Book Opener

• Fraudulent Misrepresentation The cigarettemanufacturers tried to negate federal healthwarning labels and ignored scientific evidencedemonstrating the hazards of smoking.• Conspiracy to Defraud The cigarette makerstried to deny scientific evidence about thehazards of smoking.The Defendant’s ReplyThe cigarette manufacturers replied that federallaws preempt New Jersey’s tort laws. Accordingto the supremacy clause of the U.S.Constitution, if a state law conflicts with a federallaw, the federal law overrules the state law. Thepetitioner claimed that state tort law should applyin this case because, unlike the 1969 Act, statetort claims for damages do not impose “requirement[s]or prohibition[s]” by statutes or regulations.Instead, the petitioner seeks compensationbased upon prior court decisions (common law).The Relationship ofFederal and State LawIn its opinion, the Courtrejected the petitioner’s argument.It held that state common law tortactions are based on the existenceof a legal duty, which imposes“requirements and prohibitions.”The Court also cited an earliercase in which it said that “[state]regulation can be effectivelyexerted through an award of damagesas through some form of preventiverelief. The obligation topay compensation can be, indeedis designed to be, a potent methodof governing conduct and controllingpolicy.” Consequently, theCourt rejected the petitioner’sclaim that common law tortclaims brought by individuals do not constitutematters of state law, and therefore ruled that theycould be overruled by federal law.After clarifying the applicable law, the Courtexamined each of the petitioner’s claims to determineif it was preempted by the federal law. Todetermine whether a state law is preempted, theCourt said that it must look to the intent of Congress.It ruled that federal law does not preemptstate law unless it is “the clear and manifest purposeof Congress” that a federal law supersede astate law.Holding The Court held that the 1965 Act didnot preempt state tort claims because Congress didnot intend that result. The Court further held that,although the 1969 Act preempted state claims basedon failure to warn, it did not preempt claims basedupon express warranty, intentional fraud and misrepresentation,or conspiracy.1In 1984, Congress amended the law to require four differentwarning labels to appear on cigarette packages on a rotating basis.1. On what New Jersey tort law theories did theCipollones base their claims against thecigarette manufactures?2. What five specific grounds for recovery werestated in the Cipollones’ complaint?3. Why did the jury deny Rose Cipollone’s claimfor compensation?4. What defense did the cigarette manufacturersraise in this case?5. Describe the general provisions of the PublicHealth Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969.6. What is the effect of the supremacy clause inthe U.S. Constitution?7. When does federal law preempt state law?Go to the Understanding Business and Personal Law Web site at ubpl.glencoe.com for information about howto access online resources for the Landmark Cases.Chapter 4: The Law of Torts 101