User:JD Johns/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First Draft: Cipollone v Liggett Inc.(10/30/17 - 11/02/17):[edit]

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 warning  did not preclude lawsuits by smokers against tobacco companies on the basis of several claims. The case examined whether tobacco companies could be liable for not warning the consumer "adequately" of the dangers of cigarettes as well as ultimately held the stance that smoking was in fact a free choice. The ruling also questioned the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 to determine whether the warning labels on the cigarette products by law had to be less or more alarming than the warning issued .[1]

9th Surgeon General of the United States, Luther Terry

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

Surgeon General's Warning; Live Press Conference; January 1964 First Report on Smoking

Background[edit]

The relationship that the American people has had with tobacco companies can be said to be tumultuous and is documented. Tobacco has always been a staple economic resource in the fabric of the American economy, even in trade amongst Native American tribes. Tobacco crops were instrumental in the early economic development of the United States in colonial times. Following this period was a rise in the cigarette. Tobacco and smoking began to be engraved in the culture and lifestyle of the American public, associated with things such as "sexy, cool, masculine". [2][3]

The popularity of tobacco was soon replaced with skepticism and many wanting to know the health risks of smoking. Research and analysis followed in order to understand these risks, with shocking conclusions and connections to diseases( coronary disease, coronary heart disease, peripheral arterial occlusive disease, cerebrovascular disease, lung cancer, cancer of the larynx, oral cancer, cancer of the esophagus, cancer of the bladder, cancer of the pancreas) that left many in shock. Public Health advocates urged for the banning of cigarette sales and the overall production of cigarettes in order to protect the public. [4]

With the battle between tobacco companies and public health advocates ensuing, litigation against tobacco companies became the next step. From the 1950s on, there began to be litigation filed against tobacco companies to be liable for injuries and/or consequences from smoking cigarettes. Cases such as Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. , Fine v. Philip Morris, Inc.  consisted of patients blaming cigarettes for their current health conditions and wanting tobacco companies to be held liable. Many of these cases were victories for tobacco companies, often being that litigants in the beginning of this new era of lawsuits against tobacco were not able to prove the concrete association between smoking and diseases aforementioned.[3]

By the 1970s, the cultural tide on smoking had once again changed. With medical evidence more advanced than in previous decades, the association between smoking and diseases like cancer was becoming ever more prevalent, leaving tobacco companies less options to hide from this truth. Furthermore, the Surgeon General's Warning in 1964 served as a final piece needed to close the gap between the two concepts. In addition to liability laws being changed from the time of the 1950s, plaintiffs no longer had to prove negligence on the part of the company with regards to their product but expose a defect. With the restrictions becoming more laxed, new lawsuits surged once again against tobacco companies.[3]

Life of Rose Cipollone[edit]

Rose Cipollone began smoking at the age of sixteen. She continually smoked Chesterfield cigarettes --up to a pack and a half a pack per day. It wasn't until she was pregnant and at her husband Antonio Cipollone's request that she attempted to quit smoking. Though she cut down on her regular smoking of a pack and a half per day , she still secretly smoked during her pregnancy. In 1955, Rose switched to Liggett and Myer brand of cigarettes on the basis that their “pure white Miracle Tip” filter appeared to be a healthier alternative compared to Chesterfield Cigarettes.  In 1968, Rose switched to smoking Parliament brand cigarettes, citing conditions attributed to her health as her reasoning. Parliaments were advertised to have a recessed filter and lower tar content than that of other competitive cigarette brands. Finally, Rose switched to Lorillard’s True cigarettes under the recommendation of her physician. Her options at this point were to either quit smoking or switch to this brand of cigarette with its advertised plastic filter inserts. Rose chose the latter option, and continued to smoke with the suggested brand of her physician. [2]

While Rose was trying to decide which brand of cigarettes was right for her, she simultaneously was suffering the health of effects of smoking. In the mid-1960s, Rose began to develop a smokers’ cough, as well as problems such as chest pain and hypertension. In 1981, doctors found a carcinogenic spot on her right lung and performed a partial lung resection. After the multitudes of consultations and operations so far in her life, Rose still continued to smoke, “though often now in secret" [2], claimed Rose from an unknown source. In 1982, the cancer had spread to her lower and middle right lung, and Cipollone had surgery to remove the entire lung as well as a large adrenal mass in 1983. Rose Cipollone died on October 24, 1984, after her lung cancer had spread and become inoperable.[2]

It wasn't until the year before Rose Cipollone's death that she met Marc Edell. Recommended by her chest surgeon, Marc Edell was skilled in the art of going after companies and their negligence to protect consumer health. Edell had previously represented the Asbestos Companies in their defense in regard to the health-related claims brought against them. From that case, Edell became familiar with “pulmonary pathology and risks of smoking” and became interested in litigation against the tobacco industry. [2] In need of a client, Edell took on Cipollone’s case and filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Liggett and Myers, Philip Morris, and Lorillard composed of fourteen tort complaints on August 1, 1983, just over a year before her death.

