury, which returned general verdicts for the defelldan~. In answer, ho~v~ccer, ~o corrals interrogatori~ submitted under Ruin ,t9(b), Federal RU~S of-Civi| pro- oedure, ~8 U.S.C.A., the ~ury :In this first t~ial f~nd that Mr. G~exa~ had primary cancer of the lung, tKiit th~ Wan the cause or cite of the ~a~l~eg of his death, and tha~ smoklr~g Lucky ~trlko cigarettes was a proximate ~use or one Of the p~oxlmata causes o~ the ~auceL tion. I. ~udge ~¢ivw ha~ ~luce r~tr~d fram aef. ire ~r~i~ and Judg0 Cameron d~cd ,~ p ril 2, 19~L 99 Notwithstanding this finding, the ver- dict went to the defendant because, i~ response to another interrogatory, the jury further fraud that on or prior to February I, 1~6, the defendant Tobacco Cemi,al~:v by the ~asnnr~ble a~plicati~n of human skill and foresigh~ ¢ou[d no~ h~/ve known that users of Lucky Strike cigarettes, such an Mr. Green, Would thereby ]be put in danger of contFacting lung caucer, Of course, the qlaintiffs appealed. Oil ~ay 2, 196~ 5 Cir. 304 F.2d 70, a panel of this Cnurt eompo~ed of Judfi*es Rives, Cameron, and Griffin BeIl~ affirmed the .iadgment in favor of the cigarette man~- facturer. In that oplnlon the result turned on the jt~r] finding that there w~s ~ de~elopzd human ~k~II or ~reslght which could haVe afforded the manufac- turer a knowledge of the harmful effects. Judge Cameron dissented, qllit~ cogently pointing out that even for breach of ira- ]plied warranty the decision amouu~td to a holding tba~ ~he exercise o£ reasonable care on the part of ?he Tobacco Company would exoneraee it from liability. On petition for rehearing, decided June 20. 1962, ~04 ]e.2~t a~ page 85. re- hearing V¢~ granted ~ the extent of certifying to the Supreme Court of Flo~ id~ the £~wi~ queati~: "Doea the l~*w of Florida impose on a maaul'acturer and distributor of cig- aruttes ~bs(gute liabi~y, a~ ~or ~r each of implied wurranty, for death caused by u~iug such cigarettes from 19Z4 or ~925 until February 1, 1950, the can- cer having develuped prior to Febru- ary l, 1956 and ~he death ocnurrlng February 2~ 1958, when the defend- ar~ ~anufa~4urer aud dlsirlbu~or eou!5 no~ on, or prior to, February 1, 1956, by the reasollable application of human ~kiII and foresight, have known that users ef such elgarettes would be en- dangered by the inhala~/on of the main ~upreme Court authoei~ed to receive a~d answer c~rtifwate~ a~ to s~t~ Jaw fro~ fedemH appol[u(e ~0arts. 35a
Page 38: 0060119034
:/ /'i~ ! Li.~, 100 stream ~mok~ ~rom ~uch elga~ttes Q£ contracting cancer of the JunKY' , [I54 S,2d at 170]. It is to be noted that the questirm be- gins "Does t~e ]aw ~f Florida impose on a ma~ufactur¢~" s~d distributor Of o/ir~ied ~rr~n~y [ ~] ". It was near~ n y~r b~fo~ ~h~ ~ll~e C~urt rJf Florida r~sponde~ in a ~-2 decf$iun [1~ Sc.~;d 169, ~une 5, 1963]. The Court con~[~ded~ "That the qu~stio~ thus f~med does no~ prosen~ ~or our consideration the issue of whether the cigarettes wh~ ca~ed ~ cancer in th~ l~artieuhtr hl- af~nce were ~t~ ~. r0~f~o~ ~f ~.vr ~t~.- rnerchan~ble in FI~rlda under the statement of ~he scope of warranty inl- plied in t~e ch~umstanc¢ of this case. The inquiry befom u~ is, ~n~tead. IJm- ithd to the ~t~t~ of F]or~da law upon hnpa~[t Ion of llabltity ~as for breach of imi~lied warranty* ~hen ~he ~,~nuf¢~ ]ore~g~, ha~ k~o~ of ~he d~r~er'." ~em~h~is ourS] The Florida Supreme Court proceeded t~ slate ill clear and ~lnmlsLekahle ~n- aet~at ~mowl~I~e or cppor~nit~ for knowhdgo ~ a defective or un,~.hcle- ~ome v~dit~o~ I~ ~holly irrete~au~ ~o his liability on the theory o~ ~mpl[ed warranty, a~d the question eertifi~ nlUSt therefore be answe~cd in the a~. f [rma~ive. A~ already indlca~ed, We ~ nu~ feel tha~ tI~ inquirr ~n term~ eJ* ther requests a respons~ on the uI~i- ma~ i~ue ~f liability i~ this ~a~ o~ requires any comment oa th~ disposl- tlo~ ~f i~sues b~w~n the £our~ an~ the ~ury ~lder the hw r~latlng ~o scope a~d breach of the implied war- ranty ~ha~ & product supplied for hu- man eon~umptlon shall ~e reasonabLY fit and ~hoI~n~ for th~ g~l~eral The Court Wel~ on t~ :~v, howevel'~ (Advance Sheet) "~h~ contention that ~he wholesome- ness of a ~roduct should be det ermlncd or* an~ a~a~rd other ~ha~ i~ ae~ [~] ~e ~hinh wv a~ per~z~td has no ~da~i¢~ in l~e decidef~ ~es," [Again emphasis ours], ~ix rnonth~ lat£~, agai~ With Judg~ Cameron dissenting, this Cour~ held that ' it could oot e~t~r ~udgmeut for fl~e p~aln- t~ff~ on the issue of liabiIity, 32~ F,gd 673. £or the reason that~ *~he ]~ori~ Supreme Cou~s r~le is on~' that a produe~ mtl~t be 'rea~ol]~ ably fit a~d whQIesome' and bare a '~ea~ f~l.ae~ for hu~Rau ~lS~ or gOIIBUL~lpt~Or~." With ~eferenee, we feel that this view overlooked ~he I~nguage itallciz~d im- raedi~tel~ above but the vi~s of the Of ¢ouP~. were it not for deve]opme~ts la~ez. ~o I~e discussed. T]~.~ Court ~f Appeah fur~r ~iu~A out that on the first trial of the case in thv I)l~tri~ Cour~ the jury, at the re- ~ue~ of ~e phintiffs, had b~en ehargvd ~ka~ "Tile in~n~.~aefur~r o~ pl~flu~ts which are offered for sale to the public In their original package £cr human eon- sump~iou or tm~ imoFmdlY warran~ Ll~t it~ produe~ are rc~a~o~ab]y wholesome o~. ~it for th~ pu~ ~r ~hi~ they ~*re eoId ~ • %" The adverb "reasonably" mcdif~ '~¢hule~ome or fi~ ha~ been luscrted ill the i~truetlon at t~ ~n~en~ of the ~]a[n~if£~. The origlual Panel then ~i, "As ~ par~ of ~ke law ~f th~ case the I~rttes are, therefore, boand by the ~¢opo of the irap]ied warranty a~ ~o defined by the Distr~t Court". This wa~ followed by the er~elal deter- ~in~t~% [~5 F.2d at page 677, ~hat the ~IT had not made any s~£~icle~t finding on the question of reasonableness, ~ha~ f~, ~8 ~ w~ther or ~ot ~e cigarett~ were "reasonably fit and whcI~ome" and ~lo~ed from developillg ~ha~ issue on ano~]ler tri;~]. • 36a ~y.,
Page 39: 0060119034
gRIBS ntcnUon that the wholesnme- ~roduet 3hould he determined ~ndard other than it~ act~a~ h~ eonsvmpgio~, Io~r~ or that I~rpose, # ~ tlo'~ ~ ~e deed~g e~esY Lphasis coral. 8 later, again with Judge ,entlng, this Court held that aLer 5udgmen~ for the plain- issue of liability, 325 F.2d !eason that: ~rida Supreme Court'e rum ; a product must be 'reason. td whol~me' ~nd have a fiLnea~ for hu~au u~ or mee, we feel that f~[s vlcw e language italicized ira- we but the views of the ,enid be binding upon us. re it not for developments If App~al~ further poiated e first trial of the ease in ~urt tke ~ry. aL the t~- Min~iffs had been charged ~a~lnfaeturer o~ plx:ducts ~r~[ for sale to the pubI[e al pack.go Eot humat~ eon- ~mplied]y warrants that e re~onably wholesome or rpoae ~'or which they are The adverb "rea~onabIy" Lolesome or fit" had been instruction at the ~nsent ~fs. The original Panel a par~ of the law of ~hLs are, therefore, bound by le implied warranty as ~o D/sLriet Court". owed by the er~lciaI de~er- ~2~ at p~ge 677, that the lde any sufficient finding of reasonableness, that L% ,r not the cigarettes were iefendant was not fore- !veloping that issue on I Advance Sheet) Ol~E EN v. AMBRICY~,~ TOBAC00 OOMPANY We then directed: "["]he parties are nonetheless bound by the jut2,j's answers to the written interrogatories [and] may not relit~gaf~ the issues thus already de- ¢idc<I [tba£ smnklng Lucky Strike cig- arettes was on~ ef the causes ~ the eatxcer and that ~he cancer WaS one of the causes of the death] under the gtli~e of presentinff evidence on the issue O~ re~sonablene~8, ~hat is, ~ to whether the cigarette~ were red,on- ably fit avd wholesome" Judge Ca~er o~, CO~cUrrJ~ in ~art ~'ad dissenting [n part, was of the vb,w that the warranty "Was that the cigarettes purchased by [G~eenJ would not do him harm" and ~lm~ the plaintlI~s should not be required [o show "that the eigare~te~ were not re.