A Legal and Business Portal-Home Page

California Civil Procedure
California Appellate Court
Case of The Day-
April 7, 2004

Torts-DamagesWhiteley v. Philip Morris

Defendants Philip Morris Inc. (Philip Morris) and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (R.J. Reynolds) appeal from a judgment of $21,689,117 (including $20 million in punitive damages) following a jury verdict in favor of Leslie Whiteley (Whiteley), a smoker who was diagnosed with lung cancer in 1998 and died in July 2000, and her husband, plaintiff Leonard Whiteley.

            Defendant tobacco companies urge us to reverse the judgment, claiming error on several grounds:  (1) Under Civil Code, former section 1714.45,[1] as recently interpreted by the California Supreme Court in Myers v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 828 (Myers) and Naegele v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 856 (Naegele), defendants cannot be liable for fraud, negligent design, or other such product liability claims based on conduct occurring from January 1, 1988 to January 1, 1998.  Defendants contend that the trial court prejudicially erred in refusing to instruct the jury, as requested by defendants, that it could not base liability on conduct occurring during this 10-year period.[2] Defendants also contend that the fraud verdicts are factually and legally flawed, arguing:  (2) that much of plaintiff’s fraud claim is preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1969 (15 USC §§ 1331-1340), and (3) that the record does not support the jury’s finding of reasonable reliance.  (4) Defendants also contend the negligence verdict fails because plaintiff failed to present substantial evidence of any safe alternative design or that defendants’ alleged failure to produce a safer cigarette caused Whiteley’s injury.  They further argue the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury in terms of BAJI No. 9.00.6.  (5) Finally, defendants attack the punitive damages award.

            We shall conclude:  (1) The trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury regarding the 10-year statutory immunity and that the error was prejudicial.  (2) The fraud claim was not preempted.  (3) Substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding reasonable reliance.  (4) The negligent design verdict is not supported by substantial evidence that the negligent design of cigarettes was a substantial factor contributing to Whiteley’s risk of developing lung cancer.  (5) It is unnecessary to address the punitive damages issue at this time.  We shall reverse the judgment and remand to the trial court for a new trial on the fraud-related causes of action and for entry of judgment in favor of defendants on the negligent design cause of action.
Whiteley v. Philip Morris 4/7/04 Apr 07 2004CA1/2 A091444

Case of The Day Archives

========================================================================

Direct Link To California Court Self Help Center | Litigation And Court Forms Main Room |
The Answer Main Room  | The Answer Table of Contents  | CaliforniaCivilProcedure.Com Table of Contents 
California  Code of  Civil Procedure-Table of Contents | California Judicial Council Forms - Contract 
California Judicial Council Forms -Personal Injury | Judicial Council forms -Directory of Forms

back to top

_________________________
Have a BEAUTIFUL  DAY!!!!!

Copyright 2000  ™© CaliforniaCivilProcedure.Com™©

DISCLAIMER