Hoberman [New York Class Action Tobacco Litigation] v. Brown & Williamson Tobacc
(Consolidated NY Ct. of App. 1997 Dismissed) Consolidated with Small, Hoskins, Frosina, Zito Citation: 175 Misc 2d 294, 668 NYS 2d 307 (28 Oct 1997); 176 Misc 2d 413, 672 NYS2d 601; 252 App Div 2d 1, 679 NYS2d 593 (29 Oct 1998); 94 NY2d 43, 698 NYS 2d 615, 720 NE2d 892 (NY, 26 Oct 1999)This consolidated class action contains the following suits:
Phyllis Small, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lorillard
Catherine Zito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Tobacco Co.
Sharlene Hoberman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Brown & Williamson
Rose Frosina, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Philip Morris (filed June 19, 1996), and
Mary A. Hoskins, as executrix of Edwin P. Hoskins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. R.J. Reynolds.
In each suit, the class was defined as New York residents who became nicotine dependant on or after June 19, 1980.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants deceived them about the addictive properties of cigarettes, causing them to continue smoking. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants used deceptive commercial practices to sell cigarettes. They asserted that they would not have bought these cigarettes had they known that nicotine is an addictive drug. They also alleged that the tobacco companies controlled the level of nicotine in their cigarettes to cause or maintain nicotine addiction and, that the companies secretly used chemicals to enhance the addictive propensities of nicotine. They also assert that the companies suppressed research indicating that nicotine is addictive. The plaintiffs claimed fraud, deceptive business practices, and civil conspiracy. The plaintiffs sought reimbursement of the purchase cost of cigarettes that they claim they would not have bought, but for defendants' fraudulent and deceptive practices.
The cases were heard in the Supreme Court, New York County, before the Honorable Charles E. Ramos. The trial court judge (176 Misc 2d 413) certified the classes on October 28, 1997, by ruling that the determination of whether a given person was a part of the class was not a part of the claim, thus the individual issues of addiction were eliminated from the trials. The judge also ruled that the plaintiffs had pleaded fraud with sufficient particularity. The judge ruled that the Federal Labeling Act did not preempt the case. British American Tobacco was denied a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division (252 App Div 2d 1) reversed the judgment on all issues on October 29, 1998. The court ruled that proof of individual addiction was still at the core of proving injury, particularly given that the dangers of smoking were generally known to the public. Also, because the representative claims did not establish reliance and causation, the court found them to be not "typical" members. The court also recognized that judgment on these suits for the cost of the cigarettes could have the effect of preventing much more substantial claims of personal injury from class members. It decertified the class and dismissed the claims for lack of specificity.
The New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, (94 NY2d 43) affirmed the Appellate Division's ruling on October 26, 1999. The case was heard by Judges Wesley, Bellacosa, Smith, Ciparick, Bracken, Cardona and Lawton. On appeal the plaintiffs argue that the defendants' deception prevented them from making a free choice, and since they purchased products they would not have purchased save for the defendants' deceit, they were injured. The court determined that by abandoning the addiction component, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate actual harm necessary under the statute.
Synonyms
Hoberman [New York Class ActionHoberman [New York Tobacco Litig