Izzarelli v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
701 F. App'x 26
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Barbara Izzarelli smoked Salem Kings for ~25 years and sued R.J. Reynolds under the Connecticut Products Liability Act (CPLA) for strict liability and negligence, alleging a defective design caused her laryngeal cancer.
- A jury found R.J. Reynolds liable (58% at fault) and awarded ~$7.98 million compensatory damages; the district court awarded punitive damages equal to plaintiff’s litigation expenses less taxable costs (~$3.97 million).
- R.J. Reynolds challenged the verdict on multiple grounds: evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, insufficiency of causation proof, and federal preemption; the district court denied post-trial relief.
- This Court previously certified a question to the Connecticut Supreme Court about Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A Comment i; the Connecticut Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s proposed bar to liability and clarified strict-liability standards (Izzarelli and companion Bifolck decisions).
- On remand appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed liability and the negligence verdict, rejected the defendant’s challenges to evidentiary rulings and preemption, but vacated and remanded only the punitive-damages award for recalculation consistent with Connecticut Supreme Court guidance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of alternative-cause evidence (risk factors) | Allow HPV and other risk-factor evidence to show alternative cause | Exclude non-HPV risk factors as irrelevant and prejudicial | District court did not abuse discretion excluding non-HPV risk factors and p16 test evidence |
| Admissibility of youth-marketing evidence | Marketing to minors is relevant to design, consumer expectations, negligence, punitive damages, and comparative fault | Such evidence is unfairly prejudicial and irrelevant | Admission was within district court’s discretion; probative value outweighed prejudice |
| Sufficiency of causation proof (JMOL) | Salem Kings’ ingredient/nicotine/tar design increased addiction and carcinogen exposure causing plaintiff’s cancer | Plaintiff failed to show the brand’s design caused her cancer | Evidence was sufficient; reasonable jury could find defective design caused cancer |
| Federal preemption | Plaintiff’s theory targets brand-specific design, not a ban on cigarettes | Plaintiff’s theory effectively bans cigarettes and is preempted by federal law | No preemption because the claim targeted brand-specific features, and jury was properly instructed |
Key Cases Cited
- Izzarelli v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 731 F.3d 164 (2d Cir.) (prior appeal certifying question to Connecticut Supreme Court)
- Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc., 324 Conn. 402 (Conn. 2016) (Connecticut Supreme Court clarifying CPLA negligence and punitive-damages standards and rejecting §402A limits)
- Medforms, Inc. v. Healthcare Mgmt. Solutions, Inc., 290 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2002) (standard for reviewing denial of a new trial)
- United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153 (2d Cir.) (district court discretion weighing probative value against prejudice under Rule 403)
- Samuels v. Air Transp. Local 504, 992 F.2d 12 (2d Cir.) (standard for judgment as a matter of law review)