~.~onably fit and *vholesome for use by ~he general ~ublie", As far as we can tell, the partleo made no further effort t~ obtain the dlrec~, i~sitlve answer of the ~upreme 0curt of ]?'lor ida to ~at part of the original que~- tlon which had propounded the inquiry, "Does the law oY FIorlda impose nit a manufacturer and di~trilmtor o[ elgzr- ette~ absolute liability, ~.~ for bl~ach of .impIied ~arranty ~ * ~ [?]". The plaintiffs might well have }men encouraged to d~ so in vlew of the ]a~l- guage which the Florida Court had added ~o ~he effce~ ~hat actual ~ufe~y fo~ hu'r~n eo~z~ptio~ Wa~ ~he gla~d~r~ [or the de~ermlne~t~a~ Of the ~chole~omenes~ of a produat. The result of the foregoing w&s *h~ the case went Lo a secand ~ury trial in ~hieh, pursuant to ~he opinion of 325 F.2d 673 the sole izs~e (and any fact~0r not inconsistent therewith) was wheth- er the cigarettes u~ed by Mr. Green wele ~asnnab]y fit and wholesome for human use. Ihe partle~ being expressly com- mandt~ n~ %o atLemlA to r~li~igaLe the aiz~eady established facts that Green died of ]ung callcer and ~hat the elgarettea were a cause of that cancer. The ~ury verdlc[ again was for the Tobgec~ Company• The judgment there- on was dated Novenlber 27, 19~4. 10t The dale i~ Mgn~feant for, thereafter, on May 5, 1965, in the ease of MeLeod v. W. S. Merrell Company, Division of ~.iehardsou-Merrell, I~e., i~ $0.26 T3~, the Supreme Court of F[orida atatc~l that Green v. A~erican 'eobacco Company, Fla., *~54 ~gd 169, was: "A suit, against a manufacturer. It involved a commodity which was avali- able indiserimlna~ly to the pablin gen- ~rally. Greet. ealx be ~:umma~2¢4 a~ a case which applied a rule of absolute or strict llabi[ity to the manufacturer of commodity who had placed iL in the chan- r, eJs of trade for eonsumptlon by the public gen crafty". X~e now come directly to the question of whether the duflgr~ent under review i~ to be affilmled or ~'ever~ed. We a~a confronted with spe~iiieatlona that the District Court erred in the fol- lowing r~geets : 1. In denying Plaintiff's Metlon for Dis'coted Verdict on the Issue of Liability made at the dose of the de- fendant's case and renewed at th~ close t*f nil the evidence a~ ~h~ ~id~ne~ conclusively established defendant's b~eaeh of implied warranty of reason~ able fltn~s for htlman col~umption and use• ~ * ~ 2• In charging the jury that a breach of implied warranty of reaeon- abl~ fit~e~ ~ h~lmaa e~n~um~ti~n and use occurs only if defends ut's eig~ nrettea endanger "anb important num- ber of cigarette smokers--any respon 8ib]e nurab~r--ang [arge~egMent ~ any responsible ~egment of the geI2er~l public ~ * ¢ a8 to the threat of luug cancer," such surprise charge having e£feetlvely directed a verdict for defendant + ¢ % 3, In permitting defelldaoL'8 exp~rt witnesses to testify that they do no~ know the cause of lung cancer a/xd thal nobody knows the cause of lung can- 4, In exelud~l~g certain kinds of evidence, L e., testimony concerning (1) animal experimentation and (2) 37a
Page 40: 0060119034
m 102 the 'Report of the Surgeon Gener~?a C~mlgte~' and o~h~r a¢ien%i~le aa- t~oritlea as seell as work done by t~m t~stifler ~vlth o~her poisons * * *. We ~hal~ dlspo~e og min~r n~ttnl~ flr~t. [1] In our view, tbo trlaI cou*~ denied both sides an opportuI~ity to offer evldencQ of out of court experiments 011 animals and this was not erroneous, Bi~h v. Employer~ Liability A~sur*~cv Corp., $ Cir., 1956, 236 F.$d 62; Trav- elers Insurance C~mpany v. W'ill~s, f; Cir., 19$5, g6 F.P.d rf0L [2] Neither did the Cou~t commit rc- versible error i~ deeiarlng inadmissible ~h~ surgeon ~enerals r~povt, Blab. ~pra Rico v. ClernenG Fl~.App., ~066, 184 80. ~1 878. [3, 4] Of cour~e~ an expert may" give /tu OI~nl~a based on the reptiles of eg- perlmenLs hi' o~hers and in that conne~- Wo~lfle v. Convecticu~ ~,~t~t. Lifo ~ns. CO., 8 Cir., 1989~ 108 F.2d 417, 418; Cf. International paper Co. v. United Slates, 6 Cir., 1055, 227 F.2d 201, 208. We ha~ ~rev~nu~ly indica%ed ~ %~t~ptan~e of the maj0rltbr Idew the.~ egp~l~s may no~ be cross examined by the ~s¢ of ~eiemtif/¢ "~'o~ks ~nle~ they relied o~ the ve~'/ work which the cross exa~l~iner wlshe~ to u~v, Bish, ~upra. [~] We Cannot ~ve~ fvr the givi~g of ~he charge d~acrlbed in Speoifle~t3orl ~'qo. ~. The givlng of thla supplemental charg~ was caused by a controversy after the jury had retired as tr, whether the Cour~ had inadverttm%iy used the word "admi~sf0ns" ir~tead of "findings" [of f2~e Jury in the first trial~. Out ~f a ¢~m~aclahle deslr~ ~ ¢~ ap aay $ihle chance of error on this p~in~ fh¢ ~oart had the j0~y called baelr into th~ oour~r~am, after which this tc~k place: ,'T}KE COURT: * * ~ Ia[sotold you that the question w~s one of a common dsnger t~ the general publi~ as diltlngulshed from Mr, Green, That is for >~a~ ~etermin~tlon. And if these cigarettes did endanger any ( Adv,~uce Shee~) 391 ~]D~RAL ~q~PORTER. 2d S~RIES --any- r~spons~b~e o~mbo~an2f ]ar~8 segment of these sm~kers~-then ~% weald be a breach of th~ implied w~ ranty for f~tncsa, which i8 imposed ~n the mant~f~urer ~ho s~l[s t~ cigarettes. It" they dld not, there Would be no breach o~ wltrranty ~ ~. sol J: May we approach the bench?" {Side B~r Conferen0~ out Of the bearing of the Jt~ry) • "THE COURT: Counsel do not Ifke ~be word~ 'i~11portan~ n~mher*. They ti~ink that it is a little blt t~ definite. i mean does J~ ~danger a.y respon- sible segment of the g~nera[ pt~b]lv. Do~s nigh*tetra stocking ¢~P~ ~eT thewt • $ to the thl'~at of lung cancer? If it dons, the implied warranty is vlo- Is.ted," From ~he foregoing it Is quite plain to tls that plaintiffs~ counsel d~d object t~ the langtt~.~ ~f the supI)Ie~we~ charge, bn~he did no~ mabe the ¢oa~e~t ~fh~sobiectiunamattern£record. Ob- vioasly, th~ Cour~ then ~ttemp~vd ~o amend the charge ~ a~ to eliminate t~o ~bJectinn, whatever It Was. Thereof%or. ~our~e[ offered no further exception. As ~mended, ~ho lsnguage as to ~mpf~rta~t ~ttrabars ~r large aegrcmn~,$ W'as~ ~ ef- ~ec~ w[thdr~w~, Thus. if there wan any error in the attended supplement~ charge, viewed a~ a whole, which We doubt, i~ cert~ly was not plain @rro:~ Ther~f~'~. {n the absence ~f ~¢e~t;~)l~ properly reJerved we do nu~ ~ow corl- ~ider it, R~le 51 ~ed.R.CIv.P.. 28 U.S. ~A. [8] Nor do we find an)' merlt In ap- l~e]]ant~' confen~ion tha£ they were en. ~tlc~ to a directed verdict oil the iss~ ~f liability. It is argued that the de- :Inhalant's evldence v~as vaIulless anal that ~ll"tS ~an~l sh~ aid ~¢w ~ver~ube the 9ri~r decision which con~itubed ~he law of the @ase on the secon~ ~rlal. ~oln~- ~o the ~teart of the matter, we ~fmply say that the Distr~ct Cour~ ~ad to r~try the ease ~nd~¢ the dire~i~r~ h~ had ~ecelved fr~r~ ~]~ia Court. The v~lue of the evldeacv importing aumber of clgarette ~mokers and $I[ in fer¢nccs reasonably ~o be drav~ 88~
Page 41: 0060119034
u~p ~q o1 Xlq~uos~ B~UBp!~B BI{~ ~o anita lUe~ ]}a~laQo~ pet[ aq SUO ~q~ o3 ~u]oD "leja~ ~u~ .~ uI ~!a~u* XU~ pu!; O~ ~0~ u[~[d ~OTI ~ /I ~ '~o!~Io~x~ ~[~nI ou 01 pol~uo3~ uaq~ ~ano (Xanf al
Page 42: 0060119034
