Plaintiff
Estate of Rose Cipollone
Defendant
Liggett Group
Plaintiff's Claim
That the defendant, a cigarette company, was liable for Rose Cipollone's death from cancer because it failed to warn consumers about the dangers of smoking.
Chief Lawyers for Plaintiff
Alan Darnell, Marc Z. Edell, and Cynthia Walters
Chief Defense Lawyer
H. Bartow Farr III
Judge
H. Lee Sarokin
Place
Newark, New Jersey
Date of Decision
13 June 1988
Decision
Jury awarded plaintiff damages of $400,000; reversed on appeal, lawsuit laterdropped.
Significance
Despite encouraging early victories, the lesson of the Cipollone caseis that smokers face very burdensome legal difficulties in suing cigarette companies.
Rose Cipollone of Little Ferry, New Jersey was born in 1926. Like many peopleof her generation, she took up smoking at an early age. Although medical studies examining evidence of a link between smoking and cancer began to appearas early as the 1920s, they were not widely read, and the U.S. Surgeon General did not look into the issue until 1962. In 1966 the first federal law on cigarette warning labels law went into effect, and in 1969 Congress passed a stricter law requiring that the label, "Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined That Cigarette Smoking Is Dangerous to Your Health," be printed on all cigarette packs.
Decade after decade, the cigarette industry spent billions of dollars on advertising. Newspaper, magazine, radio, and television ads extolled the pleasures of smoking. There was no mention of any risk, and the tobacco companies vigorously fought government regulation in the 1960s and 1970s with studies of their own that denied any health risk from smoking. Meanwhile, Cipollone had been smoking since 1942. Her favorite brands were Chesterfields and L&M, manufactured by Liggett Group, Inc., one of the smaller tobacco companies.
In 1981, Dr. Nathan Seriff diagnosed Cipollone as having lung cancer, causedby smoking cigarettes. Cipollone filed a lawsuit against Liggett on 1 August1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Newark. Early in the litigation, Cipollone won an important victory when Judge Sarokin refused to dismiss the case on the grounds that Liggett's compliance with thefederal warning-label law absolved Liggett from further legal liability:
"This case presents the issue of whether cigarette manufacturers can be subjected to tort liability if they have complied with the federal warning requirements. In effect, the cigarette industry argues that such compliance immunizes it from liability to anyone who has chosen to smoke cigarettes notwithstanding the warning, that federal legislation has created an irrebuttable presumption that the risk of injury has been assumed by the consumer." The court rejected that contention.
Cippolone Dies, But Her Case Proceeds
Sarokin's decision was issued on 20 September 1984, and generated enormous publicity about the case. The prospect of successful smokers' litigation sent tobacco company stocks into a tailspin. Unfortunately for her, Cipollone diedshortly thereafter, on 21 October 1984. Her husband, Antonio Cipollone, continued the case on behalf of her estate. After years of foot dragging and delays by Liggett's attorneys, the Cipollone case finally went to trial on1 February 1988. Just getting the case to trial was an accomplishment: of the300 lawsuits on record against tobacco companies in the previous 40 years, fewer than 10 went actually gone to trial.
Edell, the senior attorney in the Cipollone legal team, described Liggett's legal defenses to the jury as basically a statement to all smokers:
Cipollone's attorneys introduced documents showing that the cigarette companies were aware of smoking-related health risks before the government took anyaction but failed to disclose these risks to the consumer. For example, one Liggett report from 1961 described certain ingredients in cigarettes as "(a) cancer-causing, (b) cancer-promoting, (c) poisonous, (d) stimulating, pleasurable, and flavorful."
On 13 June 1988 the jury returned its verdict. It was a very conservative mostly based on Liggett's failure prior to the 1966 law to warn smokers like Cipollone about the dangers of smoking. Further, the jury found that Cipollone was 80 percent responsible for her death by smoking, and Liggett only 20 percent responsible. Nevertheless, the jury assessed $400,000 in damages against Liggett, the first such award in tobacco-litigation history.
Liggett appealed, and the case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court on 8October 1991. During the lengthy appellate process, however, Antonio Cipollone died in 1990. His son, Thomas Cipollone of Grass Valley, California, carried on the case on behalf of both his parents' estates. The Supreme Court required the parties to reargue the case on 13 January 1992 and issued its opinion on 24 June 1992. Although the Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that health warnings on cigarette packs do not shield cigarette companies like Liggett frompersonal-injury lawsuits, the Court did impose tougher evidentiary requirements concerning the companies' advertising and promotions. The case would haveto be retried.
