## Facts

- Norma Rose smoked regular cigarettes for more than 40 years, often more than a pack per day.
- From the late 1960s forward, the cigarettes she smoked were manufactured by The American Tobacco Company and Philip Morris USA Inc.
- Rose quit smoking in 1993 and was diagnosed two years later with lung cancer and another condition allegedly caused by smoking.
- Rose and her husband sued American Tobacco’s successor (Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.), Philip Morris, and another company, alleging injury from cigarettes with higher tar and nicotine.
- The only claim at issue on appeal was negligent product design; other claims were dismissed and not reviewed.
- Plaintiffs’ negligent-design theory was that defendants should have designed cigarettes with lower tar and nicotine levels (i.e., “light” designs rather than “regular” cigarettes).
- A jury found negligent design and awarded compensatory and punitive damages; Rose died while the litigation was pending.
- The Appellate Division reversed and entered judgment for defendants; plaintiffs appealed as of right.

## Issues

1. In a negligent design-defect claim, must plaintiffs prove that a feasible safer alternative design would remain functional by having equivalent “utility” to the challenged product?
2. Did plaintiffs present sufficient evidence that “light” cigarettes would provide the same utility as the regular cigarettes Rose smoked?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the order granting judgment to defendants.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to prove an essential element of negligent design: that the proposed safer alternative (lower tar/nicotine “light” cigarettes) had the same utility as regular cigarettes.
- The court concluded plaintiffs did not prove, or attempt to prove, that light cigarettes would satisfy smokers’ desired experience as well as regular cigarettes.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York design-defect doctrine, a plaintiff must show the product was not reasonably safe and that it was feasible to design the product in a safer manner.
- The feasible alternative must be safer while remaining functional; the risk–utility assessment requires evidence of comparable utility for the proposed alternative.
- For cigarettes, the relevant “utility” is the consumer’s desired smoking experience; without evidence the alternative delivers that experience, the design-defect claim fails as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court rejected liability for negligent cigarette design because plaintiffs did not complete the required risk–utility showing: they offered no proof that lower tar and nicotine “light” cigarettes would provide the same consumer utility as the regular cigarettes at issue.


Adamo v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 11 N.Y.3d 545 (N.Y. 2008)