Evans v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.
465 Mass. 411
| Mass. | 2013Background
- Marie Evans died in 2002 from small cell lung cancer caused by smoking Newport cigarettes; jury found Lorillard liable for wrongful death under several theories including implied warranty, negligent design/marketing, negligent distribution to minors, and voluntary duty to research health hazards.
- Jury awarded $21 million to Willie Evans and $50 million to Marie’s estate, plus $81 million in punitive damages; Marie’s estate was later subject to remittitur reducing compensatories.
- Judge reduced compensatory damages to $10 million for Marie and $25 million for her estate, but denied remittitur for punitive damages; Lorillard appealed.
- Court affirmed the implied warranty of merchantability claim and compensatory damages as remitted, but vacated jury findings on negligent design/marketing and the voluntary-duty theory, and vacated punitive damages.
- Court vacated the G. L. c. 93A judgment and remanded for a new trial on punitive damages; case also remanded to assess c. 93A liability anew if supported by trial evidence.
- Statute of limitations issue: accrual occurred when Marie was diagnosed with metastatic cancer (Dec. 2001); complaint filed June 28, 2004; not time-barred by § 2A (3-year).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether design and warning defects support implied warranty liability | Evans contends Newport’s design and pre-1970 warnings rendered the product defective | Lorillard argues lack of foreseeability and no safer alternative design proven | Warranty claims sustained; proper instruction allowed consideration of consumer expectations; evidence supports defect. |
| Whether the negligent design/marketing theories were properly instructed | Evans claims jury could find causation from negligent design/marketing | Lorillard argues no adequate instruction and no viable alternative design proof | Negligence findings vacated due to improper/insufficient instructions and lack of causation clarity. |
| Whether Lorillard voluntarily assumed a duty to research and disclose health research under Frank Statement | Frank Statement created a duty to disclose health research findings | No legally enforceable duty arose from advertisement pledge | No voluntary duty; c. 93A claim rejected on this basis. |
| Whether offensive collateral estoppel was properly applied to a federal RICO judgment | Philip Morris findings precluded Lorillard from relitigating issues | Issues not identical; no essential judgment for estoppel | Offensive collateral estoppel inappropriate; c. 93A judgment vacated on remand. |
| Whether punitive damages may be awarded given vacatur of other grounds | Punitive damages should stand if underlying liability remains | Liability tainted by errors; punitive damages should be revisited | Punitive damages vacated; new trial on punitive damages on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Haglund v. Philip Morris Inc., 446 Mass. 741 (2006) (design defect risk-utility with consumer expectations factor)
- Back v. Wickes Corp., 375 Mass. 633 (1978) (fitness and degree of danger; factors in defect analysis)
- Colter v. Barber-Greene Co., 403 Mass. 50 (1988) (design defect analysis; safer alternative design requires feasibility)
- Uloth v. City Tank Corp., 376 Mass. 874 (1978) (feasibility and practicality of safer alternative design)
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992) (preemption and implied warranty; consumer protection context)