Trial[edit]

First case[edit]

Edell planned to argue a case based on the cause of Cipollone's death: nicotine from her cigarettes. He gathered facts to bring a series of claims to the court that argued the following:

  • Tobacco companies had failed to and were negligent in putting better designs of cigarettes on the market when they had the resources to do so[1][2]
  • They had committed fraud by failing to act on their knowledge of the harms of smoking [1][2]
  • They had failed to fully inform the public of the true risks of smoking [1][2]
  • The cigarette makers had breached express warranty by making health claims in their advertising and promotions, which fraudulently overshadowed the mandated health warnings[1][2]
  • There was a conspiracy by tobacco companies to prevent other third party groups from releasing health information on the hazards of cigarettes [1][2]
  • Pain and suffering were alleged results of her illness and under the liability rules and law should be compensated for [1][2]

Liggett and Myers, Philip Morris, and Lorillard all cited the  1965 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertisement Act. The companies argued the act supported preempted independent state regulation of tobacco and therefore prevented state litigation, making the tobacco industry immune to suits. From there, they motioned to dismiss the case. The trial judge, H. Lee Sarokin, ruled in favor of Cipollone, stating that while state legislatures are prohibited from requiring specific warning labels and regulation of them, Edell's tactic of calling into question the inadequacy of the ones already present under the government was acceptable. The ruling was later overturned on interlocutory appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. However, the appellate court did allow the case to be retried in district court on the condition that no claims regarding advertisement and promotion could be made. Edell accepted that condition and prepared for retrial. [1][3]

Second case[edit]

In the retrial, Edell was not allowed to enter evidence claiming that Liggett & Myers had worked on the creation of a safer cigarette. He also was not allowed to bring evidence regarding the tobacco industry’s “duty to warn” of the dangers of cigarette smoking.

Edell strengthened his case with his access to 300,000 pages of internal documents of the tobacco companies. These documents included compelling and damaging evidence that the tobacco companies had proof, backed by research dating back to the 1940s, that nicotine was addictive and potentially carcinogenic. Before the trial could begin however, the battle over the use of these documents was carried out. The tobacco companies unsuccessfully struggled to suppress the evidence papers obtained by Edell on the grounds that it would "divulge trade secrets"; the trial court judge, Sarokin, ruled that the people and the court had the Constitutional right to know what the companies know and granted the use of the papers. The tobacco companies still made an effort to thwart the efforts of Edell to use the papers. They not only appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the ruling, but also the Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case. It was established that the evidence would be used in trial.[2][3]

Alongside the tobacco industry documents, Edell argued that the powerful advertising for the brands Cipollone smoked was an unscrupulous strategy utilized by the tobacco industry to not only overshadow the warning labels mandated by the federal government, but also to promote cigarette use and nicotine addiction as a marketing strategy for company profit. Edell also claimed that Cipollone’s tobacco use stemmed from her nicotine addiction, which was encouraged by the advertising of Liggett and Myers, Philip Morris, and Lorillard by the use of both health claims and advertising. Edell made sure that Cipollone was portrayed as a woman who was disparaged by her powerful addiction to the tobacco industry’s product; expert testimony showed that she even displayed withdrawal symptoms, sometimes digging through “the trash for butts when she ran out of cigarettes”.[2] Edell was heavily committed to the case. He was seen working seven days a week and spending his every waking minute on the case. He sacrificed time with both his wife and children to ensure his arguments were strong. After presenting his case that the tobacco industry’s advertising of cigarettes and knowledge of risk related to Cipollone’s claims, the tobacco companies' defense moved for dismissal. The motion was denied. They were going to have to answer to Edell's claims.[2][3]

The tobacco industry argued that Rose Cipollone was fully aware of the risks of smoking both before and during her cigarette use. "She was an independent woman, making an independent decision to continue smoking, and she was in control, not the nicotine" claimed the tobacco industries. Furthermore, even if the cigarettes had caused her death, it was in no way the responsibility of the industry. As research and the industry documents were used in trial, Edell failed to show any explicit proof that lung cancer is linked directly to smoking. Furthermore, expert testimony revealed that the type of lung cancer affecting Cipollone was not associated with smoking. Cipollone’s constant switching between “healthier” brands also showed her acknowledgment of the dangers of smoking, argued by the defense. [2][3]

Ruling[edit]

New Jersey District Court

District Court[edit]

The jury deliberated for 6 days, and reached the verdict on June 3, 1988[1]-- considering the conspiracy claims and the lack of expression in warranty and warning argued by Edell. The jury happened to be composed of 3 non-smokers, 2 former smokers, and 1 smoker.[1] The group of 6 had concluded that:

  • Cipollone was 80% at fault, based on their assessment of her personal choice to smoke being a factor[2][1]
  • All charges for failure to warn were dropped against Philip Morris and Lorillard, since Cipollone began smoking their cigarettes after the 1966 federally mandated warning labels appeared on the packages[1]
  • Only Liggett & Myers could be held liable, as Cipollone smoked their cigarettes before the 1966 warning labels[1]
  • Court ruled that the company did in fact contribute to her death.[1]
  • The jury awarded $400,000 in damages to Mr. Antonio Cipollone, who had continued to fight the case after his wife’s death.[1]
  • The claim regarding the tobacco industry’s withholding of a production of a safer cigarette was dismissed on the grounds that it involved speculation to whether Cipollone would have in fact chosen to smoke the safer option if given the opportunity[1]

Edell was pleased that they had received some monetary reward and saw it as a victory. However, he comments on his hope that the courts would've gone further with their condemnation of big tobacco in an interview sometime after the ruling. [5]

Emblem for the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Court of Appeals[edit]

After the District Court Ruling, the tobacco companies appealed to the Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit in hopes of reversing the verdict.