104 A. Please read the question. THE COURT: 1lave you arr|ved at a~y ¢onc]usletl ba~ed upon your medle~I knowledge as to the suspected causes of cancer7 TtI~ WITNESS: I ]lave not." Finally Dr. Fli~se testified On crws examlna~lon, "We cannot say it Is due to some* thing We inhale • * ~. RaslcaIly, we dcnPt know what r~usos ik" When the defense rested, the attorney for the Greeter made the follnv~ng mc- tlon: "MR. HASTINGS: Your Hon~r, b~fo~e we r~.e68, we wouki 5ks to move to strike the ~esti- nm~y of Dr. Burfvrd. Dr. Fl~pse, Dr. Little and Dr. Jack,on, who gave Op[R- ie~B t~ (he effect that there was ~ ~e- ]atkindhlp be~wee~t ~moklng and eau. £er ~ ~ h~l~ that the Fifth. Cir~ait clearly aLated that any evidence ad- d~Ced with rdgard ta thi~ must assume a~ conclusively established the fact tha~ one m~t, Edv*~n G~en had died ~f cancer of the lung as a resnl~ of ~moklng; and thexe~or~ we'fee~ tha~ the teg~imo~y by these "~itne~e~ sho~Id ~et be considered.. TIIE COURT: Denied." It will ~ow be reenIIed, ~nd it ~ ap- propriate that wo sbeuld emphasize it, that the prior jury ha~ e~pre~sly found that smoking Lucky Strike eigarette~ ~as on~ ~ ~e p~o~u~aie ca~l.~a of ~he cancer and that the cancer thus caused wa~, it~ t~xu, ~ue ~f ttte proximate e~.s~s of death. We likewise recall the em- phatic, explicit Instructions of this Cour~ when it remanded the ca~e that the par- ties ~ere bound by th~se finding~ and ~luz~ fke parties cov2d no~ rel~ti~e~e ~he f*~ue~ the* already ~e~ded #~ge~ ~ of rea~mul~en~ [7, 8] Appellee says that this lhle of testimony ~hoaki have been admi~ible ~r the zeaa~n that if the ~u~e ~f can- (Ad v~nce Sheet ) 391 ~DERAL RBpO~TEI~ ~ SERI~S cur is unknow~ then it cannot be ~ald that cigarettes [as a cause of cancer] are no~ rcasonabI~ fi~ and wholesome for e~usumpt~on by the general puhtie. We do not [eel that jur~e~ may he re- qni~!d ~ return verdicts on choices be° ~ef~n m~tuaIly imi~s~ih~e previsions. Although the jury in this second trial wa~ unalterably bound, and so informed, by the finding of jL~ predecessor tha~ cancer had indeed been ~ cartes of the death of Mr. Green ~md tha~ smoking Lucky S~rfke ~igarettes had been o~e of the proximate causes of that cancer, It reputedly heard ~rom ez~ert~ which it had I~,e i~hexc~t pt~hra~ ~f Imlleaing, if t~ chase, that such could not I~ibly be ~rue $in~ none know t~te ~uae of caner alzd, f.herefore, ear~no~ prove the cause That w~m not the standard ~pon which this CourL direded tka~ the case shouM be retried. There was ey, pr~s~ di° ruction that the c~use of dehth must not be rcHffgated in the course of set- tl~ng the question of ~ea~onab|e safely for me by the genera 2ubl~c dr~ all f idxne~. =.re faust iike fcise recog* alze the cqually dlsL'e~sivg ?redicament ~f the tri~[ ~ttdge. At ~h~ flr~ blush he was pre~ented with the prevlous!y deter- mined fa~ that deceased b~d die~ from ~e Use o£ a product, and then h~ ~s tom to preside over the deterraination of whether ~ueh a product nevertheless was i~asonah]y s~A~e for USe by t~e general public. The answer to this dilemma, in our ~ud~rnen% ~vas that api~ellee eoul~ bays rebutted plaintiffs' proof a~ ~o the lnel- deuce of l~ug e~t ~cer (a cigarette ~vaoker~ without presenting testimony ea~gori. early eontradlc~ory to that wkieh had al- ready beet~ found as *t fact. For these re~sons, this judgment must be reversed aBd i~Iaanded for a new trial. II. The matter do.s not earl here, [9] tn the ~bsence of some materie2 change o~ controlling slate law, occur- ring sinoo the da~e of our former duel- 40a t~ n; Pr. wb p~ Col Eb: S.C Co~ eev{ te~ ~da
Page 43: 0060119034
;RI~$ ~ then it cannot be said tea [as a cause.of cancer] sonably fit and wholesome tion by the general public. feet ~.ha~ j~ri~s maF he rs- ~nr~ verdicts on ¢h01ces be- dLv £mpess~ble !~rCl:~itiovs. july in this ~cond ~la] b]y hound, and so informed, ng ~f its predecessor tha~ ndeed ~evn a ~uae o~ the C~reen arid that smoking cigarettes had ]~een erie of e causes of that cancer, it ~ard from experts which it rent province of believing, hat such could not pcavibly her~J'o~p ~nno[ prey9 t~e WaS no~ the sf~uIard upon 3urt dlrec~ed that the case 'led. There w~as express dl- the cause of death must 'ate~ in ~he co~rse of act- st/on of ~asonitb]e a#fety e general .mblIc. !~, we must I[kewJse l'~cog- fly df~tresslug il~di~ment dge. At rite £i~ bIush he with the pI~v[0~slF deter- at dece~aed had die:i from product, and then h~ wa~ over the de~mination of a product nevertheless Was ~e ~or USe by the general to th[8 d~Iem~a, in OUr I that appe]]ee could ]~ave tfffs' proof as to the inci- dent i~ elgare~t~ ~m0kera nt~ng t~timoay c~tegori- tory to that which had al- nd as a fact, asous, thIs Stldgment must IlL lees not end here. absence of some mater~al trailing state law, occur- d~te of our former deci- ' 11, 196~, Z2~ F,2d 673, t Advartee Sheet) ~tRl~ B~I ~. AI~IBI~AN TOBAC00 CO]~LPABY 105 the direc~ons ~f our fo~mer reread6 ~ ~i~l~ icr th~ ~ur~a¢ ~ ~ • main the law of this ease and wou~d have to Ice adhered to on the ascend r~mand. On the o~her hand, i~ there ha~ been a material change in th~ co~tr~l]ing st~t~ law, either by enactment OF lay c~ari~ying infe~l)retat~on, We arc bound to ~oI[cw ttt~ [a~z ~s i~ n~w exists. Va~denbsrk v. Owe~s-llli~ols G[~ss Co., 311 LLS. 588, 81 S.Ct. 347, $~ L.]~d. ~27 (1941) ; :ffuddla- seen v. Dwye~ ~22 ~.~. p~2, 64 B.Ct 1~)1t~, 98 L.Ed. ~24~ (1944); Jones Se.he]/eaberger. 7 CI~., 1955. 2~15 F.2d 784, cert ~en[ed, 350 U.S. 9~9, 76 S~Ct. 476, :too LEd. 85~ (1956). • After the argumeut of thi~ a~al we reque~d the parties to file, and wo have ~e~,ze4, hr[e~ o~ ~ ¢lu~stlon of Whether such a okang8 ba~, ~deed, taken place. [10] Them t~ longer r~malns any doubt of the power ~d d~ty ,~ this Cout~ in proper cases ~n direct the entry of a judgment n. o.v. Neely v. Martin E. S.Ct, i072, 18 LEd.2d ~6 (1987). We have hera~sfore referred, ~± page 100, to the langua~ of the Supreme Cou~e~ of Florida whc~ it m~swer~d ot~r carti~ied question, as f~llows~ • "The eontention khat the wh~lesome- ~SS~ of ~ ~toduct ~hould be de~rm~u~i on any standard other than i~ ~c~ttal safety for human consumption, when 3. ~[anton ~ Cad~hy l'aoklng CO., I~4 FI~ 87¢~, 19 gs~ ~13 (IP44); Seac~¢ Other I~q~rid~ dee[slo~ as to proc~tcm Intended for h~me~ ~ ~ro: (I) H~man b]~d used in tranafmd~e, R~tss~l ~ Cmmunlty B]OO¢] Bank, IS5 Sa,~Od '/49 (~a.lg6@): Comm~iry Blond I~87), (2} Cai~dy b~r. W~.~er ~ Mars. ][n~, 186 SoZtd ff73 (~I~.Ap~A~C4). {3) Soft drl.ks, Miami Co~ Cola ]~ot- ~]l~g C~ ~ TOdd, 101 So2d 34 (FI~ 3~B). (4) Re~tnurant food, 0]left ~ Lam~ero da[C ~Biltamore ~2orp,, 8~ So.2d 4~ (:[~l~ We note that as to f~ad or pro,lt t ~b~ i~. te~ed for h~m~ use ~uernffy the Fi~r- 391 f.2~n~ [is] ot~e which we ~rc persuaded has no £oundation in the decided cases." W'e must emphasize ~he words "actual eaf¢~y" appearing in ~be above passng~ Then, as already po[nted'ou~, page 1{)1 aat~ after the aecend trim below [the trial new under consideration] the Su- preme Court of Florida, in MeLeod v. W. 8. ~t~ell Co. D~v, of R[cb~r&~c~-~er- roll, Inc.t ~upra~ May fi, 1966, tcog ~ca- sion to e~plain whalr it had melmt in Gl*een V, Amebean Toba¢~ Company, FI~t. 154 ~o.~d 169. It said tha~ on I~ recta r*f this ea~ it had applied the rule of r~bsolute or sexier liability (t~e quota# . tion ~]luded to). [11] On April 28, I965, the Sttpreme Court of FIm-i~a decided tke ~ of Foley v. Weaver Dr~gs, lue,, 177 So.2d ~L The accused produc~ was a bottle Wl~h ~t~I~ed red~e~n~ p~[Iz. W'ae~t the prcsl~Ct~VC truer ~tempted to open the bottle by ~¢rewi~ the top it broke, fragmented, an~ thus lacerated her Tight W~t BUitW~ brought 0n negli~ene~ St~preme Court hcId t~at # re~iler's im- pffc~-waz~ty ]iabfllty as to food did not ez~cnd t~ ~l~s eantaitmr. ~n ~h~ course of arrlvi~g at this decision, how~ ~er, argl re~ewiuz t~ cases prraiau~l~" deemed a~ ~ tinned meat, and csnned ~rdine~,s the Court stated ~hat it had ~¢s#', Thes~ I~mltatlous ]~ve b~ea ~p~i, however, to p~duets ~ot ~tendcd fo~ G~yemr Ti~e sud R~bber ~. ~.App,, I67 go,pA 254 {19~4) involdng #pc f~r .#e ~n ~cMde~tm] lqwn sprinkling ~ys- ~, an~ F~en~luger v. ~o~@most I)slr~ ies. Ine~ 1~I ~o~d 602 {~a.App,19~5) cited i~ ~he text. ~greeme~C w~th Wb~t the ~preme C~urt d~n ~etween the u~ of ~ ey~W~
Page 44: 0060119034
I06 twice previously affirmed the principle that .6 ~ • as to ite.~ of fvod or other products in the oI~glnal package which are offered for vale for human consumptio~ or use generally, a per- son who 9ur~h~ses Such itexn~ in re- liance upou the expres~ or implied cml- dlti0n or assuYRnce" that they are wholesome and fit for the us~ or purposes fer which they are adver- tised or a~Id, and who is injured as the res~l~ of the tmwheiesome or deleter£ous substances therein which arc unknown to the buyer, may hold ( Adwnee Sheet) ~1 P~J)EE/~ P~OET~E. 2d ~E~8 the purpose illtended and that under the fac~ found by the jury his ~ersonaI rep- resentative and Widow are entitled to hold the I~auufacturer absolutely liRble for the injurles already found by a prier jury to h~ bee, ausialned by him. Thls being so. in addit~ou to ceverslng thls judgment and remanding fur a new trial we must al~o direct the District Court to enter judgment for the pla~n- tiff~ on the issue of liability and to ~ub- mlt the issue of damages to another jury. P~verse(l and remanded, with dlrec- riot. eRher,the manufacturer er the retailer . SIMPSON, Circuit Judge (diasenV liable in damaged for injuries s~stalnod lag) : by him, on the theory of an implied warranty of wholesomeness or fitaes~ o~ ~ueh article or product for the put ~oses for which it was off~d to ~he public'*. Foley w~s decided two years after our original remand an~ dire~ttuna In this ease. The s[gui]'ieallt thing is that as to products intended for human ~s~ gener- ally ne~her McLeod nor Fo~y anywhere modified or limited the requirement of ~itness o~ Wholesomeness ~ "r~so~lab]e fitness" or "reasonable wholesoraeness'~ On February 9, 196~, the Distrie~ Cour~ of Appeal of Fle~d~, Third Dis- trier, Renninger v. Foremost Dairies, Inc. 171 S~2d 602, cert. denied, Florida Supreme Ca~r~ 177 Se.2d 480, dec~ded Rcnninger ~ Foremss~ Dairies, Inc., in- volving a defcctlve milk bottle. While imposing the reasonable fitness Iimita- tlon to this object not inteuded for ]lllman cuns~mptlon, the ~uurt n~ver~be. less queued verbatim ~.he faregoi~g paa- nage from Foh~y. [12J In the light of thes~ decisions, rendered st~bsequent to ~ur furlcer opin- ion~ We ~ new ~e~ in lie Bubstan~ial d~ubt that under Florida law" the de. cedent was entltled ts rely on the im- plied Msurance ¢]~at the Lucky Strike ¢igar~tt¢~ were wltole~ceme g~d ~ t~or i. L~mbe~m~ M~tual C~m~lty C~. ~. W~ight, 5 Cir.1~63, ~ IP~d ~9 at "/[~; With de:!erence, I dissent from the ma- Jority up[rd~n. I view the second trial of this ¢~te as having b~n fairly con- dueted uncut the ~tandards laid down by ~i~ CourL oil remaild, (]teen v. Amerlcan Tobacco, 325 F.2ct 673. Further, I Call perceive n~ "e~gent re~en"~ither a change ill contrelllng law or any other-- ~r reverning the prior panel of this Court and directing tha~ the court be[uw enter judgment m o. v. for plaintiffs on the issue o£ Iiabl]ity. I. I understand Par'~ I of the m~orlty op~nlo~ to held the trla/ judge in errar for rei'uslag to strlke ~he testimony of the defendant's expert witnesses quoted on pages 103 and 104 of the opinion, to Cbe general effee~ ~hat they did not kn~w the callse of cancer, and that they did ~ot belleve there was a causal con- nection bel;ween stacking and lung ~n- cer. This line of testimony was opened up by and irt dir ~ct respuu~e to testimony by the pla~tlf~' exgerts to the effect that eigare ~te Jmokillg causes lung ~ancer in a aiz~Rb~e p~rt of the smoking pol~ ula- t~on, that one out of nine or ten heavy cigarette slnekers die of lung cancer, fJ~Rt ,~,000 or 36,000 d~tth~ yearly in the United Shtt¢~ ate ~muned by lung cancer caused by ellwrctte smoking ~nd that 42a th~r~ cuneer that~r thein; are n, ~urnp~ It s pert v or crc Th~ in de~ or ca~ prlvat far u~ practfi ]~ynl~i l~ was The r hardly Inh made i that o: (Edwi ~f the~ had b~ mined one of was Iu But no ]y wlt~ 2. Dr basN? fo~n ~ha¢ taa[ (R. ! ~on~ ~aslv down fua*.i nf Fr
Page 45: 0060119034
intended and ~ha~ under the ly the jury his personal rep- ~nd widow are entitled to aul~t~'er ab.~ulely liable lee already found by a prior been sustained by him. so, in add!tion to rover$in~ st also dlr~ the District er ~udgment for the plaln- s~ue of ]]l~bility and to sub. of d~m~.ges to auothcr jury. Jnd remanded, ~vi~ direc. Circuit Judge (dissent- ~llCe~ I d~Bsen~ from ~]le ms. ~. I view the second trial ~s having been fair[y con. t~ s~,udarda ~ ~v~ rer~an d~ Green V. A~erioan F~d 678. Fur~he~ 1 can ~ogel3t re.~on" ~her trolling law or any other-- ! the prier panel of this ~ctlng that the c~ur~ below n~ n. o, v, for plaintiffs on ~bi[ity. L ld P~art I of the maJori~ ld the trial judge in error e~ike the testimo~v of ~a exl~r~ w~ne~s~ quoted ; and 104 of the opiniQn, 1 effect ~a~ they did not ~e of cancer, and that they ~1 smoking and lung ~m~- e of testimony was opened lirsc~ re~rou~e to t~imony If~' experts to th~ effect imoking cause~ lung* cancer ~rt of the emOkmg popu]ao out of ~ine or te~ heavy ~er~ die of lung c~cer~ that ~00 cT~tks y~rl~ ~ the are cau ~,~ by lunE cancer ~ g~,oking ~i that (Advance Sheet ~ GRE B~" ~ AMERIC~ TOBAC~0 00~PA~Y tbe~e i~ a much greater ~neld~nee of ]uug cancer in the half of the adult ~opula~[o~ that erdokcs. The jury was lef~ to draw ~he inference ~at de~en~an~'~ cigare'~t~ are ne~ r~a$ouably fit for ~ui~n cord- It should be noted that ~2~s' ex- per5 w~tn~ ~ified ~r ~n dire~ or cro~s-~x~m~n~tlon to ~a~ lack of know~edge as to the cause of ~ucer.z That ~ng, costly ~ad intenlJve research I07 whether or not ei~arettes are reasouab}y f]k 2n~ who!eso~le for the u~e of the general public to whom they ~re sold." ]t w~s iterated and reltera~ed by the in~truc~ions that the sole factual is~ue~ were (1) whe~er e[garette~ are re~son~ ably fit and whd#s~me for eJon~umptlolT . I~F the pvblL~ and (21 if ~ey are u~t, what were plaln~f][~' p~ven darnage~. Thi~ w~ exactly the issue upo~ which in 6epth aimed a~ d~se~er]ng ~e eau~ There is a~m¢IF ~o hr~ala for the rag,- or causes of aaneer by bu~ pabl[c and joriLv~ condusloa that th~ admission o~ private agencies i~ ~ont/nulr~g, and is so this te~tlm~ny eotifused the jury "a~ to far un~u~essful ~s • lnat~e~ of genera], that ~whi~ ~ad already been dc~emlned ]~raetlcslly universal kno~wle~ge. I~ ig $ fact of our daily life as well known to la~T~en as to doctol~ or ~udgeB. Of cour~ i~ was known to h~e members of 1his jury. The receipt of this inten~ge~0e could hardly have come as a shock to them. to ~ ~ f~eL*~ ~ IL It would be harmful enougl~ to this de~ fendant, who has twice won this ca~e be- fore a ~ury. if the mato~ty cpinion :~ko~ ped a~ ~he end of Port [. True, the I~r- In hio jezry lnat~ctions the tral judge t~es would be put to the time, the trouble made it abundantly cIear that "~n a pre° and ~he expense of yet another jury trial, ~iou~ determ[~atlon |t wa~ del~rmL~ell bu~ ~e~apa upon another trlal o1~ the i~- t~at one of the proximate causes o~ hI~ sue d~zected to be tried by the earller (Edwin Green's) death was the smoking ~aneI of this Ceffr~, the ~rial court coutd ~f these cigarettes." Earlier the ~ury Iimitthetes~imonyofthedefendant'~'e~" had bee~ instructed: **I~ ha~ been deter* ~crts i~ a manner to ~it the ~bJe~t~on~ mined that Green smoked ci~aret~ and of the majority. one of ~e ~rcximate causes o~ ~is death But, the maJerity ~plni~n Bays, "The wa~ lung cancer c~u~ed by~ cigarettes, matter d~s not ~nd here" In par~ II But flow we are ~ot eo~eel~ed par tlcularp of the op~rl[o~* i~ ~'eaehcs the conclusion, |y with Green. ~Ve are coneer~ed wi~h asserte~y ba~ed on two Florida Bupreme 2. Dr. W~ader: ,,N01mdy know~ wh~ the bas~o cause nf enn~er i~ * • **, (R. 2S~) (Dircc~l. D~ Levin: *,there is no form of cancer. A~ a ma~ter of f~ we ~re ~o~ even su~ ~hat ca.eer I~ a d~ease tha~ ha~ an ea~entlal ~mlae.