Caronia v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
New York Court of Appeals
5 N.E.3d 11 (2013)
- Written by Melissa Hammond, JD
Facts
A putative class action was brought by over-50-year-old current and former smokers of Marlboro cigarettes (smokers) (plaintiffs) against Philip Morris USA, Inc. (Philip Morris) (defendant), the manufacturer of Marlboro cigarettes. The smokers had smoking histories of 20 pack-years (the equivalent of smoking one pack of cigarettes a day for 20 years) or more and had not been diagnosed with lung cancer, nor had their physicians investigated any possible lung cancer. The class action sounded in negligence, strict liability, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The smokers requested equitable relief in the form of a court-supervised program whereby they would receive medical monitoring using low-dose computed-tomography (LDCT) scanning at Philip Morris’s expense because they were at increased risk for developing lung cancer. The smokers claimed that the LDCT monitoring would allow them to discover and treat cancer sooner. There was evidence that Philip Morris could have designed a safer, lower-tar cigarette and that LDCT screening was necessary for early detection of lung cancer. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified to the New York Court of Appeals the question of whether an independent cause of action existed for medical monitoring in New York.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pigott, J.)
Dissent (Lippman, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.