American Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell

Supreme Court of Texas · Torts

Tortsproducts liabilityfailure to warndesign defectmanufacturing defectimplied warrantyfraudnegligence

Facts

Wiley Grinnell began smoking American Tobacco cigarettes in 1952 at age nineteen and smoked for about thirty-three years before being diagnosed with lung cancer in 1985. He sued shortly before his death, and his family continued the action, alleging that American failed to warn of smoking's dangers, concealed facts including cigarette addiction, and misrepresented that cigarettes were not harmful. The family asserted strict liability, negligence, fraud-based, warranty, DTPA, conspiracy, and Restatement claims. American sought summary judgment based on common knowledge, lack of safer alternative design, lack of reliance, limitations, and federal preemption.

Issue

Whether American conclusively established defenses defeating the Grinnells' cigarette-related tort and warranty claims, especially whether common knowledge of smoking's dangers eliminated any duty to warn and whether federal law preempted post-1969 claims. More specifically, the court considered whether the general health risks of smoking and the addictive nature of cigarettes were matters of common knowledge in 1952.

Rule

A manufacturer has no duty to warn of dangers that are within the ordinary knowledge common to the community, but common knowledge exists as a matter of law only when the fact is so well known as to be beyond dispute. In design defect cases, common knowledge does not bar the claim; instead, if no safer alternative design exists, the product is not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law. Fraud, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, and express warranty claims require reliance, and the 1969 federal cigarette act preempts post-1969 state-law claims based on advertising or promotion that seek additional warnings or challenge statements that neutralize federally mandated warnings.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In 2026, the estate of Nolan Price sues Summit Leaf Products in Texas, alleging the company failed to warn when Nolan began smoking its cigarettes in Dallas in 1954 that smoking could cause lung disease and cancer. Summit Leaf moves for summary judgment with historical publications and expert testimony showing the general health dangers of smoking were widely known by then.

How should the court rule on the failure-to-warn claim based on the general health risks of smoking?

Explanation. The majority held that a manufacturer has no duty to warn of dangers within the ordinary knowledge common to the community, and that the general health risks of smoking were common knowledge as a matter of law by 1952. The inquiry is objective, not dependent on the individual plaintiff's subjective awareness. Thus a warning claim tied to general smoking-related health risks is defeated on summary judgment. (Derived from American Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell (n.d.).)