Book Opener

UNITLandmark CaseCipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.United States Supreme Court505 U.S. 504 (1992)Issue Does a federal law requiring warning labels on cigarette packagespreempt a smoker’s state law tort claims against cigarette manufacturers?FactsAfter 42 years of smoking, Rose Cipollonedied of lung cancer. During the last 15 yearsof her life, cigarette packages contained the followinglabel: “WARNING: THE SURGEONGENERAL HAS DETERMINED THAT CIGA-RETTE SMOKING IS DANGEROUS TO YOURHEALTH.” 1Rose and her husband brought suit in federalcourt against three cigarette manufacturers. Theyblamed the cigarette makers for Rose’s cancerand sought compensation based upon New Jerseytort law.The manufacturers held they were not liablefor state law tort claims arising before 1966. Theyfurther argued that the Federal Cigarette Labelingand Advertising Act of 1965 and the PublicHealth Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 preemptedsuch claims.Rose died before trial. The jury ruled in favorof the manufacturers, stating that Rose had voluntarilyassumed the risks of smoking. However,the jury did award Rose’s husband $400,000 ascompensation for his losses, holding that Liggett,a cigarette manufacturer, had breached its expresswarranties that smoking was not hazardous. Bothsides appealed.100 Unit 1: Knowing About the LawOpinion In 1965, Congress passed the FederalCigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, whichrequired cigarette packages to contain the followinglabel: “CAUTION: CIGARETTE SMOKINGMAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH.”Congress later passed the Public Health CigaretteSmoking Act of 1969, which required a strongerlabel to be placed on cigarette packages: “WARN-ING: THE SURGEON GENERAL HAS DE-TERMINED THAT CIGARETTE SMOKING ISDANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH.”The Petitioner’s ComplaintThe petitioner’s complaint alleged that thecigarette makers were responsible for Rose’s illnesson the following grounds:• Design Defect The cigarette manufacturersdidn’t use a safer alternative design, and thedangers created by cigarettes outweighedtheir social value.• Failure to Warn There was no adequatewarning about the health dangers of cigarettes,and manufacturers were negligentwhen “they tested, researched, sold, promotedand advertised” cigarette products.• Express Warranty The cigarette makers expresslywarranted that their cigarettes did notpose serious health dangers.