Opinion
Civil Action No. CCB-09-986.
May 26, 2009
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Dawn Bunch, individually and as personal representative of the estate of her mother Linda Ford, has sued cigarette manufacturers Lorillard Tobacco Company and Lorillard, Inc. (collectively "Lorillard") and Barbara Bristow, owner of the home in which Ms. Bunch and Ms. Ford resided at all times relevant to the complaint, for the serious injuries to Ms. Bunch and the death of Ms. Ford that occurred during a cigarette fire at that home. Ms. Bunch asserts that her injuries and her mother's death were caused by the cigarette's defective design and the home's improper fire protection.
Now pending before the court are two motions to dismiss, one filed by Lorillard and one filed by Ms. Bristow. Lorillard and Ms. Bristow both move to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff Dawn Bunch's complaint fails to state a claim against them. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Specifically, defendants argue that they cannot be held liable under Maryland law for injuries resulting from the inherent risks of a cigarette.
The court has considered defendants' motions, which have not been opposed, and finds them to be well supported under the applicable law. See Kearney v. Philip Morris, Inc., 916 F. Supp. 61, 73 (D. Mass. 1996) (granting summary judgment to defendant tobacco manufacturer in a suit arising out of a cigarette fire because the risk of fire "by a lit cigarette is an obvious danger of a common product with which the ordinary consumer is readily familiar," foreclosing defendant's liability for defective design); Griesenbeck v. American Tobacco Co., 897 F. Supp. 815, 825 (D. N.J. 1995) (dismissing similar suit and noting: "It can hardly be disputed that adults of legal smoking age . . . know that cigarettes must burn in order to be smoked. Nor can an adult claim to be ignorant of the dangers associated with burning items such as cigarettes."); Sacks v. Phillip Morris, Inc., 1998 WL 130157, *2 (4th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (unpublished) (affirming district court's dismissal of a similar suit arising from a cigarette fire because the obviousness of the dangers of lit cigarettes foreclosed defendant's liability). Accordingly, these motions will be granted by separate Order.
ORDER
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The defendants' motions to dismiss (docket entries no. 10 and 12) are GRANTED;
2. This case is DISMISSED; and
3. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.