Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
| Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Argued October 8, 1991 Reargued January 13, 1992 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. ¶ 13,199; 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 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 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 | |
| |
| 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 | |
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 lawsuits by smokers against tobacco companies on the basis of several claims. The case examined whether tobacco companies could be liable for not warning the consumer "adequately" of the dangers of cigarettes as well as ultimately held the stance that smoking was in fact a free choice. The ruling also questioned the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 to determine whether the warning labels on the cigarette products by law had to be less or more alarming than the warning issued.
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.