Rose v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 8 N.Y.3d 572 (2007)

In a negligent product design case where the product’s sole function is to provide consumer satisfaction, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a safer alternative design provides a comparable level of satisfaction to the original product.

Summary

Norma Rose, a long-time smoker, sued cigarette companies for negligent product design, claiming they should have used lower levels of tar and nicotine. The New York Court of Appeals held that Rose failed to prove that “light” cigarettes, with lower tar and nicotine, provided the same “utility” (i.e., satisfaction) as regular cigarettes. The court reasoned that because the sole function of a cigarette is to gratify a smoker’s desire, a safer alternative design must also fulfill that desire to a comparable extent. Without proof that light cigarettes are as satisfying as regular cigarettes, the plaintiff’s claim failed. This case underscores the importance of considering consumer expectations and product utility in negligent design cases.

Facts

Norma Rose smoked regular cigarettes for over 40 years, manufactured by American Tobacco Company and Philip Morris. She quit in 1993 and was diagnosed with lung cancer and another smoking-related condition in 1995. Rose and her husband sued American Tobacco’s successor (Brown & Williamson), Philip Morris, and another company, alleging negligent product design. Rose claimed the cigarette companies were negligent in designing their product because they should have used lower levels of tar and nicotine.

Procedural History

All claims except the one for negligent product design were dismissed at the trial level. The jury found American Tobacco and Philip Morris negligently designed the cigarettes and awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The Appellate Division reversed the judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether, in a negligent product design claim against a cigarette manufacturer, the plaintiff must demonstrate that a safer alternative cigarette design (i.e., light cigarettes) provides a comparable level of satisfaction to consumers as regular cigarettes, where the product’s sole function is consumer satisfaction.

Holding

No, because the plaintiff failed to prove that the alternative design (“light” cigarettes) provided the same level of satisfaction to consumers as the original product (“regular” cigarettes), which is an essential element when the product’s sole function is consumer satisfaction.

Court’s Reasoning

The court applied the principle from Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., which states that a plaintiff must show “the potential for designing . . . the product so that it is safer but remains functional.” In this case, the function of a cigarette is to provide pleasure to the smoker. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs presented evidence suggesting light cigarettes are “safer” due to lower tar and nicotine levels, but failed to demonstrate that they are equally “functional,” meaning equally satisfying to smokers. The court emphasized the lack of evidence showing that smokers find light cigarettes as satisfying as regular cigarettes, despite the well-known health risks associated with regular cigarettes. The court distinguished cigarettes from products with more objective functions, like circular saws or molding machines, where consumer preference is less central to the product’s utility. The court drew an analogy to Felix v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, where a quick-drying lacquer sealer was deemed not negligently designed because a safer, water-based alternative took significantly longer to dry, rendering it functionally different. The court acknowledged the irony of discussing cigarettes’ “utility” given their harmful effects but emphasized that banning regular cigarettes is a legislative, not a judicial, function. To hold cigarette companies liable for every sale of regular cigarettes would be a judicial ban on the product, which the court declined to do. The court stated, “It is still lawful for people to buy and smoke regular cigarettes, and for cigarette companies to sell them.”