Ierardi v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.
(Personal Injury, US Dist. Ct. E. PA 1981 Def. Verdict) Citation: 20 Fed.R.Serv.3d 355 (28 Jun 1991); 777 F Supp 420 (ED Pa, 28 Oct 1991); 14 F.3d 47 (Table) (3 Nov 1993)This individual personal injury suit was brought by Peter and Angela Ierardi against Lorillard, and Hollingsworth and Vose.
Plaintiff Peter Ierardi was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer associated with asbestos, after smoking Kent Micronite filters containing asbestos between 1953 and 1956. Hollingsworth & Vose supplied the asbestos filter to Lorillard.
According to an internal memo, Lorillard claimed that Ierardi didn't smoke Kents when asbestos was in the filter; even if he did, no asbestos escaped from the filter; even if it did, it was in too small of an amount to cause the cancer. (To get the memo use highlighed case name link and then select the document in the DATTA: Miscellaneous collection.)
The case was heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 91-7049), before the Honorable Clarence C. Newcomer. On June 28, 1991, the judge (20 Fed.R.Serv.3d 355) denied the defendant's summary judgment order and imposed sanctions in the form of attorneys' fees against the defendants. The defendants failed to contend with contradictory evidence regarding when Mr. Ierardi smoked Kent cigarettes. These facts created a genuine issue for resolution at trial. Given the clear standard of summary judgment and the defendants' notice of contradictory evidence, the motion for summary judgment was frivilous and grounds for sanctions.
On October 28, 1991, the judge (777 F Supp 420) granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the continuing duty to warn claim. There was no evidence that the defendants assumed a duty to correct defects, and the defect is not remediable since the cigarettes are consumed. Nor would a post-sale warning have prevented the plaintiff's illness. Also, there was no way for the defendants to issue a post-sale warning to every Kent cigarette smoker between 1952 and 1956.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (14 F.3d 47 (Table)) affirmed the verdict on November 3, 1993.