High Court tosses Philip Morris judgment

Posted on Mon, Oct. 06, 2003

High Court tosses Philip Morris judgment
GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday threw out an $80 million verdict against cigarette-maker Philip Morris.

The verdict, for the family of an Oregon janitor who died in 1997 of lung cancer, should be reviewed by lower courts to ensure it is not unconstitutionally excessive, justices said.

The court's action was encouraging for businesses, which hope a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year will lead to reductions in large punitive damage verdicts.

It was the second victory for Philip Morris in its legal battles with the family of Jesse D. Williams, who accused the company of concealing information about the dangers of smoking. Williams started smoking in the 1950s when serving in the Army in Korea, and later he smoked three packs of Marlboros a day. (snip/...)

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/6945698.htm

Roy Blunt be happy.

The court tossed out the punitive damages, not the compensatory damages. Basically the damages from from the case are still there. However, I disagree with this decision. Now any company can get a court to overturn any punititive damage award it doesn't like.

Well, I'm not surprised. The system's being used as a means to accomplish political objectives in a court of law. There's abuses on all sides, and the courts are being swamped by the core problem: juries aren't controllable. If they have a problem with that then the system needs to change.

but if it considers that Phillip Morris has entered into the national settlement and been hit for punitives a number of times already, the purpose of punitives are already served. As a liberal trial lawyer, even I have to agree. But. And this is a big butt, defendants do not usually plead that they have already paid punitive damages for the same conduct.

and is wrong on top of it!

And we'll take up the gauntlet again, and kick Philip Morris' asses one more time. Under Oregon law, which this decision may or may not overrule, if the jury made an award of damages based on evidence in the record, courts may not substitute their discretion for that of the jury which heard the case.

Evidence at trial was that Philip Morris makes at least $17 billion in sales annually, and that its products kill more than 400,000 persons every year. What is a meaningful damage award that will deter such bad corporate conduct in the future? The jury said $79.5 million, based on the plaintiff's prayer for $100 million in damages, reduced by his contributory 20% share of negligence in bringing about his own death. At least, that will be our argument, on which we've prevailed at trial and on appeal.

The Oregon Supreme Court will be ordered to issue a new judgment, based on consideration of the U.S. Supreme Court's stated guidelines in other punitive damages cases. The Oregon court, which doesn't have the same respect for the rights of murdering corporations as the Supremes apparently do, may simply rule that after due consideration, we reinstate the full verdict.

A fight is rounds. So far, this is probably round 8 of a scheduled 12 round fight, and plaintiff is way ahead on points.

The Supreme Court has repeateedly taken up cases involving extremely large punitive awards, particularly where they are high in comparison to the compensatory damages in the case. They haven't, so far, set a bright-line mathematical rule (e.g., punitives no more than 2x compensatories), but they're getting close to it.

Bake

In this case were $21,485.80 for medical expenses, and $800,000 in noneconomic damages. The noneconomic portion was reduced to $500,000 under the Oregon "tort reform" cap because of the incredible hardship an $800,000 award might work on Philip Morris.

I really hate this tobacco debate because it goes around in circles. If an 87 year old person dies of lung cancer, their families can file suit against tobacco companies? Come on. We are not in an enviornment where we are influenced only by one thing. What about car fumes? Are we going to start suing the petroleum refineries for the damage they've done? What about people drinking and driving? Should we start suing distilleries? How about the car manufacturer for not ensuring that every one of their consumers who get behind the wheel is sober? My dad died of stress-related stroke -- should I sue his employer for causing him stress? We are but mere mortals. There are no guarantees in life and death.

It's silly anyway. This person chose to smoke cigarettes, and there's no way in the world someone who was alive the past 3 decades could possibly not know that cigarettes cause cancer.

If you started before 1964 and became addicted and couldn't stop you have a case, if you are not beyond the statute of limitations. Trying to bring suit after the warnings were placed on the pack is a non starter. (after the Surgeon General's report was publicized)

I guess he slips under the wire of the Jinx Statute of Limitations.

Bottom line: Corporations shouldn't be able to avoid liability for an unreasonably dangerous and defective product, whether "everyone knows" the product is dangerous or not. And, when that product is addictive, as tobacco is, and the tobacco companies worked for decades to avoid government regulation and oversight of their product, they should not be heard to complain now when tort law finally catches up to their lying shenanigans.