Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.

Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 8, 1991 Decided June 24, 1992
Full case name	Thomas Cipollone, Individually and As Executor of the Estate of Rose D. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., et al.
Citations	505 U.S. 504 (more) 112 S. Ct. 2608; 120 L.Ed.2d 407; 60 U.S.L.W. 4703; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P13,199; 17 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1087; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5517; 92 Daily Journal DAR 8688; 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 589
Prior history	893 F.2d 541 (3d Cir. 1990) Interpretation of previous federal law preemption decision as barring plaintiff's failure to warn, fraudulent misrepresentation, express warranty, and conspiracy to defraud claims affirmed. Reversal on other issues require a remand for a new trial. 693 F. Supp. 208 (D.N.J. 1988) Defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict for the plaintiff and other post-trial motions denied. 683 F.Supp. 1487 (D.N.J. 1988) Motion to strike design defect claim granted (not appealed). 107 S.Ct. 907, 93 L.Ed.2d 857 (1987) Certiorari denied, case returned for trial. 789 F.2d 181 (3d Cir. 1986) Ruling on motion reversed, remanded for further proceedings. 593 F.Supp. 1146 (D.N.J. 1984) Motion to strike federal law preemption defense granted.
Holding
In this divided ruling, the Court found that a 1966 federal cigarette labeling law did not preempt state law damages actions; but later amendments to the act in 1969 did preclude not just "failure to warn" claims, but also on the broader duty "to inform consumers of known risks." The 1969 amendments, however, did not preempt claims based on express warranty, intentional fraud and misrepresentation, or conspiracy. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed in part and affirmed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices Byron White · Harry Blackmun John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Case opinions
Majority	Stevens, joined by Rehnquist, White, Blackmun, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter (Parts I, II, III, and IV)
Concurrence	Stevens, joined by Rehnquist, White and O'Connor (Parts V and VI)
Concur/dissent	Blackmun, joined by Kennedy and Souter
Concur/dissent	Scalia, joined by Thomas
Laws applied
Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965, 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 1331-1340

893 F.2d 541 (3d Cir. 1990) Interpretation of previous federal law preemption decision as barring plaintiff's failure to warn, fraudulent misrepresentation, express warranty, and conspiracy to defraud claims affirmed. Reversal on other issues require a remand for a new trial.

693 F. Supp. 208 (D.N.J. 1988) Defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict for the plaintiff and other post-trial motions denied.

683 F.Supp. 1487 (D.N.J. 1988) Motion to strike design defect claim granted (not appealed).

107 S.Ct. 907, 93 L.Ed.2d 857 (1987) Certiorari denied, case returned for trial.

789 F.2d 181 (3d Cir. 1986) Ruling on motion reversed, remanded for further proceedings.

In this divided ruling, the Court found that a 1966 federal cigarette labeling law did not preempt state law damages actions; but later amendments to the act in 1969 did preclude not just "failure to warn" claims, but also on the broader duty "to inform consumers of known risks."

The 1969 amendments, however, did not preempt claims based on express warranty, intentional fraud and misrepresentation, or conspiracy.

Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case. In a split opinion, the Court held that the Surgeon General's warning did not preclude suit by smokers against tobacco companies on several claims. The warning at issue said:

WARNING: THE SURGEON GENERAL HAS DETERMINED THAT CIGARETTE SMOKING IS DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH.

The court's holding and some of Justice Stevens's reasoning enjoyed majority support, but the opinion eventually gained full majority support 16 years later in Altria Group v. Good.

Rose Cipollone began smoking at the age of sixteen. She continually smoked a pack and a half a day of Chesterfield cigarettes until she first attempted to quit when she became pregnant, as requested by her husband Tyrone Cipollone. Though she cut down on her regular smoking, she still secretly smoked during her pregnancy. In 1955, Mrs. Cipollone switched to Liggett and Myer brand of cigarettes on the basis that their “pure white Miracle Tip” filter appeared to be a healthier alternative to her habit. In 1968, she switched, this time to Philip Morris’ Virginia Slims brand because the women advertised smoking seemed “cool, glamorous, and grown-up”. A few years later, in 1972, Ms. Cipollone switched to smoking Parliament brand cigarettes for reasons she attributed to health; Parliaments were advertised to have a recessed filter and lower tar content. Finally, Cipollone switched to Lorillard’s True cigarettes under the recommendation of her physician to either quit smoking or switch to this brand of cigarette with its advertised plastic filter inserts. Rose Cipollone was under the misguided impression that “tobacco companies wouldn’t do anything to kill you,” and therefore, continued to smoke cigarettes.