Justia Products Liability Opinion Summaries

Ramona Ricapor-Hall began smoking at age twelve and continued for sixty-six years, relying on assurances from cigarette manufacturers that downplayed the dangers of smoking. Despite repeated efforts to quit, her addiction persisted. In 2019, she was diagnosed with lung cancer and later developed a second primary lung cancer. In 2021, she filed suit against cigarette manufacturers and vendors for her lung cancer, ultimately settling with all defendants except Philip Morris USA Inc.The case was tried before the Circuit Court of the First Circuit in Hawaii. The jury found Philip Morris liable for negligence, strict products liability, and intentional torts related to conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, awarding Ricapor-Hall $6 million in general damages and $8 million in punitive damages. The jury attributed 54% fault to Philip Morris and 46% to Ricapor-Hall. The circuit court reduced her general damages by her share of fault, citing comparative negligence, and entered final judgment totaling $11,095,000 after settlement credits.On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii, Philip Morris challenged the verdict on several grounds, including juror substitutions, juror bias inquiry, jury instructions, and the availability of punitive damages. Ricapor-Hall cross-appealed, arguing that her negligence should not reduce damages for intentional torts. The Supreme Court held that comparative negligence does not reduce damages for intentional torts, vacated the portion of the judgment reducing Ricapor-Hall’s award, and remanded for entry of an amended judgment for the full $6 million in general damages. All other aspects of the circuit court’s judgment were affirmed. View "Ricapor-Hall v. Philip Morris USA Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court adopted conspiracy jurisdiction in this case in which three law firms petitioned the Court to order a judge to dismiss them from the underlying lawsuit, holding that the law firms demonstrated a "clear and indisputable right to the relief requested and a lack of other means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or to obtain he requested action."Plaintiffs sued certain cigarette manufacturers and retailers, bringing product liability, fraud, and conspiracy claims. Plaintiff also sued three law firms that counseled the tobacco companies, alleging two counts of conspiracy. The law firms each filed motions to dismiss under Haw. R. Civ. P. (HRCP) Rule 12(b)(2), claiming that Hawai'i courts lacked general and specific jurisdiction over them. The circuit court denied the motions to dismiss without making minimum contacts findings or undertaking any due process analysis. The law firms subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition and, alternatively, for a writ of mandamus ordering dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The Court adopted conspiracy jurisdiction and granted the law firms' writ of prohibition, holding that the circuit court clearly exercised jurisdiction beyond its authority, and there were no other means for the law firms to adequately address the alleged wrong or to obtain dismissal. View "Dickinson v. Kim" on Justia Law

In this opinion, the Supreme Court answered two certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concerning the relationship between Hawaii's general long-arm statute, Haw. Rev. Stat. 634-35, and the personal jurisdiction limitations of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.Plaintiff, a Hawaii resident, brought a product liability action against two out-of-state corporations in Hawai'i state court. The suit was removed to the United States District court for the District of Hawaii, which dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because Plaintiff's claims did not "arise out of" Defendants' activities. The Ninth Circuit certified questions to the Supreme Court regarding the reach of Hawaii's long-arm statute. The Supreme Court answered (1) a Hawaii court may assert personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporate defendant if the plaintiff's injury "relates to" but does not "arise from" the defendant's in-state acts enumerated in Hawaii's general long-arm statute; and (2) a Hawaii court may assert personal jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in light of Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Judicial District Court, 141 S.Ct. 1017 (2021). View "Yamashita v. LG Chem, Ltd " on Justia Law