Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc.
324 Conn. 362, 152 A.3d 1183 (2016)
Rule of Law:
Under Connecticut's Product Liability Act, a claim for negligent design is not governed by the consumer expectation test found in comment (i) to § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Furthermore, statutory punitive damages available under the Act for reckless conduct are not limited by the common-law rule that restricts such damages to litigation costs.
Facts:
- Jeanette D. Bifolck smoked Marlboro and Marlboro Light cigarettes, which were manufactured by Philip Morris, Inc.
- After Jeanette's death, her husband, Vincent Bifolck, alleged that Philip Morris defectively designed the cigarettes to be unnecessarily addictive and carcinogenic.
- The complaint alleged that Philip Morris intentionally added ingredients, including carcinogens, and utilized manufacturing processes that altered the natural composition of the tobacco and nicotine.
- Jeanette D. Bifolck developed lung cancer as a result of smoking these cigarettes.
- She subsequently died from lung cancer at the age of forty-two.
Procedural Posture:
- Vincent Bifolck, individually and as executor of Jeanette D. Bifolck's estate, sued Philip Morris, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.
- The suit, brought under the Connecticut Product Liability Act, asserted claims for strict liability and negligence based on defective cigarette design.
- The U.S. District Court stayed the case pending a decision in a similar action, Izzarelli v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
- Prior to trial and following the decision in Izzarelli, the U.S. District Court certified two questions of unsettled state law to the Supreme Court of Connecticut for its determination.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does the 'unreasonably dangerous' standard from § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, particularly the consumer expectation test in comment (i), apply to a product liability claim based on a theory of negligence under Connecticut's Product Liability Act? 2. Does Connecticut's common-law rule limiting punitive damages to litigation costs apply to an award of statutory punitive damages under § 52-240b of the Connecticut Product Liability Act?
Opinions:
Majority - McDonald, J.
1. No. While all product liability claims must prove a product was in a 'defective condition unreasonably dangerous,' the specific definition of that term is not governed by the consumer expectation test in comment (i) to § 402A when the claim is based on negligence. A negligence claim is governed by common-law principles of duty and breach, which focus on the manufacturer's conduct and knowledge, not the consumer's expectations. The court's prior decision in Izzarelli established that even in strict liability, consumer expectations are not a per se bar to recovery, and this reasoning extends to negligence claims, where consumer awareness of a danger does not negate the manufacturer's duty of care. 2. No. Statutory punitive damages under Connecticut's Product Liability Act are not limited by the common-law rule restricting such awards to litigation costs. The plain language of the statute, § 52-240b, establishes a different framework by capping damages at twice the compensatory award and vesting the court, not the jury, with the authority to determine the amount. This statutory scheme is inconsistent with the common law's purpose and mechanics, indicating a clear legislative intent to abrogate the common-law rule for product liability claims.
Concurring - Zarella, J.
1. No. The concurring opinion agrees that § 402A and comment (i) do not apply to the plaintiff's claim, but for a different reason. The court should abandon the Restatement (Second) framework for design defects entirely and adopt the Restatement (Third), which uses a risk-utility test for all design defect claims and eliminates the doctrinal distinction between strict liability and negligence. Under this approach, the consumer expectation test would be irrelevant. 2. No. The opinion agrees with the majority's conclusion that the common-law rule on punitive damages does not apply. While it is a close call, the existence of a separate provision in the Product Liability Act authorizing attorney's fees for frivolous claims (§ 52-240a) suggests that the punitive damages provision (§ 52-240b) was intended to be something other than a recovery of litigation costs.
Concurring and dissenting - Vertefeuille, J.
1. No. The opinion concurs with the majority's resolution of the first certified question. 2. Yes. The dissent argues that Connecticut's common-law rule limiting punitive damages to litigation costs does apply to claims under the Product Liability Act. A statute should not be interpreted to abrogate a long-standing common-law rule unless the legislative intent is plain and unambiguous, which is not the case here. The legislative history, including the deletion of proposed language that would have awarded punitive damages 'in addition to attorney's fees,' strongly indicates that the legislature intended to preserve the common-law definition of punitive damages.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms Connecticut's distinct, consumer-protective approach to product liability law by declining to adopt the more manufacturer-friendly Restatement (Third) of Torts. By clarifying that negligence claims are not defeated by the 'open and obvious' nature of a danger under the consumer expectation test, the court preserves a separate and viable path for plaintiffs. The ruling on punitive damages significantly enhances the potential financial consequences for manufacturers found to have acted with reckless disregard for consumer safety, creating a stronger deterrent than the state's traditional common-law rule. This case solidifies a multi-faceted liability framework in Connecticut that focuses on both the product's condition and the manufacturer's conduct.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc. (2016)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"