| Cigarette Warning Labels Do Not Apply to Second-Hand Smoke | |
| Description | Shaw asserts that his lung cancer is due to years of exposure from riding in a truck with a smoker. He sued the cigarette maker claiming, among other things, failure to warn and misrepresentation due to lack of notice of risk of second-hand smoke. District court refused to dismiss the claims since the federal warning notice on cigarettes does not mention second-hand smoke dangers. (Updated 10-3-97) |
| Topic | Torts |
| Key Words | Cigarettes, Failure to Warn, Second-Hand Smoke |
| C A S E S U M M A R Y | |
| Facts | Shaw was a long distance driver who, for eleven years, traveled in a truck with a co-worker who smoked cigarettes made by Brown & Williamson. Shaw never smoked but developed lung cancer that he alleges is a result of his exposure to second-hand smoke. He has sued for battery, defective design, negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability based on abnormally dangerous activity, misrepresentation, and other counts. B&W moved to dismiss several claims. B&W contended that the claims for misrepresentation and failure to warn are preempted by the federal law that requires health warning labels on cigarettes. |
| Decision | Motion to dismiss due to preemption denied. The lists of risks of smoking discussed during the Congressional debates only concerned risks to the smoker, not to those subject to second-hand smoke. The warning on cigarette packages is directed at smokers, not second-hand smoke. (Most of the other counts were dismissed.) |
| Citation |
Shaw v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, ---F.Supp.--- (1997 WL 484674, D. Mary.)
or 973 F.Supp. 539 (D., Mary., 1997) |
Back to Torts Case Listing