~ (It. ~28- 3L~) (Cr~). Dr. Heiler~ ,'~t i~ a vir. tual impossibility ~o jmrtie~la~e u~o~ a oause o~ .ny e~ncer ~n a ~]u~e ludiv~d u v]" (R. 2~1) and "We ~Io no~ kuow the rea. ao.s ~hy c~ll~ pr~life~te ~nd b~com~ in- va~ive c~ncers". (R. 2~4/ ICress). Dr, T~e cone~de~l t~a~ h[~ po~it~o. "bcil~ • ~n~]l ~¢e ~nd o~t tile cause,,. (R ~0) (C~assL 3. '£"~e conclusion t]mt the jur~ w~ con. fused h f~rther re.ted by f~01note 14~h biIity, Vo[. 2. | 1~314], whet#in the Jury f¢,teman oa the ev¢o,d trial of the eaa~ Was ql~o~d i~ ~sl~ng: .lI£ wo bad have ~lid .no. ~r. Mu~lao, a 3g-year. o]d s~vlng~ ~nd loan eOt, lmUy ~utlv~ s~Id. Bu~ the ~dg~ told us ~peefficalI~" tn decide if cIg~rettca are rea~onabl~ ~a~ and wholesome for human ~n~rap. win ~. Gr0en dEe~ of ~n~ We d~d~*t det~ire I~aL We d~dcd ~c ke~ • .~r~wa~eee*o~le.~ Wllat is ab~oh.tely ~afe? B'o~ ~ome I~pl~ rnmkln~" i~ not rea~lmble? ".~.e i/~ided i~ w~." Ne.~ York Time~. lgo~. ~. 1.~4. (~mph~ adde~). !['hi~ ~dielaI e~ree ~ve,l~ that ~he ju~y wa~ s~nyth~ b~ mlalcd. ~a
Page 46: 0060119034
(Advance Sheet) 108 391 FEDP.pF~ ~POB~P* ~d fl~rES Co~'~ eases i de~iged since the ae~tif~a- ~lute or ~trlct llabilfty to the sltua~Jo~l t/on proceedings, that there has o~carred a ~t~r~ eha~lge in ¢o~rol~i~g ]¢Ral prln~p]es ~ln~e ~he decision of the pr~or pan*I on the first aI~De~l of this case, 3Z~ F.~d 67~. On this predlrate ~e t'ci~l ~our~: f~ directed ~o ~nter judgment n. o• .~ as to [lability and to limit the t~ird trial the sole i~ue o~ dams ,g~:9, I :~ai~ lo :{in(] ar~ material change in le[orlda law by re~son of MeLeod ~nd Fo~v~ supra• I~daCd, f u r~her post ~'ree~, ~pror~n~ements o~ ~e Fl~rld~ Sttpr~e Court point to a dfametrJca]ly eF~oslto, coucl~alon, ~0 be ~mmented t~pon ]atsJe In this dissent. McY~od deciSed that ~ retail dr'ag- ~'lsts were'~ot liable under ~n imp~fed warranty of fltnes$ for dlspenslng in the w~nufa~kar~s ol4gdn~l eo~ner nDon physieiml's pre~eriptio~ a drug known "Me~'/290 (adver ti~ed as a commodity for c~nt ~Iti~g body ~h~leakerol) to a castom- er wlw ~ufa'ered hl~ury from ~*~klng ~¢~e drug as directed by the ~ysle~l. ~h~ p~titloner (p]~int~ff-c~s~rner below) cont~aded that the advfsory ~21nlon in Gree~v. Ame~i~ ~obacco Co,, Fla.. ]$4 S0,2~ 18~, sust~lne~ MS position. I~ disposhlg of. this contention the Florida S~r ~ro,~ Ccur~ s~id: ~There ~r~ s~veral dis~luguish[ng eIemen~• Green was a ~uit against a m~mufaeturer, lit in~]~e~ ~t Commod- ity wb'~h was av~h~bM it~J~Umr [ra/r~t e- ly ~o the ~ub[ie lleneralIy. Green ~n - be suramarlzad as a case whleh app]ied o. ru~e of $~o{uf~ de atr[c~ liability to the manufacturer of a commodity who had pieced R i~ ~he chm~ne]s of trade fo~ co~)C~a by ~ public general- ly, The ease before ~s i~ lacking in m~uy of thes~ siJ~ff]eaat el~ment~." The language ,~ust quoted inaludes thab quot~J, m~ pag~ l.OL o£ the ra~or~ty opin- ion, ~nd which ie o~vanced at the top of page 105 of ~e opizlio~ as categorically s~tin~ that Gr~e~ t4plAi~ ~he ~uls of ab- 4. MaLeod v. W. S. Merrel~ Oo.~ D~¢. o| R~¢hardson M$~e~. Inc., 1T4 SON.d 7~ (I9~1; and ]lOW ~e;~ore us, The majorigF seems to he captivated by l&e eharae~eri~J.ion in I,[eLeod tha~. ~ ree~ "~pplled a ride a~ absolute or stJrlc~ liability to the manufacturer o~ a eom- r~odit3" who had placed it ~u the eban~ls of trade for eonsumpUon by the publi~ generally". In Green the Florida Su- preme Court did apply a /hie of absohlfe or stric~ Iiabillt~ in ~he se~e that i~ said t4tat liability dig not depe~ ~pon know~. edge or foreaeeabRi~ Of harmful eJ~ee~#. Th/$ w~ the question ~e~ore Jr. Never- thele~*, a~ the prio~ panel in this ease r~*ognized it made clea~ that this ab- solute or strict stanclarc[ was ~o be ag~ plied to T6~,~on~b~e fit~s for co~sump- '~he p~r~on~ o~ t'~a M~Leod vpirdon quoted by the m~jority ~tanding al~ne and Out of c~n~ex~ may plau$ib/y aBpear to support lhe holdii~ of 'the ~ai~Idt'¢. H~wever, iramediats]y foIl~wlng Ole por- ties of MeLeoc~ quo~ed by th~ m~Jority, we find further elabor~t[o~ as to exactly Wh~ iB inv~Pce~ lt~ ~he Mcf~o¢~ ~tB~. ~h,! 0dUff s~ated: "Inigfect, t~e petitlo~" ar Mc~od is ~ki~g l~s to impose tlpon i~ retail p~ese~ip~on dFogSJ~ an ab- sinth, sx!rlct liabiIiW wit;zoe/, ~#~I~ in an ~¢tion i~ tort." (Emphasis added) 174 ~o.2d at 78~. On Lhe same pa8% while ~xxm~aari~ing its, I'~k~i~E, ~x~ £~n~t x'~ taler ~dded: "The eoneep(; of 8trfc~ l/a- bitit y '~(~ fou~ should not be tipptied to UIe prescription drogglsts in tl~e in- stant s~oatfon." (~mp]~aSi~ added)• From tho foregoin¢ ]anl~uage, nothing e~ulcl be clearer than that strict [lability n~zec~ hF the FIorlda courts. Cllett v. LRuder~ale Biitmore Corp., 39 So.2d 476 (F)a.194[O ; ~e~lcer v. Carl~s ~'darket, 45 8o.2~ 671 (FL~I950}, Where my breth~ go astr~r is iR equating tile enti~e]~ separate coAeep~ of strict liability w]th- out f~ult with strict liability without re-
Page 47: 0060119034
~RD~S ict llablli%y to th~ 8~tultio~ ~y ~eems to be captivated by ~ri~ation ~ McL~ that ed a rub of absolute or strict he manufacturer of a ¢om- had placed it in ~he channels eonsur~ption bY the public In G~¢'4 the Florida Su- did apply a rule of absolute ility in the sense that it sa~cl ceab~ity of ~rm~ effects. h~ prior panel ill th~ t made eb~x that th~ ab+ let ~ta~dard was f~ be ai~- o~b~e fitn~s ~or ~onsum~ >as of ~h~ M~¢od opinion ma~Ol~ ~y s~nd{~g alone and • t may Rh~siblY aI~pear to holding of the majority. ~ediai;v~y ~ollo~v~T~g ~ lmr- ~od quoted by the majority, let elaboration as to exactly ~ ~u the MCL+Od case. ted : *+In e f~et~, the ~et [tio~*= ; a~klng us to impose Upon re~c~io~ druggists a~ ab- ItabiIity wCPhog2, fa~d~ In au t." (l~m!~hvsls added) 174 On ~'~e aame I)ag~, while its holdlng, the cour~ far- "The concept of stH0t Ha- ! fauI~ should ~ot be applied ipt[on druggists In the in- m." (Emphasis added). 'oregolng language* nothing :er than that strict ]tabiIity is, a~d hffs b~n, well ~ee~g- Florida courts. Cllet~ V. iltmore Corp., ~ ~o.2t147~ Sencer v. Carl's ~arket, 45 ImlgG0). Wher~ my broth- • is ia equatla g the entirely :opt of strict liability wRh+ a strict liability wKhout re- ( Advance Sheet) ~R~ ~,. 2~F~:[OA N TOBACCO ~OMPANY 109 gar~ to a product'~ reasonable ~itness for Market, supra, 45 So.