Haines v. Liggett Group Inc.
(Wrongful Death US Dist. Ct. NJ 1984 Settled) Related Cases: Cipollone v. Liggett Citation: 593 F.Supp. 1146; 789 F.2d 181; 785 F.2d 1108 (12 Mar 1986 reversing protective order); 113 F.R.D. 86 (12 Nov 1986 protective order); 649 F.Supp. 664 (9 Dec 1986); 822 F.2d 335 (8 Jun 1987 denying writ of mandamus regarding protective order); 140 F.R.D. 681 (6 Feb 1992 production of documents); 975 F.2d 81 (17 Sep 1992); 814 F.Supp. 414 (26 Jan 1993 motion to withdraw counsel); 2004 WL 1125182 (D.N.J.)This individual wrongful death suit was brought by Susan Haines, as Administratrix ad Prosequendum and Executrix of the estate of Peter F. Rossi against Liggett, Loews Theaters, Philip Morris and the Tobacco Institute (dismissed September 30, 1992) on February 22, 1984.
The plaintiff alleged that Peter Rossi died of lung cancer on May 28, 1982 as a result of smoking cigarettes. Mr. Rossi began smoking Chesterfields in 1942 or '43. He smoked up to four packs a day for 40 years including Kents, True Blue, Vantage, and Merit brands. He was diagnosed with lung cancer on May 15, 1982, and died 13 days later at age 55. The plaintiff claimed design defect, risk-utility, failure to warn, breach of express warranty, negligent testing, fraud, and conspiracy. The plaintiff sought compensatory damages including $358,000 in lost income, $10,000 for medical and funeral expenses, and punitive damages.
The case was heard in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey (Civil Action No. 84-678 (SA)), before the Honorable Judge Sarokin. The judge (593 F.Supp. 1146) denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. He held that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act did not expressly or impliedly preempt the causes of action.
The United States Court of Appeals (789 F.2d 181) reversed in part and remanded the case.
Following the remand, on December 9, 1986, the United States District Court, New Jersey (649 F.Supp. 664), in a joint opinion with Cipollone, clarified the effect of the Circuit Court's decision on its earlier opinion. The parties agreed that failure to warn and negligent advertising claims arising after 1965, but not before, were preempted by the Circuit Court's ruling. A claim that safer cigarettes could have been made was not preempted by the Act or by the plaintiff's answers to interrogatories. Strict liability claims based on a risk-benefit analysis could not be preempted at the pleadings stage. There was not sufficient evidence at this stage of the trial, however, to dismiss the defense of preemption. Arguments of state of the art were not preempted. A claim that the defect in cigarettes neutralized warnings was preempted regardless of the intentionality of the action. A claim for negligent testing was not preempted because it was based on the state-imposed duty to use reasonable care to provide a suitable product. Conspiracy claims to conceal scientific data was not preempted. An express warranty claim was preempted.
Judge Sarokin also issued an evidentiary order requiring the defendants to turn over internal research. This ruling was later reversed by the Court of Appeals, and Judge Sarokin was removed. The case was reassigned by the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (975 F.2d 81) to the Honorable Judge Lechner on September 17, 1992. In addition to ruling on evidentiary issues, the court held that Judge Sarokin's comments about the tobacco industry's concealment of the dangers of smoking required his removal. He had denounced the defendants as the "king of concealment and disinformation."
In 1996, following a change in the plaintiff's representation, Judge Lechner retired and United States District Judge Joseph Greenaway took over the case. The judge granted a partial summary judgment motion, dismissing seven counts of the complaint.
Nothin further happened in the case until, in 2002, the lawsuit was passed to the Honorable Judge Linares. The judge dismissed defendants Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, and Loews Theater, because Mr. Rossi had not smoked their brands until after the defendants began putting federally regulated warnings on their product.
The plaintiff agreed to settle with Liggett (the only remaining defendant) in December of 2003, and the District Court (2004 WL 1125182 (D.N.J.)) ordered the settlement on April 13, 2004.