FC: Cipollone v. Liggett Group (1991) | Drew Ricker Dan Fallacaro
1: Table of Contents | Background Information ........................ 2-5 Court Information ................................... 6-9 Supreme Court ..................................... 10-13 Aftermath ............................................... 14-17 Citations ................................................ 18-21
2: Rose Cipollone began smoking cigarettes at the age of sixteen. She made an attempt to quit when she became pregnant, because her husband requested for her to stop. In 1955, she switched to Liggett and Myers brand cigarettes because she believed that the "pure white Miracle Tip" was healthier for her habit. She then switched to Philip Morris' Virginia Slim brand in 1968 because the women that were shown in the advertisements for these cigarettes seemed "glamorous". | Background Information
3: Virginia Slim brand Cigarettes advertisements
4: In 1972, Rose switched to smoking Parliament brand cigarettes because they had advertised that their cigarettes had a lower tar content than the average cigarette. She then decided to, under the guidance of her physician, switch to Lorillard's True cigarettes because they had a plastic filter insert. Cipollone believed that tobacco/cigarette companies would not do anything to hurt her, and continued to smoke cigarettes. | Background Information Continued
5: Lorillard and Parliament brand cigarettes
6: Case Information | Rose Cipollone said she was “Misled by the cigarette advertisements” and it gave her lung cancer. She had lung cancer even before smoking so she filed a lawsuit. She even said that “the Surgeon General’s warning did not stop her from smoking.” She assumed that “tobacco companies wouldn’t do anything to kill you.” Rose Cipollone died October 24th,1984.
7: Arguments of the Petitioner -Smoking Caused her lung cancer (which eventually killed her) -The tobacco companies misled her to buy their products -That the companies forced her to buy cigarettes | Arguments of the Respondent - They did not force her to buy cigarettes - They did not mislead her - The had the Surgeon General’s Warning label on the advertisements and cigarette packages | Court Information
8: District Court 1. Rose Cipollone was 80% at fault. 2. Charges for not warning Mrs. Cipollone of the dangers were dropped against Phillip Morris 3. Liggett & Myers were responsible 4. Mr. Antonio Cipollone got $400,000 | Rulings
9: Court of Appeals 1. Set aside $400,000 dollars for damages 2. Allowed Mr. Edell to file a lawsuit on the premises of design and advertising | Rulings
10: Supreme Court 1. Eliminated “failure to warn” claim 2. Prohibited Supreme Court Cases that involve neutralization of federal warnings in advertisements 3. Limited common law claims | Supreme Court
11: Judgment of the Court It ruled under the “the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land" clause of Article VI. The law applied to this case is the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965. | Supreme Court
12: Vote of the Supreme Court In favor of the respondent. The majority opinion was written by Stevens, Rehnquist, White, Blackmun, O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter (Parts I, II, III, IV). The Concurrent opinion was written by Stevens, Rehnquist, White, and O’Connor (Parts V and VI) | Supreme Court
13: Seal of the Supreme Court | Supreme Court Building
14: Justice Steven's ruling about the Surgeon General's warning was supported by a large majority. Sixteen years later the ruling was supported by a full majority in the Altria Group v Good case. The Altria case was held in 2008 and accused Altria of deceptive advertising. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly was also affected by the Cipollone case. This case was held in 2001 and was based on sales of tobacco withing a certain distance of a school. Lorillard claimed that this restriction was a violation of their First amendment rights. | Aftermath
15: Mandated warnings does not prevent smokers from suing tobacco companies under the state of personal injury laws Made personal law suits against tobacco companies illegal saying on the basis there was no warning of the risks Made it legal to file lawsuits under the allegations that the tobacco companies made fraudulent or inaccurate statements in advertisements Made a ruling that there had to be a certain distance between a facility selling cigarettes and a school zone The tobacco companies had to say that nicotine was and is addictive | Aftermath
16: "Cipollone v. Liggett Group Inc." Wikipedia. N.p., 1 Dec. 2011. Web. 10 May 2012.
17: Virginia Slim Brand cigarettes. N.d. Discountcigarettesmall. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 May 2012.
18: Cigarettestime.com. N.d. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 May 2012.