Dewey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
(Wrongful Death, NJ Superior Ct) Citation: 216 N.J.Super. 347, 523 A.2d 712 (22 Dec 1986); 108 N.J. 198, 527 A.2d 1391 (9 Jun 1987 evidentiary order); 109 N.J. 201, 536 A.2d 243 (1 Feb 1988 disqualifying plaintiff's attorney, but not his law firm); 225 N.J.Super. 375, 542 A.2d 919 (23 May 1988); 121 N.J. 69, 577 A.2d 1239 (18 Jan 1989)This wrongful death suit was brought by Clare E. Dewey, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Wilfred E. Dewey, against R.J. Reynolds, American Brands, and Brown & Williamson on August 20 1982.
The plaintiff alleges that Wilfred E. Dewey developed lung cancer as a result of smoking cigarettes for 38 years. From 1977 to 1980, Mr. Dewey smoked Viceroy cigarettes. He died in 1980. The plaintiff claims design defect, inadequate warning, fraud and misrepresentation in advertising, and loss of consortium.
The case was heard in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division - Bergen County (Docket No. L-71733-81). After finding the Third Circuit Court's ruling in Cipollone binding on lower state courts, the judge (216 N.J.Super. 347) granted a partial summary judgment against the plaintiff's failure to warn, fraud, and misrepresentation claims on December 22, 1986, stating that they were preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. He did not dismiss the design defect claim, finding that it was not preempted, and the plaintiff could pursue that claim without proving the existance of a safer alternative design.
In an interlocutory appeal, the Superior Court, Appelate Division (225 N.J. Super. 375) affirmed the judgment on May 23, 1988. The court held that the plaintiff's failure to warn claim was preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, but the defective design claim was not. The court did not determine whether Cipollone was binding; its independent review of the Act indicated preemption. It defined the purpose behid the act by saying "the federal warning should protect commerce 'to the maximum extent' consistent with its health policy." The act represents a compromise between industry interests and health policy.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey (121 N.J. 69, 577 A.2d 1239) affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded the case on January 18, 1989). The court found that the Third Circuit Federal Court's decision in Cipollone was not per se binding on state courts. An independant review of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act showed that it did not preempt state claims unless they "actual[ly] conflict" with the purpose of the Act, more than hypothetically or potentially. The court ruled that the state products liability law, which provided a defense to manufacturers for harm caused by products whose risks are known to ordinary users, would not be applied retroactively. It held that the defendants would not be immunized from liability by finding no duty in manufacturers.