~d 571, ~72", and consumption or 0se by the general p~b[ic, then procecde~ to set forth th~ language quo~ed hF the maJor)ty a~ the top o~ pab'e Foley, the oth~r case r~I[ed upo~ by the 106 of the majority opinion. The point maJorfty', in~ol~'ed the i~np][ed warranty h~re i~ ~h~ ~ thes~ ca~ "~e~e hefr~ liability of a retail druggist for a defect and discussed by the Florida ~uprcme in a container f~r reducing p~II~ known Cour~ when it answered o~1. certified a~ "Thfndown", the cow,aider¸ h~ing a question at 154 ~o2d 169. The B~a~to~ g]~ bottSe WhiCh c~osed W]~h a Bcrew-cn case i~ quoted in f~otuote 7, ou pag~ 171, top. The p~rchaser's wife at+~mptefl to coupled wlth¸~ eltation to Circle. The open ~he bottle by unscrewing the top. holding ia Sencer v. Carl's Markct ls dis- The ho~le hr~ke, frag~ented~ Bad one cussed extensively on ]page ~71, By l~ piece lacerated her right wrist. The interpretation+ no ma~ter how strained, Florida Supreme Co, let took the ¢~e up- co~d F~ley logically or reasonably b~ • on cert~orarl because the homing below ~ew~l aa a ~hange ta a0pllca~le Fbrida ~a~ ~he plaintiffs had n~ cause Of action IaW when ~he por~ion o~ the opinion re]led ~galnst the re#~i[er for breach ~f an ira. piled warranty o~ fitness and merchant- on by the m~J~rlty is a qtlot~ frora a ~b~y was ~ dlrectc~fl~ witR Ca~ad~ Florkla case deemed e{ghteen y~ars ago. Dry ]Bottling C¢. of Fla. ~. ~haw, 118 The referertee3 in $'oley aad McLeorl So.2d 840 (2d D.C+A.1960), de~ided by to the holding of Green as e~b]ishil~g the Second Dis~rlc~ Court of A~eal ira= strict liability muM, bc read fn con~e:~t. posing l[ab~[ity ttpoR hc~ bottler and re- In these and o~her c~ses the raferenve to taller. The case under review was ap* strict er absolute Habfllty has refereuce proved and C4~ Dr~ dls~proved. ~y t~ the Iong followed c~lcep~ ~at IL~- Fo{~y, therefor'e; ~uds ~or ~he prolmsi- b~y is im~ ~r ~efe~v~ p~o~et~ t~on ~hat as to defective eonta[nrrs call~= regar¢lles3 of whether Lhe defect CoL~d i~g injmry Florida wI]I ~ot [mpome upo]~ have been discocered by the m~nufactur+ retailers liab[]iLv for implied war+fruity ~ er. This ls a ~om~lon use of te~rminology ~ne~ It decided nothing whateve~ to dletinguish between the ~egllgence with respec~ to liability of either manu- concel~ of fault a~ opted ~o the implied facturer or retailer upon implied war. warranty co]l~ept o~' liability regardle~s ranty~v}thr~speckelther to foodorOElel" of fault, Carter ~ t~ector ~upp]F Co. product intended for human ¢~sump- 128 So.2d 390 (Fla.|961); CIiett v. Lafl~ t/on. The Florida Supreme Court mt~ted derdale Biltmore C~rp., supra; and Mi- (Foley, Va~e 2~+ 177 So.2d) that the e~- ami Coca C~la Bott~iaf~ CO. v. Todd~ 101 act question before i~ had not thereto+ So,~d 34 (F[a,196$). £vl.e been presented to ~hat cc,~r~. It it i~ slg~if[cant to me ~h~ neither ~n proceeded to discuss i~ prior holdings im~oslng liab~ity upo~ both re~iIer-sell- their ~rizi~[ hr~ef ~er ~a their re~ly er al~d manufacturer of foodst~£s sold brief did the appe~lallts, despite urgi~lg ~ ~ea]ed eor~ta[Tl~t's ~r hljTirieB ca~ed this Coart¸~0 rev~3e the prlo~ p~le]~ re- hy ~ n~hg~m~, or dele*.~:m~s sib~*~- for in any way to elthcr McLeo~ or $'oZe~ es~hereln,citingBlan~onv:CudahyPack. To further emphasize the radlcaI inte~ ing C~., 154 Fla, 872, 19 $o,2d 313 (1944) proration the majority n~w places on Fo- l~y, we' note th~ plaiTl~J[ fs' eounse[ in the (ma~l]f~c~t~r~r azd packt~r o~ ti~lne~- i~nt ~se ~e~'e li~elvise ~ollnsel ~1] meat). $encer V, Carl's Market. ~5 So~d Foley. Yet Fvley was net cited or r~I[ed 671 (FI~.I950) (r~aiIer-se][ero~ean~ed upon norevel~re£erred~ by'p]ai~t~f;s savd[ne~), and Clle~t v. Lauderdale Bi/t- until ~ter ~his court requested supp]e- more Corp., 39 ~o.2d 47~ (Fla.1949) (un- mental brle~ from counsel as ~o whether wholesome ~ood served ill dlnin~f room), or not l~ef~od a~d F~Iey requ~d ~h+"t It said ~hat "as stated in the CI~ctt case, ~udgment n, o. v. be entered for the • supra, aud r~irmed in Sencer I'. CarPs pla]ntiH~ on llabllity. These arc capable 45a
Page 48: 0060119034
110 arid experienced ~]orida I~wyers, ¢~s~ clally ~ki]led In r~r~sentati~u of lflain- tiffs hi per~ ~i~ry a~d death ¢~e% [neludlug specifically ee~*e~ involving products liability. It stral~ credulity to assume t~at their ~atliire ~ 'ei~e McLe~d add Fob'y originally wa~ the proda~t of oversight. Rather, the more logical conclusion is simply that Fobr¢ a~d MuLeud were not relied upon by ~Jaln- tiffs' Oouu~l for the obvious reason that neither case etaad~ for fhe proposition for which it is cited by my bretI~ren. The theory ~h~t thes~ two eases sigma] a departure by ~he Supreme Court of Flori- da ~rol~ ~he advice given us ~ lg4 So.2d 169 is eomp]e~ely oHglnaI with the ma- JoriW opinion in this case• In ~ubstance, my Position is that the majority has felled to rscog~lize ~he uniqu~ne~s o~ the ~ltu~en pr~svst~d. We are not dealing with an ob~'Ious, harmful foreign body in a product. Nei- ther do we have an ex~oding or brePk~rtg bottle case wherein the defe~t is so ohv~ vus that it w~rrants no d~ussion. 'In- stead, we have a product (cigarettes) that is in no way defective. They are exactly lik~ all o~hers of the particular brand and virtually the s~yme as all other b~'ands on the nmrkeL The sta~emeut of Judge C~ood~, [i1 ~ eoueurri~g opinlo~t in Prltehard v. Ligget~ ~nd ~l,er~ Tobacco • Co., 295 F,2d 292, 302 (3 Cir. 1961), is ev,u~lIy applicable here: "If a man buys whlskey and drinks ~0 much of it a~ gets some ]~ver trouble as a result I do not think ~he ~mnufactursr is Iiabte ~e~ (1) the maaufaeturvr Lulls the customer the Whiskey will n~. h~r~ ~'m~ or (2) the whiskey is adulterated--made with methyl alcohol, for i~stanee, The same sells butter to a customer who should be o~ a nonfat diet The ~ne is ~rue, llk~wlem, a~ ~.~ ~ who ¢~a~L~ ~u4 ~ei~ salted peauu~ to a e,stomer who s~ld be o~ a ne~eaIt diet, Surely if tk~ hut*.e~ v.r~ the pe~ut~ ~x~ ~re ther~ ia no liability if the cholesterol (Advance Sheet) 391 ~EEAr~ ~0P~TER, 2~flBKl~s court rises ¢~angeruus]~'* (Emphasis added) It is significant b~ note that in the ~n- sL~ut ease there has never been even an attempt to prove either of the two abOVe listed exceptlo~ls. ~nahillty ~o !orove a sp~ifie de~ecg would Dot preclude liabil- ity if ~.here w~s proof ~he product was Unreasonably dangerous without a de~ect E~u under the new strict Iiabillty in tort (as oppo~d /~ an action [n warean* ey) theory found in Section 402A of the ~estatement of Tort~ (~:cond), Comment i provides: "Oood tobacco is not unrea- sonably dange~us merely beet uses the ef- fects of smoking may be ha~mfuh but tobacco containing ~omething llke mari. juana may be unreasonably daugerells." On March I, 1967, the Florida Supreme C.~urt d~i~e4 ~b~ ease ~f Comrau~i+~ Blood ~lank Inc. v. Russell, 196 So,2d I15, ~nd provided several indleat lens as b~ the preei~ hoMin~ in Geeell attd ttte state of tile law ~n Florlda. R~a~sel[ involved the liability of It blood hank for blood soId vontaining the medfollg tmdetectab[e ~d unremovable serum hepatitis. In re- viewing the aetion of the District Court of Appeal. the ~our~ cited Green with ap- proval ~t~ authorizing r~mand *'for trial or* ~sauea of fact," (Emphasis ~uppIicd) 196 So.2d a~ 117. SUch a recent pro~ nouncemen~ by the Florida Supreme Court ia Ru~e/~ that Green wss properly remanded by the prior panel, eer~ainIy runs counter tu the ~lJoritfs deei~iuu • that fndgmen~ should be cohered for the pt~ntif f3 o~ lisbi]~ ty ~s a matter of l~w. Justice Robert~ of the Florida Supreme Court filed a ~pecia]ly concurring opinion though conceded]y not au expeession binding the Court In his special con- cur r once ill Rt~se{~ h~ Itwlle~t e$ the% ~ ~l- low avoidano~ of liability because of in- ability to detect or remvve fl~e ~e~um het~ atlt~ "~u$ £o~t~t,~r t~ t'ae very basi~ <~f the strict ar [~plied warranty theory of I~abillty--L~a~ is, Iigbillty witkoul f aMt-- R~d is iu dlreet c~uf [i~t ~<ttk the duels(an of this c~urt Iv Green v. Ameri~n T~ 46a baeco C 2dat 11 At a: phlned follows : g]~ voul of brea rner~h~L ~he 7 ated." Rob@rt~ ~]aln, ht ,,T] a pro one tab~is whiet ¢0 thl that is ards . ~ueh u p~odc: suraer (Orlgi 5ustie MeLeod, was disd defe~t c~ should b, blood w~ by ~lr~u~ bepatlti~ lnov&ble, If Just as eorrec or d~cidv any w*qy p~qs~ge. IR[ed wa ther~ hat tion in liahlilt,: use. ]DP~ conclusle:
