How Much Is Too Much In Court?
Jesse Williams, according to his widow, never gave any credence to the surgeon general's health warnings about smoking cigarettes.
When Williams contracted inoperable lung cancer after smoking two packs a day for 45 years, he told his wife: "Those darn cigarette people finally did it. They were lying all the time."
"You trust those people that sell it to you," his widow Mayola Williams told CBS News correspondent Barry Bagnato. When he got lung cancer, "he became angry and upset."
Nine years after Williams' death, the Supreme Court is considering this question: Can Mayola Williams collect $79.5 million in punitive damages for fraud from the cigarette company Philip Morris USA?
To the dismay of anti-smoking groups, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the company's appeal of a jury verdict in Oregon.
It's a huge business case testing the limits of punitive damage awards, and may be the most important punitive damages case ever considered by the court.
It's not about the money, Williams' daughter Jo Anne Hafey told Bagnato.
"It's about truth. It's about what the tobacco company has done to my father and to many other people," Hafey said.
Philip Morris, the maker of Marlboros, is struggling to turn back unfavorable rulings by Oregon state courts in the Williams case. One ruling upheld the jury award after the Supreme Court sent the case back to Oregon once before to make sure it conformed to a 2003 high court opinion limiting punitive damages.
The Williams family is counting on justices to find that Philip Morris' conduct was so reprehensible that it justifies exceeding guidelines the court has laid out in two rulings in the past 10 years that struck down large awards.
One difference is that the earlier cases did not involve physical injuries.
The company doesn't deny making public statements rejecting a link between smoking and cancer; rather, it says there's no evidence Williams ever heard the statements or ever read them.
The court also will be looking at the decision of the state courts that declared it acceptable for the jury in the Williams case to consider harm by Philip Morris to other smokers for conduct similar to that which allegedly injured Williams.
"Philip Morris simply lied for profit, knowing it would kill people," Mayola Williams' attorney, Bill Gaylor, told Bagnato.
Three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court said in a different case that a defendant cannot be punished in an individual lawsuit for harm to people other than the plaintiff.
The cigarette company says the approach of the Oregon courts is collective punishment in an individual action, a violation of due process. Philip Morris complained that the nonparties in the case were never identified, their individual circumstances were not presented in court, and there was no way for a defendant to respond to allegations of widespread harm.
The jury awarded Williams' widow, Mayola, $800,000, in actual damages, a ratio of 97 to one. Justice Anthony Kennedy said three years ago that the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages rarely should be higher than nine to one.
The company says that under long-established practice, when compensatory damages are substantial, the constitutional maximum punishment is between zero and four times the amount of compensatory damages.
Representing Oregon businesses, lawyer Thomas Brown says they need clarity to know their risks.
"There's very little guidance that controls the discretion of juries in punitive damage awards," Brown said.
Businesses want to see clear rules and limits.
"That predictability allows businesses to understand their risk of conducting business," Brown told Bagnato.
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. When Williams contracted inoperable lung cancer after smoking two packs a day for 45 years, he told his wife: "Those darn cigarette people finally did it. They were lying all the time."
"You trust those people that sell it to you," his widow Mayola Williams told CBS News correspondent Barry Bagnato. When he got lung cancer, "he became angry and upset."
Nine years after Williams' death, the Supreme Court is considering this question: Can Mayola Williams collect $79.5 million in punitive damages for fraud from the cigarette company Philip Morris USA?
To the dismay of anti-smoking groups, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the company's appeal of a jury verdict in Oregon.
It's a huge business case testing the limits of punitive damage awards, and may be the most important punitive damages case ever considered by the court.
It's not about the money, Williams' daughter Jo Anne Hafey told Bagnato.
"It's about truth. It's about what the tobacco company has done to my father and to many other people," Hafey said.
Philip Morris, the maker of Marlboros, is struggling to turn back unfavorable rulings by Oregon state courts in the Williams case. One ruling upheld the jury award after the Supreme Court sent the case back to Oregon once before to make sure it conformed to a 2003 high court opinion limiting punitive damages.
The Williams family is counting on justices to find that Philip Morris' conduct was so reprehensible that it justifies exceeding guidelines the court has laid out in two rulings in the past 10 years that struck down large awards.
One difference is that the earlier cases did not involve physical injuries.
The company doesn't deny making public statements rejecting a link between smoking and cancer; rather, it says there's no evidence Williams ever heard the statements or ever read them.
