806 F. Supp. 2d 516
D. Conn.2011Background
- Izzarelli smoked Salem King menthol cigarettes for over 25 years and was diagnosed with stage T-3 laryngeal cancer at age 36.
- Trial evidence showed RJ Reynolds understood nicotine/addiction and designed Salem Kings to enhance addiction and deliver more carcinogens.
- RJ Reynolds argued nicotine/carcinogens are inherent to all cigarettes and that no specific defect caused Izzarelli's injuries.
- The jury found Salem Kings 58% liable (strict liability and negligence) and Izzarelli 42% responsible.
- After verdict, RJ Reynolds moved for judgment as a matter of law and, alternatively, for a new trial; the court denied the motions.
- Connecticut PLA governs the claims and the court instructed on ordinary consumer expectation and modified consumer expectation tests for defectives design.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for strict liability and negligence | Izzarelli showed product design created an unspec. dangerous condition | Salem Kings lacked a defect beyond inherent cigarette risks | Evidence supported jury verdict against RJ Reynolds |
| Admission of youth/marketing evidence | Marketing to youth showed consumer expectations were not met | Evidence was irrelevant or prejudicial | Evidence properly admitted as relevant to defect and punitive damages |
| Alternative causes and risk factors for laryngeal cancer | Risk factors do not negate smoking as cause; evidence admissible | Could have been caused by non-tobacco factors | Court barred speculative alternatives; exclusion proper under Daubert standards |
| Jury instructions on unreasonably dangerous design and punitive damages | Instructions correctly stated law and allowed proper deliberation | Preferred different phrasing | Instructions given were correct and adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Giglio v. Conn. Light and Power Co., 180 Conn. 230 (1980) (unreasonably dangerous standard; ordinary consumer expectation test)
- Wagner v. Clark Equip. Co., Inc., 243 Conn. 168 (1997) (modified consumer expectation test vs ordinary test)
- Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool, 241 Conn. 199 (1997) (modified consumer expectation framework for complex products)
- This Is Me Inc. v. Taylor, 157 F.3d 139 (2d Cir.1998) (standard for evaluating Rule 50 motions and evidence weighing)
- Densberger v. United Technologies Corp., 125 F. Supp.2d 585 (D.Conn.2000) (standard for granting Rule 50 JMOL while preserving credibility assessments)
- Vitanza v. Upjohn Co., 257 Conn. 365 (2001) (PLA framework for strict liability and causation)