Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, March 26, 1991 TAG: 9103260048
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: From The New York Times and The Washington Post
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
The case, brought by the family of a New Jersey woman, Rose Cipollone, who died of lung cancer after 42 years as a smoker, promises to be a watershed in anti-smoking advocates' long and largely unsuccessful legal battle to hold cigarette manufacturers liable for the health effects of smoking.
The justices will rule on a fundamental legal issue that is common to dozens of similar lawsuits: whether the federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 pre-empts individual lawsuits based on allegations that the manufacturers, despite compliance with the federal law, have failed to provide adequate warning or have engaged in misleading advertising.
The federal law, which took effect in 1966, initially required cigarette packages and advertising to carry the label: "Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health."
Four years later, Congress amended the law to make the "caution" more explicit.
A 1985 amendment required four still more explicit warnings to be used on a rotating basis.
In addition, the federal law bars states from imposing additional regulations in the area of cigarette labeling and advertising.
The question for the Supreme Court is whether Congress intended to bar not only additional state regulation but also, more broadly, negligence suits based on the theory that the manufacturers have a duty to warn consumers, and to refrain from misleading them, that goes beyond the requirements of federal law.
These theories are central to virtually all the smokers' lawsuits that have been filed against cigarette companies.
Every federal appeals court to consider the issue has concluded that the federal law pre-empts individual lawsuits alleging inadequte warnings.
While the tobacco industry has prevailed in federal court, it has been less successful in having similar suits dismissed in state court.
The three tobacco companies that are the defendants in the Cipollone case took the relatively unusual step of not opposing the family's Supreme Court appeal despite having prevailed in the lower court.
The companies - Liggett Group, Philip Morris and Loews Corp., the parent company of Lorillard - urged the court to hear the case and resolve the conflict between state and federal courts.
The financial stakes for the tobacco industry are substantial. The pre-emption defense has been so successful that few new lawsuits have been filed against it in recent years.
Monday on the New York Stock Exchange, Philip Morris stock closed at 66 7/8, down 2 5/8; Loews closed at 104 1/4, down 3/8 and the Brooke Group, the parent company of Liggett, closed at 8 1/8, up 1/8. The Dow Jones Industrial average was up 6.93 Monday, closing at 2865.84.
Rose Cipollone, who had started smoking in 1942, filed her lawsuit in 1983 and died of lung cancer the next year.
Also on Monday, the court rejected a Seattle man's effort to obtain a share of the profits from products made with cells taken from his blood and cancerous spleen.
John Moore, who was suffering from hairy-cell leukemia, had a unique blood type that made his cells extremely valuable, with market potential of the products developed predicted to reach hundreds of millions of dollars in this decade.
The court declined to review a California Supreme Court ruling that Moore did not have a property right in his blood and bodily tissues after they were taken from him.
by CNB