In 1990, the Third Circuit appellate court threw out the verdict and:

  • Set aside the $400,000 in damages on the grounds that there was no proof that Cipollone relied on the Liggett & Myers advertisements in question[1]
  • Allowed Edell to file suit on the basis of design and advertising. He was able to claim that prior to the 1966 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertisement Act, tobacco companies did not inform the average unaware smoker on the dangers of smoking while they in fact knew this information[1]
  • Edell could argue the case that the tobacco industry could be held liable on a live claim that the company made Cipollone unaware of the product’s dangers outweighing the benefits.[1]

Five days after the appellate ruling, Antonio Cipollone died, Rose Cipollone's son continued on with the case after her husbands death. Both the plaintiff and the defense in this case were looking for a concrete doctrine regarding the ability to litigate regarding preemption, state regulation of tobacco, and the Act cited in the first trial of the case. [2]

United States Supreme Court House

Supreme Court[edit]

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of preemption of federal law in regard to state law regulating the tobacco industry and whether common law damages constitute a requirement based on smoking and health based on state law in regard to advertisements and promotion.[1] The Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1966, which excludes all manufacturers who label their packages with proper warnings from requirement or prohibition, led the majority of the court to the opinion that:

  • The filing of a “failure-to-warn” claim against the tobacco industry by Edell was invalid and prohibited [2][3][1]
  • Cases involving the neutralization of federal warnings in advertisements on the grounds that the Act preempted, or overrode, state laws were also invalid and prohibited [2][3][1]
  • Limited common law claims preempted by statute [2] [3][1]

The majority ruling by the Supreme Court limited the potential litigants in lawsuits against tobacco industries to only smokers who developed diseases prior to 1969. The opinion did not exclude fraud and conspiracy or express warranty, as section 5b of the 1969 Act does not explicitly define this [1];

The Supreme Court also stated that if the plaintiff, Edell and Cipollone's son in this case, could prove any of the following:

1)the industry conspired to hide evidence concerning the harms of smoking[2] [3]

2)or lied to the public about them, [2][3]

3)or if express warranties were breached then a new case can be filed, as there is no discussion of tort litigation or damage claims in the Act. The concurring opinion of the court found that no damage claims were preempted rather than not discussed. The dissenting justices found that all state laws were preempted by the act. [2][3]

Public outcry and media attention[edit]

The case caught the attention of many: Congress, Wall Street, and legal communities across the country. Legal communities, those opposed to and supportive of tobacco companies, analyzed the victor in the trials and what it entailed for future liability suits against tobacco companies. Congressional leaders watched, some supporters of big tobacco and others some of its strongest critics. A new conversation in the public forum had been opened with Cipollone v Liggett Group Inc, with the public becoming more informed on the dangers of smoking. However, this can only be said for a small few, as others did know the dangers before the case and the warning of Surgeon General Terry. The smoking population stayed constant through the trial, with no substantial change occurring during the course of the trials. [3]

East Side View of United States Capital Building, Washington D.C.

Aftermath[edit]

The U.S. Supreme Court remanded Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. for a new trial. The retrial never occurred; the $400,000 verdict for Cipollone from the original trial was far eclipsed by the exorbitant costs and length of the lawsuit. Since the case was filed, almost half the ten years was spent on post-trial matters.[6] In 1988, Phillip Morris was quoted as saying: "Almost 200 lawsuits have been brought in the last five and a half years and the cigarette manufacturers have not ... paid a penny to settle one."[6] As of 1992, the law firms handling Cipollone and seven other tobacco litigation cases had "incurred approximately $1.2 million in out-of-pocket expenses ... The firms have also spent well over $5 million in lawyer and paralegal time".[6]

Rose Cipollone's son filed for a voluntary withdrawal of the lawsuit on November 4, 1992. Six other tobacco liability cases were withdrawn the same month as well.[6] The firm handling Cipollone was denied withdrawal in the last remaining case, Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc. Haines dragged on for another decade and then some, until a settlement order was approved on April 13, 2004.[7]

Legacy[edit]