Page 49: 0060119034
~ER]~S e~ dangerously." (Emphaals ificant ~ note that ~n the in- her~ ]la~ never been even ~n prove ~t'n~r o~ %he %wr~ abo~ bLions. Inability to prove a oct ~u]d not preclude I~[lI WaS p~oof the product w~s y dangerous Without a *~e feet. er the new s~rict liability in ~os~d to an act/on in warran- ~und i~ Section 40EA of ~e ;of Tortm I Second), Comment "6~eod ~bacco /s not un1"e~.- ~erous merely bee~.~s~ the e;~o ~k~g m~y he h~Tmf~ h,~t ~ainlng somethlug llke ma=i- unreaso~bly dangerot~." 1,19~7~ the Florida Supreme ed the ca~e of Community Inc. ~ Russell, 19~ So.2d 11~, I several indications a~ to the lag ~n Gree~ and the state n Florida. R~ssdl involved of a blood bank for b~ood sold the m~d~ea]ly undet~L~ble ,able Serum hep~t~. In=e- action ~f the Di~trle~ Co~ le eour~ eite~ Green with ap- tborlzing remand "~r ~l ~t:~ ('~m~ha~is ~ul~l~ed) 117. Such a recent p~o- by the Florid~ Sup,~me ~e~ that Gree~ was p~p~r]y the ~r~r ~, e~a~nt~ • to the majority's deelsi~n ot sho~Id be entered for the ]i~billty as a mRtter of law. 5er~ of the F[orlda Suprelne specially concurI ~ng up,alva Ills views are interesting, ,~de~ not¸ au e.x~r~on CourL In his special eon- ~se~ he indicat~s that to al- e of liability because of [n- ~ounte~ to the wry basis o~ implied warranty theory of !e% e~|~t with ~h~ d~e~ior* in Green v..~.r~erlean To- (Advance Sheet) GR]8]IN ~ AMEEICAN TOBAC00 00~A~Z baeeo Co., supra. 1~4 S~.2d 169." lfl~ So. 2d at 119 (Em~a~is adde~). At a~oth~r point Justice Roberts ex- ~alned the e~ur t~ holdln~ in AfcLe~d as ~R~: "(W]¢ held ~ha~ the rot nil drug~ gist oo~]d not be held liable ou the theory of ~e~h if [sic] implied warranty of mel~hau~ bili~ where the drug ~uppli~ ated." 196 ~o.~d a~ 1~. It w~ J~stiee RobertS' ob~r~at~on that ~he :key word ~n, he added: • "there is a clear di~e~en ~en a product which is not adul~r~d-- ~ue which me~t~ ~lt ~h~ sta~rda es- t~llshed for a lWxr~icu~" p~uet but which h attended with a known risk to the eonaumer---an~ a predi~et ~'hlch is, ~n fact, adulterated and ~fective-- Shat is, which does not meet the stand- ards established f~r this ]partlcu]ar p~od~t--and which would, beem~e of such tlnlmgwn and undete~ble defee~ ]~odgee R h~n~ f ~1 effect open an~l con- sumer ~he~£." 196 S..2d at 120 (Ori~ir~l eml~m~ia). Justice Eoberts then condu,~ed that MeL¢ud, in which there was no l~bi~i~y, defect or adul~r~io~, but tha~ ~he~e shon]d be liability h~ R~l because l~e hlo~ was in fact aduttezated .r ~efee~e ~y virtue of the pr~senc~ o~ ~te ~er~m ~e~atitls aIbelt undetec~abIe a.d nnr¢- mova~e. If Justice Robing ela~n is t~ken correct, and certainly nothing was said or decided in Foley or M~Leod which in any way eent~iets th~ above quo~ed passage, then the F[orlda pns~tlon ~n ira- pried ~mrranty is c]~r]y one in which there has to flrs~ be an ~etna[ adultera- ~do~ in the prQduct before there c~n he liability from h~n~ resu]tlng f~m it~ u~e. Dean Pro~eer hRs ~mched the ~ame ~oue]~$Ion, i. ~., ~h~t '¢ther~ ~s no ~rlct 111 Habillty when the product is fit to be sold (Emphasls added). It has b~en firrnI¥ e~tablished by the ~r[~r 9o.n~l f~r l]~t~2a~e~ of this ease that the cigarettes ~xe not adalter~tefl: "There has never been presented by the evlfle~ee any contention that L~ cloy Strike cigarettes were more dongemos or bad a greater ~ropensity to e~use lung cancer than cigarettes hearing other brand n~s. Nor has there ~oeen any contention tha~ the eiga~ett es wh]oh .~r. Green s~loked eo~]ned any foreign ~ubst.anee, or any spoiied/con- tamhlat ed or other substhndard ingre- flie~t width e~u~efi his ~aju]T and death. Instead, pla~ntiffs' ¢ententlon from th~ ~eglnn[ng has b~n Sha~ elg- a~ette~--~t Lt~kl' Strike cigarettes alon~suse lun~" e~er." 32~ F.~d at 676. 3~y res~lTh has not reverie d al~ i~1o~- ida d~Asion findin~a manufa¢~uree li- able in which there was not some defe~t or aduReratlon in the product. For the majority now to decide that proof of a fie- f~t or adtflteration (or at le~et that the h~tmful effects of the product are felt bY a aubstantial segment of the ]~ublic) law, goes far beyond anything yet decided or even for~hadowed in the Florida fie- dsion~. One further ~utce will be fli~eu~ed r~latNe to my !0osition in this dissent, a~fl tha~ is the Florida Supreme Court's ad- ~ls~i'y opln~pu in ~,~is ea~. At the ~ut~ ae~ the Florida Supreme Could. was care- ~11 ~ delineate wha~ it was ~ld waa no~ ¢~]ed on W fleeide. The first pertlnen~ por£ion of the opinion ia a~ f~llows : "We Conclude at~o that She question thus framed does not present for o~ ~on~ider aries the iaaue ~f ~,'h~th~r the e~garett~s which ~gused a cancer in this particular instance were as a matter of law u~merchan table ~ in Floridg un- 5. Pr0sse¢, The FM~ of the Citadel "(Strict ~ab$Iity to the ConsoroerL ,50 O,~[a~.Ll~ev. 791, 812 {i96~). ~7~t
Page 50: 0060119034
(Advance 8h~et ) 1][2 801 2']SDI~RAL ~01~Y~. 2d SI]I~S der the ~tated cc,ndi~ions, nor does it is b~ be rea~o~a~bly ~e~ by the con- requesL a sL~temen~ ~f L~ne ~cope ¢~f Burner is ~ ~g~ gg~ ~ ~t c~8~$; Warz;anty implied in tile circumstance8 ~- ~ ~ Thi~ t~s~ ~ ~pplled to ~n ~c- F~rther on the court s f~t~d that it lJk~- wise was no~ ¢~lled on I~ decide whether the ~roduet was r~asonabIy fi~ and whole- ~ome for its general pu.q~o~. In footnote ~ ~o the p~eding quota- tion, the Florida eour': refer~ to ~ection 2~ of Frumor ~nd Friedman, prod~et~ Liab~Jty. wherein ~a~es are e~llec[efl in- vo]vlng pl~ducLs W~OSe c~n~nts are ~uf- ficiently repulsive so as to require ~o proo~ of unwho~e~omenes~. Such e~a~ include 12a~e whe~ Lhe prod~c~ eontaln- ed mi~e, f~ie~ ~lJme. mud, bugs, roaches and worm~. Little doubt ex/sL~ that the presence of ~uch articles in • produc~ ~n f~nd~d fol- ]lumn ¢ol~um~t Ioil~i~dez~ ~sld produc~ unwho1~ome or unmer- ehan~ble as ~ ~aal~er of law. The same footncfe refer~ ~ Section 29~[1] of F'ruma~ and Friedman which the court, noted discussed ~the pl~blem Of individual re~ctions to crdlnari]y wl~ich ~his ~ase was tried ~he see~nd time, after remand] "dlscassion of which we ~em unwarranted ~aez~ because o~ f~he lack of Florlda precedent and the I~m~d lssu~ posed ~u this non-adversary pro- ceeding'Y Again, in footnote 11 the Florida Su- preme Court quotea with approval Fru- met and Friedman'~ analysis of a Wia- coffin ¢~e to ~be e~fee~ ~hat: ~ ,, q~'n~ 6. ~'The 6ost~ution that the wh~l~ome~eas o~ a product should he determined on nn¥ 8~nd~rd other tha~ it~ ~etua~ ~Sl~L¢ for bureau contraption, WlL~U s~pp]ied fo~ that par~ose, ~s ~ novel peo~n~itlo~ In our law, aad o~e ~¢hleh "we are ~uad~ has ~o ~oundatlo~ I~ ~he de~idefl ¢~a~s. hold ~ pr~wiIiag¸b~d~s~ry st~nd- a~s ~upplan~ the ordinary s~ndard of ob~ectlve tr~l~t ~d p~f~ ~d sl~ould b0 c~ucluslve o~ ~h~ Issue of s produet'~ ~raptfov. would ~ t~ ~h[f~ to ~h¢ pue elmser the risk of wh~t~wr I~t~n~ de fec~iven~ss may ~l~i~y be prow~ by ~xr~r]enc~ ~d nflvnn~em~ of human t[on for breach ef the implie~l warranty is ~ye~ ~o w~at i~ "~'ee~@ngblI¢ fi~*~ i ~l • (Emphasis added I Tihe ma~orRy haa felled a~ p~ges 100~ 101 and 10~ of th~ raa~orlty ol~inion on id~ Supreme Cour~ ~s e~Lablishing lia- bility. Such reliance Is mlsp]~d. If ~he construction by the nu~jQri~y is cori 1.