Rivera v. Philip Morris, Inc.
125 Nev. 185, 125 Nev. Adv. Rep. 18, 209 P.3d 271 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Nevada law does not recognize a heeding presumption in strict product liability failure-to-warn cases, thus maintaining that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that an inadequate warning caused their injuries.
Facts:
- Pamela Rivera began smoking in 1969.
- From 1966 until 1985, federal law required cigarette labels to include only general warnings about health risks.
- Beginning in 1985, federal law mandated more explicit warnings on cigarette labels, specifically addressing the connection between smoking and lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and risks during pregnancy.
- Pamela Rivera continued to smoke until her death in 1999 from brain cancer, which her estate alleges was caused by lung cancer related to her smoking.
- Joe Rivera brought a wrongful death suit against Philip Morris, Inc., on behalf of Pamela Rivera's estate and family.
Procedural Posture:
- Joe Rivera filed a wrongful death complaint against Philip Morris, Inc., in state district court, alleging strict product liability and fraud.
- Philip Morris removed the case to the federal district court.
- The federal district court granted summary judgment on all claims in favor of Philip Morris, finding the strict liability claim preempted by federal law and the fraud claims preempted or lacking evidence of causation.
- Rivera appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on the fraud claims but reversed the district court's decision on the strict product liability failure-to-warn claim, remanding the case for further proceedings on that claim.
- On remand, Rivera filed a motion for partial summary judgment, and Philip Morris filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on the strict product liability failure-to-warn claim.
- The federal district court granted Rivera's motion in part, recognizing that Philip Morris cigarettes are addictive and cause cancer, and denied Philip Morris's motion, finding Philip Morris failed to overcome an implied heeding presumption.
- Philip Morris moved for clarification and reconsideration of the federal district court’s decision and for certification, pursuant to NRAP 5, of whether Nevada law recognizes a heeding presumption.
- The federal district court denied Philip Morris’ motions for clarification and reconsideration, but subsequently granted a joint motion by the parties to certify the heeding presumption question to the Nevada Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Nevada law recognize a rebuttable heeding presumption that would shift the burden of proving causation from the plaintiff to the manufacturer in strict product liability failure-to-warn cases?
Opinions:
Majority - Saitta, J.
No, Nevada law does not recognize a heeding presumption in strict product liability failure-to-warn cases. The court affirmed that, under Nevada law, the plaintiff consistently bears both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion to prove all elements of a strict product liability claim, including that an inadequate warning caused their injuries. A heeding presumption, by shifting the initial burden of proving causation from the plaintiff to the manufacturer, contradicts this fundamental principle established in cases like Shoshone Coca-Cola v. Dolinski. The court clarified that its prior decisions, such as Sims v. General Telephone & Electric and Stackiewicz v. Nissan Motors Corp., relied on evidence to demonstrate causation, not on a presumption that a warning would have been heeded. Furthermore, the court rejected the argument that its adoption of Restatement (Second) of Torts section 402A, comment j, implied support for a heeding presumption, stating that its prior citations to comment j were consistent with the plaintiff’s burden. Public policy also does not support adopting a heeding presumption because it could lead manufacturers to prioritize warnings over designing safer products, and warnings are often ignored by consumers. The court noted that it aligns with other jurisdictions, like Montana and Connecticut, that have similarly rejected this presumption, thereby upholding the plaintiff’s responsibility to prove causation.
Analysis:
This decision by the Supreme Court of Nevada definitively establishes that plaintiffs in strict product liability failure-to-warn cases must affirmatively demonstrate causation without the aid of a heeding presumption. It reinforces the state's traditional allocation of the burden of proof, maintaining a higher evidentiary hurdle for plaintiffs against manufacturers. The ruling signals a strong judicial reluctance to adopt legal fictions that could ease a plaintiff's burden, emphasizing factual proof and potentially influencing litigation strategies by requiring more robust evidence of direct causation. This approach prioritizes product safety through design over reliance on warnings, as it discourages manufacturers from over-relying on warnings as a shield against liability.
