Real Crime/Paranormal/Conspiracy Theories Book III

Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.

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 warningdid not preclude lawsuits by smokers against tobacco companies on thebasis of several claims. The case examined whether tobacco companiescould be liable for not warning the consumer "adequately"of the dangers of cigarettes as well as ultimately held the stancethat smoking was in fact a free choice. The ruling also questionedthe Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 to determinewhether the warning labels on the cigarette products by law had to beless or more alarming than the warning issued .

The warning at issue said: "Warning:The Surgeon General has determined that cigarette smoking isdangerous to your health."

The court's holding and some of JusticeStevens's reasoning enjoyed majority support, but the opinioneventually gained full majority support 16 years later in AltriaGroup v. Good.

Background

The relationship that the Americanpeople has had with tobacco companies can be said to be tumultuousand is documented. Tobacco has always been a staple economic resourcein the fabric of the American economy, even in trade amongst NativeAmerican tribes. Tobacco crops were instrumental in the earlyeconomic development of the United States in colonial times.Following this period was a rise in the cigarette. Tobacco andsmoking began to be engraved in the culture and lifestyle of theAmerican public, associated with things such as "sexy, cool,masculine".

The popularity of tobacco was soonreplaced with skepticism and many wanting to know the health risks ofsmoking. Research and analysis followed in order to understand theserisks, with shocking conclusions and connections to diseases(coronary disease, coronary heart disease, peripheral arterialocclusive disease, cerebrovascular disease, lung cancer, cancer ofthe larynx, oral cancer, cancer of the esophagus, cancer of thebladder, cancer of the pancreas) that left many in shock. PublicHealth advocates urged for the banning of cigarette sales and theoverall production of cigarettes in order to protect the public.

With the battle between tobaccocompanies and public health advocates ensuing, litigation againsttobacco companies became the next step. From the 1950s on, therebegan to be litigation filed against tobacco companies to be liablefor injuries and/or consequences from smoking cigarettes. Cases suchas Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co., Fine v. PhilipMorris, Inc. consisted of patients blaming cigarettes for theircurrent health conditions and wanting tobacco companies to be heldliable. Many of these cases were victories for tobacco companies,often being that litigants in the beginning of this new era oflawsuits against tobacco were not able to prove the concreteassociation between smoking and diseases aforementioned.

By the 1970s, the cultural tide onsmoking had once again changed. With medical evidence more advancedthan in previous decades, the association between smoking anddiseases like cancer was becoming ever more prevalent, leavingtobacco companies less options to hide from this truth. Furthermore,the Surgeon General's Warning in 1964 served as a final piece neededto close the gap between the two concepts. In addition to liabilitylaws being changed from the time of the 1950s, plaintiffs no longerhad to prove negligence on the part of the company with regards totheir product but expose a defect. With the restrictions becomingmore laxed, new lawsuits surged once again against tobacco companies.