Facts
- Roxanne Ramsey-Buckingham was a nonsmoker who allegedly developed terminal lung cancer from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS).
- The ETS allegedly came from cigarettes manufactured or sold by multiple tobacco-company defendants.
- The alleged exposure occurred in various places, including a workplace setting involving Prescott Farms.
- The estate’s administrator sued on theories including strict products liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A and liability for supplying a dangerous chattel under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 389, along with related negligence theories.
- The trial court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim, concluding that bystanders could not recover in strict liability, the pleadings did not allege a defect, and New Hampshire did not recognize a § 389 claim.
Issues
- Whether a § 402A strict-liability claim is adequately pleaded when the complaint does not allege, as separate elements, that the product was both “defective” and “unreasonably dangerous.”
- Whether New Hampshire permits a bystander (non-user, non-consumer) to seek strict-liability recovery for injury caused by a defective product.
- Whether New Hampshire recognizes a claim under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 389 and, if so, whether the allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
Decision
- The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed dismissal of the § 402A strict-liability count because the complaint did not plead “defective” and “unreasonably dangerous” as distinct elements.
- The court rejected a categorical rule barring bystanders from strict-liability recovery, holding that bystander status does not automatically preclude § 402A claims.
- The court reversed dismissal of the § 389 claim, recognizing § 389 as a valid tort theory in New Hampshire and concluding the allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage.
- The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its rulings.
Legal Principles
- On a motion to dismiss, pleaded facts are taken as true and reasonable inferences are drawn in the plaintiff’s favor; dismissal is proper only when the pleadings do not state a basis for legal relief.
- A § 402A strict-liability claim must allege that the product was (1) in a defective condition and (2) unreasonably dangerous; pleading must include both elements.
- Strict products liability in New Hampshire is not limited to users or consumers; it may extend to persons foreseeably affected by a defective product, including bystanders.
- New Hampshire recognizes Restatement (Second) of Torts § 389, imposing liability on a supplier who knows or has reason to know a chattel is dangerous for its intended use and fails to use reasonable care to inform those expected to use it or be exposed to its use.
Conclusion
The court held that bystanders are not categorically barred from strict products-liability recovery, but it affirmed dismissal of the estate’s § 402A claim for inadequate pleading of defect and unreasonable danger, while recognizing and reviving the estate’s § 389 dangerous-chattel theory and remanding for further proceedings.