The Cipollone v Liggett Group Inc was one of the costliest liability lawsuits spanning the course of five years. Tobacco companies before the case were succeeding in the court room-- no plaintiffs had ever been like Edell in previous cases. Many earlier plaintiffs were not able to make the scientific correlation between smoking cigarettes and the diseases that are linked to them. Many plaintiffs were out financed by big tobacco companies as well, with companies having what seemed to be unlimited pools of financial resources while plaintiffs struggled with countless court fees. With Cipollone v Liggett Inc, finances were not a major problem for Edell and his team. They were the first to introduce the concept of a conspiracy by tobacco companies to keep the public misinformed on the dangers of smoking and that there was a "safer cigarette" [3] hidden in the shadows. After the case, tobacco companies viewed the ruling as a victory in their favor. However, this proclamation did not stop a wave of hundreds of lawsuits to follow in liability after Cipollone v Liggett Inc. Cipollone v Liggett Group Inc is viewed by some commentators as a monumental achievement in the anti-tobacco crusade. [3][8]

However, many say that even with the surge in liability lawsuits against tobacco companies, it will be hard for any more progress to ensue. The same problems are still standing in the way of future plaintiffs who decide to go after big tobacco:

  1. The financial resources of tobacco companies surpasses that of all plaintiffs [3][8]
  2. The limitations placed by the Supreme Court on who can still litigate against tobacco companies ( those who developed diseases prior to 1969)[3]
  3. If the argument of smoking being free choice is still intact, there will always be blame to put on the plaintiff and cannot solely rest on tobacco companies [3]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Brandt, Allan M. "The Cigarette Century: the Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product That Defined America." New York: Basic, 2009, ISBN 978-0-465-07048-0
  2. ^ Jump up to: a b 
  3. Justia U.S. Supreme Court. ( 1992) " Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. 505 U.S. 504 (1992)". Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/504/
  4. ^ Jump up to: a b c d 
  5. Jump up ^ 
  6. Quinn, John F. (1989-11-01). "Moral theory and defective tobacco advertising and warnings (the business ethics of Cipollone v. Liggett Group)". Journal of Business Ethics. 8 (11): 831–840. doi:10.1007/BF00384524. ISSN 0167-4544.
  7. CDC ( 1999, November, 05). "Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Tobacco Use -- United States, 1900-1999". Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4843a2.htm
  8. MYRON LEVIN | Times Staff Writer. “Taking On Tobacco : Even After a Wave of Legal Setbacks, Marc Edell Wasn't About to Let Landmark Case Go Up in Smoke.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 20 June 1.

External links[edit]

Article Copy Edits: Cipollone v Liggett Inc.(10/26/17):[edit]

~Edits will be labeled in bold italics and new sections will be bracketed with their own computer mode explanation~

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 warning did not preclude suit by smokers against tobacco companies on several claims. The warning at issue said:

The court's holding and some of Justice Stevens's reasoning enjoyed majority support, but the opinion eventually gained full majority support 16 years later in Altria Group v. Good.

Contents  [edit]

Background[edit][edit]

{ I would like to before this focus on the plight of tobacco possibly before we get into the background of the specific case. I plan to probably add up to 2 to 3 paragraphs maybe detailing this. I will talk about where tobacco industries are at in the moment in terms of what their standing is at as well as probably explain past cases that have passed right before this one has come}

Rose Cipollone began smoking at the age of sixteen. She continually smoked a pack and a half a day of Chesterfield cigarettes --up to a pack and a half a pack per day. It wasn't until she was pregnant and at her husband Tyrone Antonio Cipollone's request that she attempted to quit smoking. until she first attempted to quit when she became pregnant, as requested by her husband Tyrone Cipollone. Though she cut down on her regular smoking of a pack and a half per day , she still secretly smoked during her pregnancy. In 1955, Mrs. Cipollone Rose switched to Liggett and Myer brand of cigarettes on the basis that their “pure white Miracle Tip” filter appeared to be a healthier alternative compared to her habit Chesterfield Cigarettes.  In 1968, Rose switched to smoking Parliament brand cigarettes, citing conditions attributed to her health as her reasoning. for reasons she attributed to health; Parliaments were advertised to have a recessed filter and lower tar content than that of other competitive cigarette brands. Finally, Rose Cipollone switched to Lorillard’s True cigarettes under the recommendation of her physician. Her options at this point were to either quit smoking or switch to this brand of cigarette with its advertised plastic filter inserts. Rose chose the latter option, and continued to smoke with the suggested brand of her physician. Cipollone was under the misguided impression that “tobacco companies wouldn’t do anything to kill you,” and therefore, continued to smoke cigarettes.

While Rose was trying to decide which brand of cigarettes was right for her, she simultaneously was suffering the health of effects of smoking for s ince age sixteen. In the mid-1960s, Rose Cipollone began to develop a smokers’ cough, as well as problems such as chest pain and hypertension. In 1981, doctors found a carcinogenic spot on her right lung and performed a partial lung resection. After the multitudes of consultations and operations so far in her life, Mrs. Cipollone Rose still continued to smoke, “though often now in secret", claimed Rose from an unknown source. In 1982, the cancer had spread to her lower and middle right lung, and Cipollone had surgery to remove the entire lung as well as a large adrenal mass in 1983. Rose Cipollone died on October 24, 1984, after her lung cancer had spread and become inoperable.

