Case Brief Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.

Case Brief Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.

Introduction

To explain the behavior of the tobacco epidemic worldwide in recent decades, it is necessary consider two factors: a) the addictive potential of nicotine, one of the main components of snuff, b) the actions taken by the tobacco industry to sell their products. The first references to the dangers of snuff from the early seventeenth century. Samuel Rowlands in a verse describes it as a poison that affects the head, lungs and heart.

Discussion

The first indication of the vast information that the tobacco industry has operated on the relationship snuff- addiction-disease, emerged in the eighties, during the trial that engaged the American smoker Rose Cipollone and her family against Liggett Group companies, Lorrillard and Philip Morris (PM). In 1988, as part of the evidence against tobacco companies, the report revealed "Motives and Incentives in Cigarette Consumption," held in 1972 by PM Research Center in Richmond, Virginia, which arose in the cigar as a vehicle for deliver a dose of nicotine and not as a product itself. While no one can say that the paper tilted balance in favor of the family of Cipollone, did find the mask of innocence in the industry. For the first time in a trial disease against a tobacco (Liggett Group, Inc.), the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. On how the millions of pages of secret documents from the industry, ceased to be, is a story somewhat tinged with mystery (Vargo, et. al., 1992).

The first sentence in U.S. history occurred against tobacco in Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) in 1988, when a court ordered the company to pay Liggett 44 million pesetas to the family of Rose Cipollone, who died of lung cancer 1984. Rose, who had started smoking when he was 16, accused Liggett and two other companies, shortly before his death, of not informing smokers in their advertisements about the health hazard posed snuff. After his death, Rose's husband, Antonio, continued the legal battle that culminated in a trial that lasted for four months and had great resonancia.Sin But the 1965 law that imposed the inclusion of warnings on packets on losses continued to protect the snuff tobacco companies that, except in the case Cipollone, always came out victorious in the legal battles promoted by relatives of victims of cigarette thanks to the argument that snuff addicts were aware of its dangers.

The jury returned verdicts favorable to the defendant in all industry cases except one, although it ...