The court also will be looking at the decision of the state courts that declared it acceptable for the jury in the Williams case to consider harm by Philip Morris to other smokers for conduct similar to that which allegedly injured Williams.
"Philip Morris simply lied for profit, knowing it would kill people," Mayola Williams' attorney, Bill Gaylor, told Bagnato.
Three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court said in a different case that a defendant cannot be punished in an individual lawsuit for harm to people other than the plaintiff.
The cigarette company says the approach of the Oregon courts is collective punishment in an individual action, a violation of due process. Philip Morris complained that the nonparties in the case were never identified, their individual circumstances were not presented in court, and there was no way for a defendant to respond to allegations of widespread harm.
The jury awarded Williams' widow, Mayola, $800,000, in actual damages, a ratio of 97 to one. Justice Anthony Kennedy said three years ago that the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages rarely should be higher than nine to one.
The company says that under long-established practice, when compensatory damages are substantial, the constitutional maximum punishment is between zero and four times the amount of compensatory damages.
Representing Oregon businesses, lawyer Thomas Brown says they need clarity to know their risks.
"There's very little guidance that controls the discretion of juries in punitive damage awards," Brown said.
Businesses want to see clear rules and limits.
"That predictability allows businesses to understand their risk of conducting business," Brown told Bagnato.
Knocker, obviously you've been knock too many times on the noggin.
Even the 'stupid' is due protection from the criminal in any worthwhile society.
Only, hefty fines (equaling ALL profits, and them some, of the company) should be spread out to more victims and agencies that bear the costs of the companies' poisoning ventures.
While the plaintiff still gets the compensatory damages.
The lawyers should receive a maximum payment from the punitive damages, based on typical work salary and not a percentage.
As a former smoker I knew that smoking was addictive and was bad for my health. I quit after many failed attempts. I think that if I can can quit, others can too. Mr. Williams began smoking when it the risks were not fully understood, but since he didn't stop smoking once he noticed the warnings on the packs of cigarettes that smoking can cause cancer, it is his responsibility to make the decision to quit or suffer the consequences.
Mr Williams started smoking about 1952.
In 1969, the Federal Government required ALL cigarette makers to include a warning on the package. Mr Williams declined to quit smoking.
In 1984, further descriptions as to what you could expect if you continued smoking were included, by Federal law, to be printed on cigatette packs. Mr Williams, AGAIN, continued to smoke.
Mr. Williams continued to smoke- despite repeated warnings (at two packs per day from 1969 until his death in 1997, that would equate to his having been warned apoproximately 20,440 times- 28 years times 2 packs/d times 365 days/yr).
I think over 20,000 warnings is sufficient. When is personal responsibility going to be factored in? When a patient disregards specific instructions for postoperative care, and suffers an adverse event as a result, they are at least held partly responsible for any adverse outcome. How many times did Mr. Williams need to be warned before he is held responsible for his adverse outcome???
in order to get the US SUPREME COURT
to give you some DUE PROCESS
My opinion OUR GREAT LEADERS are setting us up for a fall..!
How many ALIENS (foreigners) work for the federal government..
How many people are part of the FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY
With little or NO LOYALTIES to the AMERICAN PEOPLE
(i.e. a Fifth Column)
OUR GOVT. and THE COURTS ARE CORRUPT!
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
James B. Veasaw v. Cari M. Domingues,et al.
No: 05-1467
Securities and Exchange Commission
was giving away or selling Govt. jobs, and
the COURTS were helping them it COVER UP..!
====
They are going to start a war and
they are going to KILL ALL OF OUR TROOPS...
sink our ships, and destroy our air force...
then they are going to DRAFT the ILLEGAL (soon to be legal) ALIENS
(i.e. HESSIANS / MERCENARIES )
and they are going to IMPRISON the American PEOPLE
within 3 years (from 2006) we will be in a CIVIL WAR
and
within 6 years (from 2006) we will be in a WORLD WAR
We are sitting in the middle of a HORNETS NEST
And OUR GREAT LEADERS
don't (can't) even see the entire field of battle is
IRAQ has the problems because some EINSTEIN (Rumsfeld)
didn't want to shut down the borders at the beginning of the war
"We will kill all the terrorist that come to IRAQ..."
P.S. We are suppose to be at WAR,
you notice they don't want to shut down our borders TOO.
The problem is that too many people believe the lies that they are being told by those with a vested interest in having you do what they want you to do. Look at the numbers of people who do not believe in the threat being caused by global warming, drinking alcohol, using drugs, etc..