It wasn't until the year before Rose Cipollone's death that she met Marc Edell. Recommended by her chest surgeon, Marc Edell was skilled in the art of going after companies and their negligence to protect consumer health. Rose Cipollone became the litigant in the case after she was recommended by her chest surgeon to attorney Marc Edell. Edell had previously represented the Asbestos Companies in their defense in regard to the health-related claims brought against them. Due to his involvement in asbestos litigation, From that case, Edell became familiar with “pulmonary pathology and risks of smoking” and became interested in litigation against the tobacco industry. In need of a client, Edell took on Cipollone’s case and filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Liggett and Myers, Philip Morris, and Lorillard in five separate tort cases on August 1, 1983, just over a year before her death.

Trial[edit][edit]

{What should definitely be covered is how the media viewed this case. How was it portrayed in popular culture. What were citizens doing at this time and how were the players being seen. Relate to the star value of OJ lawyers. Was it similar to this?} Also talk about the time span of trial, day to day. Did Edell always have the upper hand. Did he lose it at any point, et etc} Need more dates on when first and second trial were

First case[edit][edit]

Edell’s initial case focused on the factor of the cause of Cipollone’s addiction: the nicotine found in her cigarettes. In the initial presentation of the facts, Edell brought forth a series of claims. He planned to prove that Edell planned to argue a case based on the cause of Cipollone's death: nicotine from her cigarettes. He gathered facts to bring a series of claims to the court that argued the following:

  • Tobacco companies had failed to and were negligent in putting better designs of cigarettes on the market when they had the resources to do so put the safer designs on the market, even though they had the resources to research and design them
  • They had committed fraud by failing to act on their knowledge of the harms of smoking
  • Though the industry had knowledge of the dangers of smoking, They had failed to fully inform the public of the true risks of smoking
  • The cigarette makers had breached express warranty by making health claims in their advertising and promotions, which fraudulently overshadowed the mandated health warnings

Liggett and Myers, Philip Morris, and Lorillard all cited the The tobacco companies motioned to dismiss the case, citing the 1966 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertisement Act. The companies argued the act supported preempted independent state regulation of tobacco and therefore prevented state litigation, making the tobacco industry immune to suits. From there, they motioned to dismiss the case. Though The trial judge, H. Lee Sarokin, ruled in favor of Cipollone. The ruling was later overturned on interlocutory appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. However, the appellate court did allowed the case to be retried in district court on the condition that no claims regarding advertisement and promotion could be made. Edell accepted that condition and prepared for retrial.

Second Case[edit][edit]

In the retrial of the first case under the new conditions, Edell was not allowed to enter evidence claiming that Liggett & Myers had worked on the creation of a safer cigarette. He also was not allowed to bring evidence as well as evidence regarding the tobacco industry’s “duty to warn” of the dangers of cigarette smoking, as the point became moot by the appellate court. Regardless of these setbacks, Edell strengthened his case with his access to 300,000 pages of internal documents of the tobacco companies. These documents included compelling and damaging evidence that the tobacco companies had proof, backed by research dating back to the 1940s, that nicotine was addictive and potentially carcinogenic. The tobacco industry unsuccessfully struggled to suppress the evidence papers obtained by Edell on the grounds that it would "divulge trade secrets"; the trial court judge, Sarokin, ruled that the people and the court had the Constitutional right to know what the companies know and granted the use of the papers. The tobacco companies still made an effort to thwart the efforts of Edell to use the papers. They not only appealed to Though the tobacco industry appealed this ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the ruling, but also as well as the the Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case. It was established that the evidence would be used in trial. Alongside the confidential tobacco industry documents, Edell argued that the powerful advertising for the brands Cipollone smoked was an unscrupulous strategy utilized by the tobacco industry to not only overshadow the warning labels mandated by the federal government, but also to promote cigarette use and nicotine addiction as a marketing strategy for company profit. Edell also claimed that Cipollone’s tobacco use stemmed from her nicotine addiction, which was encouraged by the advertising of Liggett and Myers, Philip Morris, and Lorillard by the use of both health claims and deviously appealing advertising. Edell made sure that Cipollone was portrayed as a woman who was disparaged by her powerful addiction to the tobacco industry’s product; expert testimony showed that she even displayed withdrawal symptoms, sometimes digging through “the trash for butts when she ran out of cigarettes”. After presenting his case that the tobacco industry’s advertising of cigarettes and knowledge of risk related to Cipollone’s claims, the tobacco companies' defense moved for dismissal. The motion was denied. They were going to have to answer to Edell's claims.

The tobacco industry argued that Rose Cipollone was fully aware of the risks of smoking both before and during her cigarette use. "She was an independent woman, making an independent decision to continue smoking, and she was in control, not the nicotine" claimed the tobacco industries. Furthermore, even if the cigarettes had caused her death, it was in no way the responsibility of the industry. As research and the industry documents were used in trial, Edell failed to as research, as well as the confidential documents entered into evidence, did not show any explicit proof that lung cancer is linked directly to smoking. Furthermore, expert testimony revealed that the type of lung cancer affecting Cipollone was not associated with smoking. and that Cipollone’s constant switching between “healthier” brands also showed her acknowledgment of the dangers of smoking argued by the defense.

