Roysdon v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co.
Decision Date | 18 December 1985 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 3-84-606. |
Citation | 623 F. Supp. 1189 |
Parties | Floyd F. ROYSDON, et al. v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
J.D. Lee, Knoxville, Tenn., Janette Lay, Wilson & Lay, Oneida, Tenn., for plaintiff.
Robert R. Campbell, Hodges, Doughty & Carson, Knoxville, Tenn., Ray H. Moseley, and K. Stephen Powers, Chattanooga, Tenn., for defendant.
This products liability action came to trial by jury on December 9, 1985. Plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Floyd R. Roysdon, claimed that Mr. Roysdon suffers severe peripheral vascular disease as a proximate result of many years of smoking cigarettes manufactured by the defendant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company R.J. Reynolds. The Roysdons made two claims: that the defendant's cigarettes are defective and unreasonably dangerous to the health of users and that the warnings on cigarette packages and in their advertising are inadequate to fully apprise users of the medical risks involved in smoking.
Before trial, the Court dismissed that portion of the plaintiff's claim which rested on inadequate warnings. At the close of the plaintiff's proof, the Court directed a verdict for the defendant on the remaining issue, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the products at issue were "unreasonably dangerous".
This opinion will address the Court's reasoning on both issues.
In this lawsuit, it was undisputed that R.J. Reynolds had at all times pertinent fully complied with the relevant federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act the Act. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1340. The issue to be resolved was whether, in light of this compliance, plaintiff still could claim that labels were inadequate or whether the labels must be ruled adequate as a matter of law.
R.J. Reynolds took the position that Congress had preempted any claim based on the adequacy of the warning labels. It relied on very specific preemption language contained in 15 U.S.C. § 1334, which reads as follows:
It is obvious that this statute prohibits the Tennessee legislature from requiring R.J. Reynolds to use any statement relating to smoking and health other than the one congressionally mandated. The statute does not explicitly prohibit state common law tort actions based on labeling. However, congressional intent need not be expressly stated but may be implied from the structure and purpose of the particular statute. Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Assoc. v. delaCuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 102 S.Ct. 3014, 73 L.Ed.2d 664 (1982), and state law must yield when incompatible with federal legislation. Sperry v. Florida, 373 U.S. 379, 83 S.Ct. 1322, 10 L.Ed.2d 428 (1963).
It is evident from this language that the congressional purpose was twofold — to inform the public of the health hazards related to smoking and to insure uniformity of labeling. While the imposition of tort damages would not be contrary to the first objective, exposing a manufacturer to potential damages in regards to its labeling would be inconsistent with the second. It would permit a state to achieve indirectly, through exposure to tort liability, what it could not achieve directly through legislation. Certainly exposing a manufacturer to potential damages on the basis of its warning label is a way of requiring a more stringent label. See San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 247, 79 S.Ct. 773, 780, 3 L.Ed.2d 775 (1959). And, if the courts were to impose any duty to go beyond the congressionally mandated labeling, this would thwart the stated intent of Congress to have uniformity in the warnings. For this reason, the Court found any such exposure incompatible with the intent of the legislation and dismissed any claim based on the adequacy of the warning label. The only issue remaining for trial was whether or not the defendant's products were defective and unreasonably dangerous.1
This products liability action was brought pursuant to this Court's diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) and (c), and, accordingly, was governed by Tennessee's Products Liability Act of 1978, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-28-101 et seq.
Through the introduction of the Surgeon General's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carlisle v. Philip Morris, Inc.
...Court of Appeals affirmed. 769 S.W.2d at 490. 5. Roysdon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 849 F.2d 230 (6th Cir.1988), aff'g 623 F.Supp. 1189 (D.C.Tenn.1985). In Roysdon, a long-time smoker sued on two grounds: that cigarettes are "defective and unreasonably dangerous" and that the warnings on......
-
American Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Grinnell
...168, 172 (5th Cir.1996) (following McGuire, the defendant had no duty to warn of the dangers of smoking); Roysdon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 623 F.Supp. 1189, 1191 (E.D.Tenn.1985) (following state supreme court's judicial notice of the public understanding of the dangers inherent in alco......
-
Pennington v. Vistron Corp.
...and can be considered part of the common knowledge of the community." Roysdon, 849 F.2d at 236 (quoting Roysdon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 623 F.Supp. 1189, 1192 (E.D.Tenn.1985)). The tobacco companies urge us to adopt this analysis, and conclude that cigarettes are not unreasonably dang......
-
Hollar v. Philip Morris Inc.
...the existence of a jury question as to whether cigarettes are unreasonably dangerous." Roysdon, 849 F.2d at 236, citing Roysdon, 623 F.Supp. 1189, 1192. Plaintiff attempts to distinguish Paugh and Roysdon on the ground that they were decided before the Waxman hearings in 1994, which, Plaint......