Wright v. Brooke Group Ltd.
Iowa Supreme Court
652 N.W.2d 159 (2002)

- Written by Emily Laird, JD
Facts
Robert and DeAnn Wright (defendants) filed a suit against cigarette manufacturers (the manufacturers) (defendants) in federal district court for damages resulting from Robert’s smoking. The Wrights alleged negligence, strict liability, breach of implied and express warranty, breach of special assumed duty, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent nondisclosure, and civil conspiracy. The Wrights claimed that the consumer-contemplation and risk-utility tests applied to determine whether a product was unreasonably dangerous in a design-defect case. The manufacturers contended that only the consumer-contemplation test must apply to design-defect cases, so that a common knowledge of the risks of smoking would preclude a finding that cigarettes are dangerous to an extent beyond that contemplated by an ordinary consumer. The manufacturers filed a motion to dismiss the Wrights’ claims. After the court failed to grant the bulk of the manufacturer’s motion to dismiss, the manufacturers asked the federal court to certify novel and unsettled questions of products-liability law to the Iowa Supreme Court. The district court certified the question of which test applies under Iowa law to determine whether cigarettes are unreasonably dangerous.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ternus, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.