Ruling[edit][edit]

{for both rulings or all three I would like to have an article or information that possibly has to do with public outcry and how the public might have responded to the case and things of that nature}

District Court[edit][edit]

The jury deliberated for 6 days, and reached the verdict that:

  • Cipollone was 80% at fault, based on their assessment of her personal choice to smoke, since it was her personal decision to smoke.
  • All charges for failure to warn were dropped against Philip Morris and Lorillard, since Cipollone began smoking their cigarettes after the 1966 federally mandated warning labels appeared on the packages
  • Only Liggett & Myers could be held liable, as Mrs. Cipollone smoked their cigarettes before the 1966 warning labels, and the
  • Court ruled that the company did in fact contribute to her death.
  • The jury awarded $400,000 in damages to Mr. Antonio Cipollone, who had continued to fight the case after his wife’s death.
  • The claim regarding the tobacco industry’s withholding of a production of a safer cigarette was dismissed on the grounds that it involved speculation to whether Cipollone would have in fact chosen to smoke the safer option if given the opportunity smoked it had she been alive and given the opportunity.

The case can be seen as a win for both parties. Cipollone being awarded damages by the tobacco companies marked a historic first in liability cases against tobacco. However, tobacco companies were able to receive a victory in their stance of cigarette smoking being seen as free choice, becoming a continued argument used after this case. It was considered a victory for both sides; while Cipollone was awarded damages, signifying the first time a tobacco company had paid damages in a liability case, the tobacco industry was justified in their claim regarding free choice in the decision to smoke cigarettes.

Court of Appeals[edit][edit]

{Explain exactly why the appellate court decided to throw out the case and/or review it

In 1990, the Third Circuit appellate court threw out the verdict and:

  • Set aside the $400,000 in damages on the grounds that there was no proof that Mrs. Cipollone relied on the Liggett & Myers advertisements in question
  • Allowed Edell to file suit on the basis of design and advertising. He was able to claim that prior to the 1966 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertisement Act, tobacco companies did not inform the average unaware smoker on the dangers of smoking while they in fact knew this information claiming that prior to 1966, in reference to 1966 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertisement Act, a smoker would be unaware of the harms of smoking, even though the knowledge existed within the tobacco industry
  • Edell could argue the case that the tobacco industry could be held liable on a live claim that the company made Cipollone unaware of the product’s dangers outweighing the benefits.

Five days after the appellate ruling, Antonio(Figure out if it is Tyrese or Antonio) Cipollone died, and the case continued on with his son Rose Cipollone's son continued on with the case after her husbands death. Both the plaintiff and the defense in this case were looking for a concrete doctrine regarding the ability to litigate regarding preemption, state regulation of tobacco, and the Act cited in the first trial of the case.

Supreme Court[edit][edit]

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of preemption of federal law in regard to state law regulating the tobacco industry and whether common law damages constitute a requirement based on smoking and health based on state law in regard to advertisements and promotion. The Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1969 (1966?), which excludes all manufacturers who label their packages with proper warnings from requirement or prohibition, led the majority of the court to the opinion that:

  • Prohibited The filing of a “failure-to-warn” claim against the tobacco industry by Edell was invalid and prohibited
  • Prohibited Cases involving the neutralization of federal warnings in advertisements on the grounds that the Act preempted, or overrode, state laws were also invalid and prohibited
  • Limited common law claims preempted by statute

The majority ruling by the Supreme Court limited the potential litigants in lawsuits against tobacco industries to only smokers who developed diseases prior to 1969. The opinion did not exclude fraud and conspiracy or express warranty, as section 5b of the 1969 Act does not explicitly define this;

The Supreme Court also stated that if the plaintiff, Edell and Cipollone's son in this case, could prove any of the following that:

1)the industry conspired to hide evidence concerning the harms of smoking

2)or lied to the public about them,

3)or if express warranties were breached

then a new case can be filed, as there is no discussion of tort litigation or damage claims in the Act. While The concurring opinion of the court found that no damage claims were preempted rather than not discussed. The dissenting justices found that all state laws were preempted by the act.

Aftermath[edit][edit]

We need to talk about what happened to Edell. When did he ever walk away from the case? What really happened and why did they leave? Maybe discuss how everything was really undone in the case. did tobacco get away with murder. really hit on that point.

The U.S. Supreme Court remanded Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. for a new trial. The retrial never occurred; the $400,000 verdict for Cipollone from the original trial was far eclipsed by the exorbitant costs and length of the lawsuit. Since the case was filed, almost half the ten years was spent on post-trial matters. In 1988, Phillip Morris was quoted as saying: "Almost 200 lawsuits have been brought in the last five and a half years and the cigarette manufacturers have not ... paid a penny to settle one." As of 1992, the law firms handling Cipollone and seven other tobacco litigation cases had "incurred approximately $1.2 million in out-of-pocket expenses ... The firms have also spent well over $5 million in lawyer and paralegal time".

