Feature Article

On May 18, 2006, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the state's highest court), rejected the tobacco industry's argument that a lawsuit by a deceased smoker's family should be dismissed because the smoker had chosen to use cigarettes in an "unreasonable" way. The court wrote that since cigarettes still cause injury and death when used exactly as intended, reasonable use of the product is impossible.

In Massachusetts, previous case law had established the Correia defense, which provides that a defendant product manufacturer is not liable for injuries if the consumer did not "act reasonably with respect to a product which he knows to be defective and dangerous." However, the court found that this line of defense, which is used in litigation across the country, is not applicable to cigarette cases. The court wrote:

[B]oth Philip Morris and the plaintiff agree that cigarette smoking is inherently dangerous and that there is no such thing as a safe cigarette. Because no cigarette can be safely used for its ordinary purpose, smoking, there can be no nonunreasonable use of cigarettes. Thus the Correia defense, which serves to deter unreasonable use of products in a dangerous and defective state, will in the usual course, be inapplicable.

At least in Massachusetts, tobacco companies can no longer utilize the "unreasonable use" defense as a blanket legal tactic to shift blame to the smoker. For years, tobacco companies have defended lawsuits brought by smokers with the argument that smokers should have been aware of the heath consequences of smoking and therefore they "assumed the risk" of their own death. This ruling brings the continued viability of that defense into question.

The Massachusetts decision is believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, and its ultimate importance will depend upon whether or not it is adopted by other jurisdictions. Tobacco control advocates hailed the court's ruling and will seek to have it followed in other states. The Tobacco Control Resource Center at Northeastern University Law School filed an amicus curie brief in the case in support of the plaintiff.

The case was Haglund v. Philip Morris, Inc., SCJ-09483, 2006 Mass. LEXIS 317 (May, 18, 2006).