Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Petitioner (P) is the son of Rose Cipollone. She began smoking in 1942 and died of lung cancer in 1984. Rose’s husband filed a claim but he died while it was pending and P, the executor of the estate took charge. Petitioner's third amended complaint alleges several different bases of recovery, relying on theories of strict liability, negligence, express warranty, and intentional tort. These claims, all based on New Jersey law, divide into five categories. The 'design defect claims' allege that respondents' cigarettes were defective because respondents failed to use a safer alternative design for their products and because the social value of their product was outweighed by the dangers it created. The 'failure to warn claims' allege both that the product was defective as a result of [respondents'] failure to provide adequate warnings of the health consequences of cigarette smoking and that respondents 'were negligent in the manner [that] they tested, researched, sold, promoted, and advertised' their cigarettes. The 'express warranty claims' allege that respondents had expressly warranted that smoking the cigarettes which they manufactured and sold did not present any significant health consequences. The 'fraudulent misrepresentation claims' allege that respondents had willfully 'through their advertising, attempted to neutralize the [federally mandated] warning' labels, and that they had possessed, but had 'ignored and failed to act upon,' medical and scientific data indicating that 'cigarettes were hazardous to the health of consumers.' Finally, the 'conspiracy to defraud claims' allege that respondents conspired to deprive the public of such medical and scientific data. As one of their defenses, respondents contended that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, enacted in 1965, and its successor, the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969, protected them from any liability based on their conduct after 1965. In a pretrial ruling, the District Court concluded that the federal statutes were intended to establish a uniform warning that would prevail throughout the country, and that would protect cigarette manufacturers from being 'subjected to varying requirements from state to state,' but that the statutes did not preempt common law actions. Accordingly, the court granted a motion to strike the preemption defense entirely. The Court of Appeals accepted an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), and reversed. The court rejected respondents' contention that the federal Acts expressly preempted common law actions, but accepted their contention that such actions would conflict with federal law. Relying on the statement of purpose in the statutes. The court held: The Act preempts those state law damages actions relating to smoking and health that challenge either the adequacy of the warning on cigarette packages or the propriety of a party's actions with respect to the advertising and promotion of cigarettes. Where the success of a state law damages claim necessarily depends on the assertion that a party bore the duty to provide a warning to consumers in addition to the warning Congress has required on cigarette packages, such claims are preempted as conflicting with the Act. The District Court held that the failure to warn, express warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, and conspiracy to defraud claims were barred to the extent that they relied on respondents' advertising, promotional, and public relations activities after January 1, 1966. The court also ruled that, while the design defect claims were not preempted by federal law, those claims were barred on other grounds. Following extensive discovery and a four-month trial, the jury answered a series of special interrogatories and awarded $400,000 in damages to Rose Cipollone's husband. In brief, it rejected all of the fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy claims but found that respondent Liggett had breached its duty to warn and its express warranties before 1966. It found, however, that Rose Cipollone had 'voluntarily and unreasonably encounter[ed] a known danger by smoking cigarettes,' and that 80% of the responsibility for her injuries was attributable to her. For that reason, no damages were awarded to her estate. However, the jury awarded damages to compensate her husband for losses caused by respondents' breach of express warranty. On cross-appeals from the final judgment, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's preemption rulings but remanded for a new trial on several issues not relevant to our decision. The highest courts of the States of Minnesota and New Jersey, have held that the federal statutes did not preempt similar common law claims. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co