Rose Cipollone's son filed for a voluntary withdrawal of the lawsuit on November 4, 1992. Six other tobacco liability cases were withdrawn the same month as well. The firm handling Cipollone was denied withdrawal in the last remaining case, Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc. Haines dragged on for another decade and then some, until a settlement order was approved on April 13, 2004.

References[edit][edit]

  1. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Brandt, Allan M. "The Cigarette Century: the Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product That Defined America." New York: Basic, 2009, ISBN 978-0-465-07048-0
  2. ^ Jump up to: a b 
  3. Jump up ^ Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 US 504 (1992)
  4. ^ Jump up to: a b c d 
  5. Jump up ^ 
  6. Google Scholar. ( 2017)"Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F. 2d 1108 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 1986". Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=17729224817981165055&hl=en&as_sdt=8006&as_vis=1
  7. Journal of Business Ethics. "Moral Theory and Defective Tobacco Advertising and Warnings ( the business ethics of Cipollon v Liggett Group) 1989, Volume 8, Number 11, Page 831 . John F. Quinn
  8. Justia U.S. Supreme Court. ( 1992) " Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. 505 U.S. 504 (1992)". Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/504/
  9. CDC ( 1999, November, 05). "Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Tobacco Use -- United States, 1900-1999". Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4843a2.htm
  10. Sergis, Diana K. Cipollone v. Liggett Group: Suing Tobacco Companies. Enslow Publishers, 2001.Print
  11. Cornell University Legal Information Institute. " Thomas Cipollone, individually and as executor of the estate of Rose D. Cipollone Petitioner v. Liggett Group Inc."  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1038.ZO.html
  12. Jacobson, Douglas N. "After Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.: How Wide Will the Floodgates of Cigarette Litigation Open." American University Law Review 38.3 (1989): 1021-1060.

External links[edit][edit]

Working/Active Bibliography of Article ( Cipollone v Liggett):[edit]

Bibliography for Cipollone v Liggett Group

Potential Topics For Wikipedia Article(10/24/17):[edit]

Note: In terms of the bibliography, I plan to also use the links already found in the article

Cipollone Cancer Trial[edit]

The first article that I thought of possibly working on was one based on the Cipollone Trial related to the age of Tobacco. In the previous assignment, I had looked up the Cipollone Cancer Trail and found that it received the rating of simply being at the start scale, indicating that it needed more work. If I were to work on the article, the first thing that I would would go further in depth to the background of the case, making sure to contain a neutral tone. The writer of the article seems to not show the gravity of what this court case entailed for both consumers and tobacco industries. Being able to give a brief summary of how we led to this case would help the reader to be more engaged as well as intrigued. Furthermore, the details of the court case were poor, not necessarily going in depth of the events and arguments really used on both sides, with the timeline of the events jumping rather fast. I would hope to include more detail and slow down the narrative to give a more in depth discussion.

Bibliography for Cipollone v Liggett Group

SARS( Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome)[edit]

The article discussing SARS received a B class rating and was a former featured article until being demoted to this level. While it is more put together and advanced than that of the Cipollone Trial, I do see that there is room for some improvement and find this topic more interesting out of the two. However, if the need seems ore prevalent for the Cipollone Trial based off of class and professor feedback, I will choose that one. I think one of the major changes that has to occur in the article is in fact the way the data is presented. I believe that if the data was presented in a much more coherent way with less misquotes, it would help with the piece. Furthermore, the article fails in really discussing the aftermath of the breakout. Were there cases after 2003? How was this contained? The resolution is missing when it comes to this article with other pieces of information that can possibly be added on to fill in the gaps.

Bibliography for SARS ( Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome)

Article Evaluations (10/17/17):[edit]

Public Health Article:[edit]

-When reading the first article I felt that there was not that many distracting lines or phrases that would in fact confuse a reader. However, the last line I did find somewhat odd or misplaced when looking at the overall grand scheme of what the first part of the article was talking about. The ending lines stated delved into the issue of the disparities of public health between developed and developing countries. It was peculiar timing to bring up this issue. The majority of the writing was designated to the neutral definitions of public health-- describing what practices that public health combines as well as discussing the types of workers that go into the field of public health or work together in that given industry. To then scratch the surface of a debate that has many complexities when it comes to gaps in public health between developed and developing countries was irresponsible and lacked the depth that should've followed with such a claim. When checking citations, also seemed to be accurate and had the necessary references to bring credibility to the article as a whole. When it comes to adding anything, it would simply be a further discussion on the gap of public health development between countries to complete the thought in my opinion or take out that sentence as a whole and discuss it at another point. When looking at the Talk Page, there was no real disagreement in terms of what was presented in the article, solely was it based on the concept of a possible misplacement of a banner. One other thing that is important to note is the fact that there is no use of personal anecdote or argumentative tones throughout the writing, something that I feel in class we do heavily-- we insert our own bias sometimes when speaking on an issue rather than simply giving out the facts of the argument; at least when it pertains to possible historical crises and our thoughts on them.

