Donovan v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
914 N.E.2d 891 (2009)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Donovan (plaintiff) was a habitual smoker of cigarettes manufactured by Phillip Morris USA, Inc. (Morris) (defendant). Donovan brought a class-action negligence lawsuit against Morris in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Donovan did not have cancer, but claimed that Morris’s cigarettes damaged her lungs at the cellular level, thus significantly increasing her risk of lung cancer. Donovan presented evidence of physiological changes that resulted from smoking, as well as expert testimony establishing that those changes resulted in a substantially increased risk of her contracting lung cancer. Donovan sought a planned remedy under which Morris would pay for a medical screening program (overseen by the court) to help with the early detection of lung cancer. Morris filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Donovan was required to prove a current physical injury in order to maintain a negligence suit. The district court certified the issue to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, asking whether a plaintiff’s claim for medical monitoring based on subcellular effects of exposure to cigarette smoke that increased the risk of lung cancer was cognizable.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Spina, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 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.