February 11, 2009 5:19 PM

Big Tobacco Gets Big Win In High Court

(CBS/AP)  The Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out a $79.5 million punitive damages award to a smoker's widow, a boon to businesses seeking stricter limits on big-dollar jury verdicts.

The 5-4 ruling was a victory for Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA, which contested an Oregon Supreme Court decision upholding the verdict.

In the majority opinion, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the court said the verdict could not stand because the jury in the case was not instructed that it could punish Philip Morris only for the harm done to the plaintiff, not to other smokers whose cases were not before it.

States must "provide assurances that juries are not asking the wrong question ... seeking, not simply to determine reprehensibility, but also to punish for harm caused strangers," Breyer said.

The decision did not address whether the size of the award was constitutionally excessive, as Philip Morris had asked. Philip Morris USA is based in Richmond, Va.

"This is a big-deal decision," said CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "It goes beyond tobacco cases and will help corporations and other defendants to avoid huge punitive damage awards in the future. It does not eliminate them, but it does make it harder for plaintiffs and judges to impose awards that are way beyond what's needed to compensate victims."

Punitive damages are money intended to punish a defendant for its behavior and to deter repetition.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter, joined with Breyer.

Dissenting were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas.

The dissents in this case were heated, reports CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews. Justice Stevens said that harm to other people needs to be considered. He wrote: "A murderer who kills ... (with) ... a bomb that injures dozens ... should be punished more severely than one who ...(only) ... harms ... his intended victim."

Mayola Williams sued Philip Morris for fraud on behalf of her husband, a two-pack-a-day smoker of Marlboros for 45 years. Jesse Williams died of lung cancer more than nine years ago. Philip Morris makes Marlboros.

She argued the jury award was appropriate because it punishes Philip Morris' misconduct for a decades-long "massive market-directed fraud" that misled people into thinking cigarettes were not dangerous or addictive.

Williams, according to his widow, never gave any credence to the surgeon general's health warnings about smoking cigarettes because tobacco companies insisted they were safe. Only after falling sick did Williams tell his wife: "Those darn cigarette people finally did it. They were lying all the time."

The cigarette maker, however, said a jury can punish the company only for the harm done to Williams, not to other smokers. The jury should have been told explicitly that other smokers, no matter how tragic their stories, would have to prove their own cases, the company said.

The Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and trade associations representing car and drug makers have weighed in on behalf of tighter restrictions on damage awards.

The case also was watched closely as a test of whether the new makeup of the Supreme Court would lead to changes in its prior rulings limiting punitive damages.

Roberts and Alito, the two newest members, were in the majority Tuesday, giving no hint of a change in the court's approach to punitive damages.

The case is Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 05-1256.

© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 77 Comments
by ckcool192000 February 21, 2007 9:06 PM EST
I'd like to respond to goldespirit. First of all the Judge that wrote the supporting opinion writes the opinion for the 5 other judges that voted in support to throw the case out. Don't go off on one judge...it was a vote 5 to 4. If you want to whine talk about all 5 not just the one that wrote the opinion.

Second this lawsuit in the first place was filed simply to make money. The widow was upset and saw a way to make money by suing the company that makes the cigerettes. The company did not put a gun to her husbands head and make him buy the ciggerettes. Her husband bought the ciggerettes out of his own free will. My question...why didn't she sue all the stores that sold ciggerettes to him over the years that he smoked? I applaud the court for refusing to make this widow a millionare because her husband willing chose to smoke. Thank god the justice system prevents such things!
Reply to this comment
by padams1010 February 21, 2007 1:57 PM EST
You know what gets me? If HALF the effort to get tobacco industry shut down was aimed at the alcohol industry ... who knows ... we might have less drunk driving deaths. How about adding a dollar tax on EACH beer?? Why just cigarettes? I'll tell you why ... because ALL politicians are drinkers as well as ALL media personalities!! Has anyone EVER analyized the two statistics on deaths? Cigarettes/cigarette smoke deaths verses alcohol related deaths. Course not!! My 15 year old granddaughter survived an alcholo related wreck (not accident ... the guy was deliberately drinking) ... praise the Lord!! But she will be crippled the rest of her life!! And she comes from a non-drinking family ... yes ... her Dad smokes ... but HIS smoke didn't hurt her. We've taken the young man to court ... and the insurance company ... 3 years later ... nothing!!! Where's the justice in this? Should we sue the alcholo industry? Yeah ... like that would work. So you people so strong against cigaretts ... I hope you have someone hurt by alcholo to understand the difference!!
Reply to this comment
by jdweymouth February 21, 2007 9:56 AM EST
Re: "That should apply to alot of other stuff, like pot, and the religious use of peyote. The Government is hypocritical when its singles out alchohol and tobacco as legal and removes all other recreational drugs from competition." -Posted by pwrslm


