Rivera v. Philip Morris, Inc.

Supreme Court of Nevada · Torts

TortsStrict Product LiabilityFailure to WarnCausationHeeding Presumptionstrict product liabilityfailure to warnheeding presumption

Facts

Joe Rivera brought a wrongful death action against Philip Morris on behalf of his wife Pamela Rivera's estate and family. Pamela began smoking in 1969, when cigarette labels warned only of general health risks, and later warnings became more explicit; she continued smoking until her death in 1999. After the Ninth Circuit remanded solely on Rivera's strict product liability failure-to-warn claim, Philip Morris argued Rivera had no evidence that Pamela would have acted differently if stronger warnings had been given. Rivera responded that the federal district court should apply a heeding presumption, and the federal court certified that legal question to the Nevada Supreme Court.

Issue

Does Nevada law recognize a heeding presumption in strict product liability failure-to-warn cases, allowing a fact-finder to presume that an injured plaintiff would have heeded an adequate warning if one had been given? More specifically, may the burden of production on causation shift from the plaintiff to the manufacturer through such a presumption?

Rule

Nevada law does not recognize a heeding presumption in strict product liability failure-to-warn cases. In Nevada, the plaintiff must prove all elements of strict product liability, including causation, and a presumption that shifts the burden of production on causation to the manufacturer is contrary to Nevada law and policy.

🔒

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 Reno, Nora Alvarez sued Silver Mesa Tools, a fictional Nevada manufacturer, after a chemical adhesive ignited while she used it near a pilot light. She claims the can's warning failed to mention that vapors could travel several feet, but she offers no testimony or documents showing she would have used the product differently if that detail had appeared on the label.

Under Nevada law, what is the strongest argument for Silver Mesa Tools on causation?

Explanation. Nevada does not recognize a heeding presumption in strict product liability failure-to-warn cases. The plaintiff bears the burden of production and persuasion on causation and must offer evidence that an adequate warning would have altered use of the product or prompted precautions. An inadequate warning alone does not shift the burden to the manufacturer. (Derived from Rivera v. Philip Morris, Inc. (n.d.).)