Document Type
Article
Publication Title
Supreme Court Economic Review
Publication Date
1993
ISSN
0736-9921
Page Number
239
Keywords
state law tort claims, warning labels, judicial decisions
Disciplines
Health Law and Policy | Law | Torts
Abstract
In Cipollone v Liggett Group, Inc., a splintered Court concluded that cigarette smokers who are injured through their consumption of tobacco may bring some state law tort claims against the manufacturers of the cigarettes. Other claims, however, are preempted by federal legislation requiring cigarette packages and advertising to bear warning labels, the specific wording of which is dictated by statute. After a detailed examina- tion of the economics of hazard warning systems, Professor Viscusi argues that the most important economic issues in the Cipollone case were cor- rectly resolved in Justice Stevens'plurality opinion, which contained little overt economic reasoning. The other two opinions in the case, which con- tained more economic analysis than the Stevens opinion, reached conclu- sions that were economically less sound with respect to the most important warnings issues. Professor Viscusi concludes that the result in Cipollone is largely good news for consumers, and that it should serve as a warning against judging the economic effects ofjudicial decisions by the degree to which they seem to rely on economic reasoning.
Recommended Citation
W. Kip Viscusi,
Cigarette Warnings: The Perils of the Cipollone Decision, 3 Supreme Court Economic Review. 239
(1993)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/61