pwrslm: I agree 100%! I am libertarian, though I am not affiliated with the Party.
Reply to this comment
by pwrslm February 21, 2007 9:37 AM EST
If people want to smoke 100 packs per day: let them. If corporations want to answer the public demand for cigarettes: let them. The 10th amendment states that powers not expressly given to the federal government are given to the states, or the individual. It's up to the individual to decide whether or not he wants to smoke, and it's up to a group of individuals, or sometimes a lone individual to decide whether or not he wants to supply cigarettes
Posted by jdweymouth at 11:36 PM : Feb 20, 2007


That should apply to alot of other stuff, like pot, and the religious use of peyote. The Government is hypocritical when its singles out alchohol and tobacco as legal and removes all other recreational drugs from competition.

The alchohol and tobacco lobby have paid dearly to keep it that way. 7-11 must not have the room for more.

Reply to this comment
by jdweymouth February 21, 2007 4:18 AM EST
rudy654:

The government doesn't have to pay medical costs because health care is privatized in the United States. This is just one reason why it should remain privatized.

If people choose to smoke, it's their right. The 10th amendment guarantees it to them. Don't tou believe is a free society?

I don't like welfare either. I'm libertarian. However, welfare money isn't "hard earned". That's why it's called welfare.
Reply to this comment
by rudy654-2009 February 21, 2007 4:02 AM EST
"If people want to smoke 100 packs per day: let them. If corporations want to answer the public demand for cigarettes: let them."

Yeah! Sure! If they get lung cancer, why let them die! If their kids develop lung disease from secondhand smoke, why let them damage their young little lungs! If they want to spend their hard earned welfare money on worthless tobacco products, while their kids go without, why let them! We don't need no stinkin food! If medical costs for lung damage exceed their incomes, and the government has to pay, why let them!
Reply to this comment
by rudy654-2009 February 21, 2007 3:55 AM EST
"These people that are suing are just out to get some free money."

Good! More power to them. I hope they eventually bring big tobacco to bankruptcy and complete ruin. If they don't care that their product is life threatening, then I don't care if someone gets "free" money from them.

Big Tobacco:"Oh, look! We became filthy rich selling you our tobacco product, and all you got is lung cancer and one big bill that even your kids can't pay! Suckers! Hehehehehehehe!"

Yeah, "free" money. What a joke! The only ones getting any free money are tobacco executives and their political friends.
Reply to this comment
by fairandbal February 21, 2007 2:58 AM EST
When will these activist judges stop legislating from the bench!
Bush has appointed scores of corporate judges and now they're taking away your right to justice. Wake up!
Reply to this comment
by jdweymouth February 21, 2007 2:38 AM EST
"oderately"-*moderately* (sic)
Reply to this comment
by jdweymouth February 21, 2007 2:36 AM EST
If people want to smoke 100 packs per day: let them. If corporations want to answer the public demand for cigarettes: let them. The 10th amendment states that powers not expressly given to the federal government are given to the states, or the individual. It's up to the individual to decide whether or not he wants to smoke, and it's up to a group of individuals, or sometimes a lone individual to decide whether or not he wants to supply cigarettes. This is the view of a libertarian, and the United States was founded as conservative libertarian society (%u201Cconservative%u201D in this case means regulatory- oderately libertarian: and not anarchistic)
Reply to this comment
See all 77 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook