In Adamo v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (11 NY3d 545, 900 N.E.2d 966, 872 N.Y.S.2d 415 [2008]), the plaintiff alleged that regular cigarettes were negligently designed, and that the cigarette manufacturer could have and should have sold only light cigarettes, which are safer than regular cigarettes. After a jury trial, the Court held that the plaintiff could not prevail because the plaintiff did not prove that light cigarettes were as acceptable to consumers as regular cigarettes: Here, plaintiffs presented evidence from which a jury could find that light cigarettes -- cigarettes containing significantly lower levels of tar and nicotine -- are "safer" than regular cigarettes, but they did not show that cigarettes from which much of the tar and nicotine has been removed remain "functional." The function of a cigarette is to give pleasure to a smoker; plaintiffs have identified no other function. Plaintiffs made no attempt to prove that smokers find light cigarettes as satisfying as regular cigarettes -- indeed, it is virtually uncontested that they do not. Both regular and light cigarettes are available on the market, and the enhanced dangers that come from smoking regular cigarettes are well known, but large numbers of consumers continue to prefer regular cigarettes. It is not necessary in every product liability case that the plaintiff show the safer product is as acceptable to consumers as the one the defendant sold; but such a showing is necessary where, as here, satisfying the consumer is the only function the product has. A cigarette is a different kind of product from the circular saw in Voss, whose function was to cut wood, or the molding machine in Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mack Co. (49 NY2d 471, 403 N.E.2d 440, 426 N.Y.S.2d 717 [1980]), whose function was to melt and form plastic. (11 NY3d at 550-551).