Thomas Cipollone and the attorneys had enough. After nine years of expensivelitigation, they were back at square one, facing even more time-consuming hurdles resulting from the Supreme Court's decision. To make matters worse, Judge Sarokin had been removed from the case for public comments he had made on his belief that the tobacco industry was hiding evidence. On 5 November 1992,the Cipollone family dropped their case against Liggett. While the initial jury verdict was the first of its kind in American legal history, the ultimatelesson is that the tobacco companies can delay and delay in court until theirvictims die or give up in despair.
Related Cases
Joe Camel and the Advertising Controversy
In 1987 Camel revived its sagging image with what would become one of the most controversial ad campaigns of the twentieth century. Joe, the cartoon Camel, was a suave, witty figure who played pool and often found himself surrounded by beautiful women. His image helped Camel win consumers; but he also acquired enormous name recognition among children--a 1991 survey, for instance, found that six-year-olds were as likely to recognize Joe Camel as they were Mickey Mouse. On 10 July 1997, manufacturer R. J. Reynolds ended the campaign amidst growing pressure.
Though the appeal to children certainly is a serious matter, Barbara Dority,in a January, 1997 Humanist article raised a number of First Amendmentobjections to the current wave of campaigns against cigarette advertising. Like other commentators who took a similar position, Dority did not defend smoking, but rather the right of individuals to do it, and of companies to promote it. Besides, Joe Camel's stateside campaign may not be the worst offenderwhere children are concerned: the September 1998 issue of Sales & Marketing Management reported that Camel ads had been posted in classrooms inPoland, and that an ad for Marlboro in Cambodia featured eight-year-old girls.
Sources
Encyclopedia of Major Marketing Campaigns. Detroit, MI: Gale, 1999.
Estate of Rose Cipollone
Defendant
Liggett Group
Plaintiff's Claim
That the defendant, a cigarette company, was liable for Rose Cipollone's death from cancer because it failed to warn consumers about the dangers of smoking.
Chief Lawyers for Plaintiff
Alan Darnell, Marc Z. Edell, and Cynthia Walters
Chief Defense Lawyer
H. Bartow Farr III
Judge
H. Lee Sarokin
Place
Newark, New Jersey
Date of Decision
13 June 1988
Decision
Jury awarded plaintiff damages of $400,000; reversed on appeal, lawsuit laterdropped.
Significance
Despite encouraging early victories, the lesson of the Cipollone caseis that smokers face very burdensome legal difficulties in suing cigarette companies.
Rose Cipollone of Little Ferry, New Jersey was born in 1926. Like many peopleof her generation, she took up smoking at an early age. Although medical studies examining evidence of a link between smoking and cancer began to appearas early as the 1920s, they were not widely read, and the U.S. Surgeon General did not look into the issue until 1962. In 1966 the first federal law on cigarette warning labels law went into effect, and in 1969 Congress passed a stricter law requiring that the label, "Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined That Cigarette Smoking Is Dangerous to Your Health," be printed on all cigarette packs.
Decade after decade, the cigarette industry spent billions of dollars on advertising. Newspaper, magazine, radio, and television ads extolled the pleasures of smoking. There was no mention of any risk, and the tobacco companies vigorously fought government regulation in the 1960s and 1970s with studies of their own that denied any health risk from smoking. Meanwhile, Cipollone had been smoking since 1942. Her favorite brands were Chesterfields and L&M, manufactured by Liggett Group, Inc., one of the smaller tobacco companies.
In 1981, Dr. Nathan Seriff diagnosed Cipollone as having lung cancer, causedby smoking cigarettes. Cipollone filed a lawsuit against Liggett on 1 August1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Newark. Early in the litigation, Cipollone won an important victory when Judge Sarokin refused to dismiss the case on the grounds that Liggett's compliance with thefederal warning-label law absolved Liggett from further legal liability:
"This case presents the issue of whether cigarette manufacturers can be subjected to tort liability if they have complied with the federal warning requirements. In effect, the cigarette industry argues that such compliance immunizes it from liability to anyone who has chosen to smoke cigarettes notwithstanding the warning, that federal legislation has created an irrebuttable presumption that the risk of injury has been assumed by the consumer." The court rejected that contention.
