R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al. v. King
| Docket Number: | 2004-IA-01170-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-IA-01170-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-30-2005 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: Affirmed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Products liability - Inherent characteristics defense - Section 11-1-63 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson, Graves and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-02-2004 Appealed from: Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge: Lamar Pickard Disposition: Entered an order denying the Appellants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. Case Number: 2002-319 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, Phillip Morris USA Inc., The Corr-Williams Company, and Fayette Supermarket, Inc. |
MICHAEL B. WALLACE, REBECCA L. HAWKINS, WALKER W. (BILL) JONES, III, MARK C. CARROLL,
BRUCE R. TEPIKIAN, MICHAEL W. ULMER, LEWIS W. BELL,
CHRISTOPHER A. SHAPLEY,
ROBERT L. GIBBS, ANDREA LA’VERNE FORD EDNEY, BROOKE FERRIS, III, RYAN JEFFREY MITCHELL, THOMAS M. LOUIS |
||
| Appellee: | Ursula R. King, Individually and on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Heirs and Beneficiaries of Mary Lee Latham, Deceased | ROBERT C. LATHAM |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Wrongful death - Products liability - Inherent characteristics defense - Section 11-1-63 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ursula King, individually and on behalf of the wrongful death heirs and beneficiaries of Mary Lee Latham, filed suit against several manufacturers, distributors and retailers of cigarettes in the Jefferson County Circuit Court alleging that Latham smoked cigarettes from 1964 until 2001 and had developed debilitating diseases as a result of cigarette smoking. King alleged ten causes of action in her complaint, including fraudulent misrepresentation; conspiracy to defraud; strict liability; negligence; gross negligence; negligent misrepresentation; breach of express warranty; breach of implied warranty of fitness; deceptive advertising; and wrongful death. RJR filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on behalf of all properly served defendants together with a memorandum in support thereof, thereby moving the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety based solely on the inherent characteristic defense of the Mississippi Product Liability Act. The court denied the motion. Thereafter, the court entered a supplemental order granting RJR’s motion for judgment as to King’s strict liability, negligence, gross negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty of fitness claims. However, the judge denied RJR’s motion for judgment as to King’s fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy to defraud, negligent misrepresentation, deceptive advertising, and wrongful death claims. The Supreme Court granted RJR’s petition for interlocutory appeal, but denied King’s cross petition for interlocutory appeal as untimely. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | RJR argues that all of King’s claims, including the claims not dismissed by the trial court, are within the scope of the Products Liability Act, and thus, subject to the inherent characteristics defense of section 11-1-63(b). State law precludes all tobacco cases based upon products liability, not all tobacco cases which could be based on other possible theories of recovery. The inherent characteristic defense in subsection (b) of section 11-1-63 applies only to a products liability action. One would not expect to see this defense pled in any other type of liability action. As the trial court dismissed the products liability claims, and King failed to timely appeal, no products liability claim is presently before the Court. As with any other affirmative defense, the inherent characteristic defense is a matter of proof. The burden rests upon the defendant, not the plaintiff, to prevail on an affirmative defense. Some of the questions that must be answered before a party may prevail include: whether the plaintiff was harmed; if harmed, was such harm caused by an inherent characteristic of the product; if so, whether the inherent characteristic is a generic aspect of the product; if generic, could the inherent characteristic have been eliminated without substantially compromising the product’s usefulness or desirability; and whether the inherent characteristic is recognized by the ordinary person with the ordinary knowledge common to the community. All of these and perhaps other elements, if not specifically established in the pleadings, may present issues for the fact-finder and are not appropriate for sustaining a motion to dismiss on the pleadings. The language of section 11-1-63 uses words such as requiring proof, which presuppose that a plaintiff may file an action and offer proof on the issue of the defendant’s liability, whether in response to a motion for summary judgment or at trial. The statute states that the manufacturer or seller “shall not be liable” unless the elements of the statute are met. Accordingly, the defendant shall not be liable if the facts warrant, or if the elements of the statute are not met. RJR argues that a broad definition of “products liability action” was intended by the Mississippi Legislature when it adopted section 11-1-63. In its brief, RJR includes a copy of a newspaper article in an attempt to show the intent of the drafters in enacting section 11-1-63. However, because the statute is not ambiguous, the article will not be considered. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