Sugar Substitutes:[edit]

-This article as the one mentioned above also was able to provide a very neutral tone on the topics at hand when it came to artificial sweeteners. However, when viewing the talk page, it was interesting to see that some of their initial statements on the effects of artificial sweeteners were not cited and it was important to make that this was done in order to make sure that the claims were not baseless to say the least. Before this correction was made, you could say that there was some bias in terms of the reader believing that these claims were of the authors own judgement with no references or evidence to support them as a whole. There were no statements that deemed as distracting in my opinion and the topic overall was presented in a neutral tone. In addition, the links to the information that is cited do in fact work.

Vietnams Tuberculosis:[edit]

-As stated previously, this article was not developed in any shape or form and had no actual backbone to stand on with the mere sentences that were provided.

Other Articles Searched:[edit]

- The first article I read about discussed SARS. When going into the writing, I really wanted to observe how the author talked about the disease as well as the efforts of countries like China and their relief effort. The tone of the article began as very neutral. The author discussed in the first part the simple definition of the disease and some of its microbial components, also stating known preventative majors outlined by the World Health Organization. I appreciated a citation of that acronym as well as for the word fomites. When discussing Chinese government efforts, there seemed to be causation that shouldn't have been made-- drawing conclusions that "lack of transparency" or "lack of openness"(CNN as source) resulted in delays for cures or solutions in the epidemic. Unless stated in a document with a source, this correlation shouldn't be drawn. When viewing the talk page, the article was given the rating of being featured, which was expected. However, many critics stated that the author did not fully close the story by not providing a thorough analysis of how the epidemic concluded and inappropriate uses of citations. Overall, the writing was strong but the wording of many of the sentences took away the aspect of these being facts and put them in the category of opinions in some cases. The second article that I read discussed the Cipollone Cancer Trial. The tone of the writing stayed neutral overall. One thing that did distract me was a line in the background section that to the extent called Rose Cipollone's interpretation that tobacco companies wouldn't personally harm their customers as misguided ( ). This is my opinion presents a bias or at least an injection of personal analysis into the writing that did not have to be there. Continuing through the reading, I didn't see any more instances like this. When going to its talk page, the article was rated on the start scale, meaning that it was incomplete and more work had to be done, which was surprising to me as I thought it went in depth. The only possible answer for this could've been the lack of detail presented in the court cases. Other than this there were no other critics of the article. For both wikipedia articles the citations did work when I tried clicking on them and I was able to spot references for different factual arguments.

Content Gap?:[edit]

~ A content gap is something in which a wikipedia article or simply any writing is missing a piece of analysis or context to an issue that is vital to a reader understanding and receiving a holistic idea of an issue. A content gap can be easily identified when a writing tends to lean heavily one way without the opposing side getting as nearly as much coverage necessary or there seems to be skips in the piece in which possible historical events or analysis are left out or even never talked about in the writing. Content gaps can easily arise in two ways in my opinion: 1) the person writing the article is heavily biased in their thoughts towards the issue being written about in the writing. When there is a bias in the mind of the writer, their analysis on the topic will be skewed due to the fact that in their eyes, a balanced view on an issue is really leaning towards one thought process. 2) the sources for which the topic is being researched or one sided. While the writer may have no biased, it is important that just as one puts skill into writing, it is important to put skill into searching for sources as well. If the sources are not holistic or unbiased, then the writing consequently, in no fault of the writer, will also not be unbiased. To be unbiased on wikipedia means that the author has what is called a neutral point of view, meaning that in their writing they are not trying to persuade the reader, they are not sharing personal anecdotes, and they are not putting their own touch of personal analysis in the writing. In terms of aligning with my knowledge of what it means to be unbiased, I was not aware of the rule of not allowing your own analysis to be in the writing, thinking that this was something independent of the normal rules of bias. Now understanding that, I will make note of it.

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x "Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2017-11-29.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w Brandt, Allan M. "The Cigarette Century: the Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product That Defined America." New York: Basic, 2009, ISBN 978-0-465-07048-0
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s Jacobson, Douglas N. "After Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.: How Wide Will the Floodgates of Cigarette Litigation Open?" (PDF). 38 American Univ. Law Rev. 1021 (1988). American University Law School. Retrieved 3 November 2014.
  4. ^ "Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Tobacco Use -- United States, 1900-1999". www.cdc.gov. Retrieved 2017-11-29.
  5. ^ LEVIN, MYRON (1988-06-20). "Taking On Tobacco : Even After a Wave of Legal Setbacks, Marc Edell Wasn't About to Let Landmark Case Go Up in Smoke". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved 2017-11-29.
  6. ^ a b c d Lechner (U.S. District Judge) (26 January 1993). "Opinion, Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 814 F.Supp. 414 (D.N.J. 1993)". U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
  7. ^ "Haines v. Liggett Group Inc". Tobacco Documents.org. Retrieved 3 November 2014.
  8. ^ a b Quinn, John F. (1989-11-01). "Moral theory and defective tobacco advertising and warnings (the business ethics of Cipollone v. Liggett Group)". Journal of Business Ethics. 8 (11): 831–840. doi:10.1007/BF00384524. ISSN 0167-4544.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JD_Johns/sandbox&oldid=814918917"