Cippolone Dies, But Her Case Proceeds
Sarokin's decision was issued on 20 September 1984, and generated enormous publicity about the case. The prospect of successful smokers' litigation sent tobacco company stocks into a tailspin. Unfortunately for her, Cipollone diedshortly thereafter, on 21 October 1984. Her husband, Antonio Cipollone, continued the case on behalf of her estate. After years of foot dragging and delays by Liggett's attorneys, the Cipollone case finally went to trial on1 February 1988. Just getting the case to trial was an accomplishment: of the300 lawsuits on record against tobacco companies in the previous 40 years, fewer than 10 went actually gone to trial.
Edell, the senior attorney in the Cipollone legal team, described Liggett's legal defenses to the jury as basically a statement to all smokers:
If you trusted us, if you thought we would test, if you thought we would warn, if you believed our statement in the press, if you believed our advertisements, if you were stupid enough to believe us, then you deserve what you got.
Cipollone's attorneys introduced documents showing that the cigarette companies were aware of smoking-related health risks before the government took anyaction but failed to disclose these risks to the consumer. For example, one Liggett report from 1961 described certain ingredients in cigarettes as "(a) cancer-causing, (b) cancer-promoting, (c) poisonous, (d) stimulating, pleasurable, and flavorful."
On 13 June 1988 the jury returned its verdict. It was a very conservative mostly based on Liggett's failure prior to the 1966 law to warn smokers like Cipollone about the dangers of smoking. Further, the jury found that Cipollone was 80 percent responsible for her death by smoking, and Liggett only 20 percent responsible. Nevertheless, the jury assessed $400,000 in damages against Liggett, the first such award in tobacco-litigation history.
Liggett appealed, and the case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court on 8October 1991. During the lengthy appellate process, however, Antonio Cipollone died in 1990. His son, Thomas Cipollone of Grass Valley, California, carried on the case on behalf of both his parents' estates. The Supreme Court required the parties to reargue the case on 13 January 1992 and issued its opinion on 24 June 1992. Although the Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that health warnings on cigarette packs do not shield cigarette companies like Liggett frompersonal-injury lawsuits, the Court did impose tougher evidentiary requirements concerning the companies' advertising and promotions. The case would haveto be retried.
Thomas Cipollone and the attorneys had enough. After nine years of expensivelitigation, they were back at square one, facing even more time-consuming hurdles resulting from the Supreme Court's decision. To make matters worse, Judge Sarokin had been removed from the case for public comments he had made on his belief that the tobacco industry was hiding evidence. On 5 November 1992,the Cipollone family dropped their case against Liggett. While the initial jury verdict was the first of its kind in American legal history, the ultimatelesson is that the tobacco companies can delay and delay in court until theirvictims die or give up in despair.
Related Cases
- Gills v. Ford Motor Co., 829 F.Supp. 894 (1993).
- Jenkins v. Amchem Products, Inc., 886 P.2d 869 (1994).
- Myrick v. Freuhauf Corp., 13 F.3d 1516 (1994)
- Askenazi v. Hymil Mfg. Co., Inc., 648 N.Y.S.2d 895 (1996).
- Hernandez-Gomez v. Leonardo, 917 P.2d 238 (1996).
- Broin, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., 641 So.2d 888(1997).
- Toole v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp., 980 F.Supp. 419 (1997).
- Drattel v. Toyota Motor Corp., 699 N.E.2d 376 (1998).
Joe Camel and the Advertising Controversy
In 1987 Camel revived its sagging image with what would become one of the most controversial ad campaigns of the twentieth century. Joe, the cartoon Camel, was a suave, witty figure who played pool and often found himself surrounded by beautiful women. His image helped Camel win consumers; but he also acquired enormous name recognition among children--a 1991 survey, for instance, found that six-year-olds were as likely to recognize Joe Camel as they were Mickey Mouse. On 10 July 1997, manufacturer R. J. Reynolds ended the campaign amidst growing pressure.
Though the appeal to children certainly is a serious matter, Barbara Dority,in a January, 1997 Humanist article raised a number of First Amendmentobjections to the current wave of campaigns against cigarette advertising. Like other commentators who took a similar position, Dority did not defend smoking, but rather the right of individuals to do it, and of companies to promote it. Besides, Joe Camel's stateside campaign may not be the worst offenderwhere children are concerned: the September 1998 issue of Sales & Marketing Management reported that Camel ads had been posted in classrooms inPoland, and that an ad for Marlboro in Cambodia featured eight-year-old girls.
Sources
Encyclopedia of Major Marketing Campaigns. Detroit, MI: Gale, 1999.
User Comments Add a comment…