Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Success Stories of Personal Injury Lawyers Directory US Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Canada Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Resource Directory
Search Lawyers by Zip Code
facebook.com/injury.usa

  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

Philip Morris Inc. v. Angeletti

5/16/2000

e seminal case involving mass tort tobacco litigation, heralded a similar proclamation directly relevant to this same issue in the present case:


The class members were exposed to nicotine through different products, for different amounts of time, and over different time periods. Each class member's knowledge about the effects of smoking differs, and each plaintiff began smoking for different reasons. Each of these factual differences impacts the application of legal rules such as causation, reliance, comparative fault, and other affirmative defenses. Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 742-43 n. 15 (5th Cir. 1996). See also Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 151 F.3d 297, 319 (5th Cir. 1998) (noting that "under Texas law causation must be determined as to individuals, not groups" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Cf. Arch v. American Tobacco Co., 175 F.R.D. 469, 488-89 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (concluding that question of causation of actual rather than merely potential addiction "is highly individualized and does not lend itself to Rule 23(b)(2) certification").


While both Castano and Amchem involved nationwide class actions, these same problems of predominant individual issues have arisen in statewide class actions. For example, the District Court for the Western District of Missouri refused to certify a class of Missouri smokers defined as " ll persons in the State of Missouri who have suffered personal injury as a result of smoking cigarettes designed, manufactured or sold by Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company . . . ." Smith v. Brown & Williamson, 174 F.R.D. 90, 92 (W.D. Mo. 1997). That court stated that


a separate inquiry will be required to determine which state's substantive laws will govern. In the case of a life-long Missouri resident, it seems clear that Missouri law would apply. In the case of a resident of another state who stopped smoking before moving to Missouri, it seems clear that Missouri law would not apply. In the case of a person (like Plaintiff) who began smoking in another state and then moved to Missouri, the choice of law inquiry will vary with the circumstances. It is inconceivable that [Missouri] law will apply to all members of the class; in fact, it is possible that different [states'] laws will apply to the different claims asserted by a single claimant: for instance, it may be that one state's laws will apply to a person's breach of warranty claims while another state's laws apply to that individual's strict liability claims.


Ultimately, it is clear that Missouri law will not apply to all of the class members' claims. Thus, although Plaintiff does not seek certification of a nationwide class, the claims presented by the proposed class will still be governed by a myriad of [states'] laws. The wide variety of state laws that must be applied diminishes the common issues and prevents them from predominating. Id. at 95-96. See Reed v. Philip Morris Inc., Civil No. 96-5070, 1997 WL 538921 (D.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 18, 1997) (Reed I) (refusing to certify a similar class of District of Columbia tobacco users); see also Barreras Ruiz v. American Tobacco Co., 180 F.R.D. 194, 197 (D.P.R. 1998) (noting that " lthough the proposed class would number in the hundreds of thousands rather than Castano's fifty million cigarette smokers, such a class nonetheless would present unprecedented challenges to the fundamental notion of commonality underlying a class action"); Barnes v. American Tobacco Co., 176 F.R.D. 479, 498 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (deciding to decertify class of Pennsylvania smokers because "it is obvious that this action implicates far too many individual issues to proceed on a class- wide basis"), aff'd, 161 F.3d 127 (3rd Cir. 1998)

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 

Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys    Personal Injury Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

Personal Injury Lawyers Brain Injuries Spinal Cord Injuries
Quadriplegia and Paraplegia Back Injuries Ruptured & Herniated Disks
Bulging Disk Neck Injuries Dog Bites
Toxic Mold Product Liability Fire Accidents
Trucking Accidents Boating Accidents Car Accidents
Plane Crashes Medical Malpractice Motorcycle Accidents
Wrongful Death Personal Injury Lawsuits Testimonial
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites
DUI Defense  |  SiteMap  | PI Blog  | Trading Partners | Attorney Registration  | PI Case Laws  | FAQ | Personal Injury Forum
 | Personal Injury Lawyers Directory  | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2005. “National Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (NAPIL)”. All rights reserved.
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE