CASE: Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc - Essay Example

CASE: Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc Q1 This case was about Thomas Cipollone, who wanted to sue the cigarette company for the death of his mother. Thomas claims that the Company failed to warn the public about the dangers of smoking and hid necessary medical information about the complications that could occur from excessive smoking (Stevens 1). The defendants, however, argue against this and claim that all the relative information required is provided in the cigarette packet.Q2(a) As Thomas Cipollone, I would state the fact that the brands attractive advertisement lured the Rose Cipollone to begin smoking.

Later on, another advertisement by the brand claiming that they had a "miracle" cigarette with "mild and light" smoke successfully convinced the client to try out the brand. She continued switching brands as her health slowly deteriorated until her demise. This case would highlight the fact that the company lured the unsuspecting girl into the dangerous habit of smoking through deceptive advertisements. Furthermore, in these advertisements, they failed to inform adequately the complainant about the dangers of smoking and the adverse effects it has on ones health.(b) As a defendant, I would highlight the fact that Cipollone began smoking at her free will.

I would further argue that despite her visible health complications, she defied medical treatment and advice and continued smoking. I would highlight the fact that the company clearly labels every cigarette packet and indicates the dangers of tobacco use. The cigarette manufacturing businesses cannot be personally responsible for the health of every individual, and, therefore, cannot be liable if any health complications arise. This argument would stress the fact that cigarette smoking is a voluntary habit.

Q3 This case is of immense significance to both manufacturers and consumers of cigarettes. Manufacturers have learnt the importance of relaying all information concerning cigarettes. This information includes the warning from the surgeon general. It has shown the manufacturers the importance of concern for the consumers of their product, including responsible advertising and proper health warning labelling. The case is also significant for those who smoke, and use cigarettes. The case acts as a reminder of the dangers of smoking and shows how important it is to consider the health implications of smoking.

Personally, I would have ruled in the favour of the client at that time because the cigarette manufacturer failed to display the relevant product information. The cigarette advertisements that they aired were very appealing and lured the youth to pick up the habit of smoking. Furthermore, as they continued to produce more brands, they vigorously advertised them, targeting young people. In all this, the cigarette manufacturing company paid little attention to the procedure of providing customers with the necessary education concerning the product.

The public did not receive adequate information regarding the dangers of cigarette use and the effects of tobacco on the body. This was tantamount to hiding vital information from unsuspecting consumers. For this, I would have them claim responsibility for their failures and compensate the client accordingly. That would make them realise the importance of responsibility to the public, especially when dealing with items like cigarettes.Work CitedStevens. Thomas Cipollone, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Rose D.

Cipollone, Petitioner v. Liggett Group, Inc., Et Al. N.p., 1992. Web. 20 May 2015.