~ American Tobacco has been m~de In my view what and all that is said ~.bollt "actual safely'~ is that i¢ is para- mount to indUStry stan~arda. The latter poriIon ~ the paragraph on p~ge 17~ of Gr¢~ makes it dear th~.t the F[orlda ~uprerae C~rt's r~erences to the "ac- tual safety" of a product were not in- tended to be condfrued as a modifleat~ of the t~s¢. of w~ther ~ product is r~- ~o~abl~ fit for human use and consump- tion.¢ It is my oplnion ~hat f~he ~bove men- tioned guarded ~atementa of Lhe Florid~ ~u]~eeme Co~r~ ~B to w]lg~ ~ wa~ ~ called on to deelde as well as the ~ot~ noh~d referen~e~ to vlf~al]:/ important are~ of produ~t~ ]~bil~y defense whleh wer~ not to be d~scussed is a dear indi- cation that the ~e~ion of the prior panel in ~emanding for a new ~rlal a~ ~o tho cig~rctt~~ rcason~.b]e fitness w~ er~- r~enL[y col~. Any other con~[uslol~ would be ~upport~d only if the ~lorid~ k~owledge, a r]a~ whi~lt we ar~ convir,~l • ~s f~om the i~eeptlon o~ the ~mp~d wa~a~t~ d~etr~ne int ~d~J to be ~¢t ~e]~ ed t~ the me~c~nti~ ~nne~on. There ~Jsts. we th~k, ~ resl Rl~ern~lve m~el ~o v~]l<l obj~etlon to t~i~ di~trlbut~o~ o~ the bu~. d~n, if ~he p~5~ie health i~ to be pro~ecte~ ~ ~ pr~ct~en~ ~ns~ from exploitation t~,k~ to supply ~lLe vast ~,d e~e~ ~er~as. i~g v~r/e~y o~ pre~lu~ts whle~ the people h~ Unprecedented powers of eommer~ia~ p~,r~ns~o~ nre dslly ~ged to ~se ~l eun~um0." IEmphnai~ added) 1~4 So~,l
Page 51: 0060119034
eo~c~bly cxp¢~$cd by t]~ co1~ ]urII q~zes~io~, i,~ ~nosf ¢~es; lls tes~ as applied t9 an ae- ach of the implied warranty tdt~ed) ~ty has roiled at pages |02, of the majority opinion on afety" language of the F]or- ! Collrt ~ esL~blishing [ia- 1 reiianee is misplaced. If tion by the majority is eor- .an Tobae~ h~ been made w what and all that is said 1 safety" i~ that It t~ para- tustry standards. The latter te paragraph c~ paffe 173 of s it clear t~at the Florida art's references to the "at- of a product were not in- eo]dtrued a~ a modification ,f whether a product is lea- or human use and consump- ~pinloo that the above men- ed statemente of the Florida ttrt as to what it was not decide as weII ~ the foot- ~es to vi~liy impormn~ ]ue~a liability defense w~ich be discussed i$ a clear indi- he action of the prior panel g for a new trivl as to the easonable fltne~ was emi- et. Any other eoncluMo~ pported onl~ if the Florida r~sk which we are conduced ~e ~ception of the lmpl[e~[ ct rlne [~ t end~[ to be ~ ~t a~.]]ed n~fle function. There exists, real nlternat]ve m~d no v~iid t]t~ dlstriht~lo~ Of th~ bu~- ubac he~Hh [~ to be prote~t od fi~] ~e~e from expI~it~Hon o, ~or a pcofit me,lYe* ~der. ~Iy fl~ va~ and ever ~.ereu:~. el pro~ht~l~ which the people [ented power~ o~ commercial I~mphasls z~Jded) I54 So.2d (Advance ~heet ) ~RE~N ,~ A~[~I~IOKN TOBA0~0 COMPA~ Supreme Court had clearly and affirma- tively ruled that when the defcndaut'~ eigare~es caused the plaintiff's fataI cancer, as the first jury had found and of which the Florida Supreme Court was stware, the L~cky ~tr~e$ we~ namer~ chaatab]e as a matter of iaw. The FIorL da Supreme Court's decision ~n Gree~ has never been criticized by that cou:rt~ Nor has the F[orld~ Supreme Cour~ ever in- dicated that the prior paneI of this court was incorrect in remandfnff ~ st l~eW ~rlal, limited to the question of whether Lucky S~ikes wer~ "reasonably fit and who]oscme." Indeed, ~he Florida Su- preme Court spec!fically approved of the remp.nd in G~'ee~. "for ~i"~l on ~ueg Of fact.,,- Community I]]ood Bank~ Inc. Russell, S~lpra. h flnal ~upporthlg reference can be foun~ in Fruman and Friedman, supra, Vol. 2, § 16.0814], p. 62, wherein t~e au- thor~ analyzed the Florida Supreme Coart'~ opinion in Gree~ and concluded ?.hat "Whatever the ecopc of the warran- ty, ~he tenor of the opinion is that it ia at leas~ for [the] ~ry to say whether 113 rarity does not cover vubstances in the manufactured product, the harmful ef- fects 0£ which no developed human skill or foresight ~n afford know] ed~'e." {EmIlh~i~ supplied in original opinion) - Judga R~ves then points out that this was taken verbatim ~rom plaint~fs' re- quested written instv~cUon NO. 11 as to which the p[ainti£fs consented to the in- sertion of the adverb "reasonably" to modify "wholesome or fit", and that de" ~endaat did not object to the emphnMzed portion. Judge Rives continued; "As a ]part of the Iaw of this ca~e the partiea are, therefore, bound by tile ~co~e ~f the implied warranty a~ so Mefined by the dlstrlct court." (Emphasis mine,) Thas, (t) on the first trial the distriet court and lmth parties recognized "rea- sonabIy wholesome or fit" ~s the sc~pe of the ~mpHed warranty as the law of the c~e, (2) the Supreme Court of F~or- ida recognized it as the ~cope o£ the im- plied warrallty, (3) this Court on the prlor apl~eal specifically identified thi~ concept as [he law of the e~2e, and direct- eigarette~ which cause c~ncer • * * ed the ]ower court to follow i~ OR retrial, are reasonabIy fit for human elmsump- (4) upon retrial the lower court earefutly rich, unfettered by limitation that [the] folI~wed directions, and (5) there has manufacturer d0~i not warrant agair~t been no inte~vening change in the appli- unknowable risks." (Original elrlphazis) Even though the authors are not in ac- cord wJf& wha~ they view as ~he FIorida position, their conclusion that the issue vf reasonable fitness is for the jury ia at odds eclth the construction of the opinion by the majority of th~ panel, viz:¸ that ~his issue should be decided as a mailer of law Further, i~ ~houId be emphasized, as • set forth in the majority opiniort of the prior panel (~5 F.2d 67~¢. at Dirge 676, under headnote 2) that the original jury was eha rg'ef[ as ~o]low~ : "The manufacturer e~ prodllet8 which are offered for saIe to the pub~ lie in their original package for human eon~umpt[ort or tl~e ~t~ol~ed/y ~rr~¢ that il~ ~dt*cl~ ~rc reasonably whole- some or/~l for the pu~oose for which lhe'd are sold, bu~ such implied wa~- cable Ftorida law. I[ there is ouch a thing ~q the "Iaw of ~e c~e" ever being Permanently and impregnably establish- ed, the ~erle~ ~ events listed above should estabIish for all time and for all purpos~ of ~h~ c~ that the scope and nathxe of ~he irrt plied warranty here is one of '~r~&- sonab]e wholesomeness and :~itnes3 ~or use by the pu~tlic " By a stroke of the majoriW's pen this consistent ~re~tment of the que~on by ~e parties and by all the courts involved is obliterated from the record. It i8 a~ though what the record clearly shows did happen never happened at elk On the record before us, I cannot concur• Re~pect fulIy, but vehementl~ I dissent from the hoIdin~ of both part I and par~ II of the majo~i~ ~plnlom I would af- fh'~n the trial e~urt and write "FINIS" 53 this iong and troublesome litigation 49a

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size: