Big Tobacco Gets Big Win In High Court

Supreme Court Throws Out $79.5M Punitive Damages Verdict Against Philip Morris

(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.

[ckcool192000]

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!

[padams1010]

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!!

[jdweymouth]

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.

[pwrslm]

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.

[jdweymouth]

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.

[rudy654-2009]

"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!

[rudy654-2009]

"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.

[fairandbal]

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!

[jdweymouth]

"oderately"-*moderately* (sic)

[jdweymouth]

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)

[thgdriver]

cbslogin12 I respectfully disagree, It's still a product that you as a free person have a "choice' to partake in or not. I don't believe in that hooked concept, if a person "wants" to stop they can. I am proof of that and I have helped others recently stop for good .

I don't smoke as I pointed out, but I think if others want to smoke and probably shorten their lives it is their "choice' to make. I think they are foolish especially if they have family to be there for.

I feel that in public areas smoking should be banned for the safety of those that don't want second hand smoke.

[cbslogin12]

Check out this article at MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14576260/

Excerpt:
"The level of nicotine found in U.S. cigarettes has risen about 10 percent in the past six years, making it harder to quit and easier to get hooked, according to a new report released Tuesday by the Massachusetts Department of Health.

Public Health Commissioner Paul Cote Jr. called the findings "significant" and said the report was the first new release on nicotine yield in more than six years nationally.
The study found the three most popular cigarette brands with young smokers %u2014 Marlboro, Newport and Camel %u2014 delivered significantly more nicotine than they did years ago. Nicotine in Kool, a popular menthol brand, rose 20 percent. More than two-thirds of black smokers use menthol brands."

These companies KNOW what they are doing. No punishment is enough. They are selling poison. The real victims are the second hand smokers who become sick and often die. They did not chose to smoke and yet they suffer the consequences unfairly.

[thgdriver]

I stopped smoking a long while back, cold turkey as they say. These people that are suing are just out to get some free money. It's been very, very, clear for a long time that smoking will kill you. This husband and wife would have us believe they are not responsible for their own actions. If I was on that jury she would not have gotten a dime.

I like to point out that if you saw a glass room choke filled with smoke. Your eyes would tell your brain not to let you walk into that room and take a deep breath.
When you take a suck on a cigarette thats exactly what your lungs think you just did.

Anyhow, I am glad the supreme court came out in the manufactures favor.

[scott4261]

(3 of 3)

6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trail, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of counsel for his defence.

7. In suits of common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of a trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law.

8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

9. The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[scott4261]

(2 of 3)

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

5. No person shall be held to answer for capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

[scott4261]

1 of 3)

Opinions on these pages go across the spectrum, with some not easily categorized as left or right. Even though some of us have some heated exchanges here, it is clear that most of us love our country.

With that in mind, here are our rights. Learn them while we still have them:

-----------------
These are the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Passed by Congress on September 25, 1789, ratified by 3/4ths of the states on December 15th, 1791:

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

3. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in the time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

[processor2]

CBS HEADLINE: Supreme Court Justices Throw Out $79.5M Punitive Damages Verdict Against Philip Morris

GOOD FOR THE SUPREME COURT

It says on the cigarette package that smoking will make you sick and cause cancer.

Suing cigarette companies for making people sick would be like suing Playboy for giving people carpal tunnel syndrome.

Neither makes any sense.

....

[km523]

Smoking doesn't kill people while driving, or make you beat your wife, etc..drinking is the problem.

[km523]

The person comparing playboy and smoking needs to stop buying magazines, its NOT the same thing! Why dont people focus on alcohol. Drinking too much can kill you too, expecially getting hit by a drunk driver, I should know....

[actornaught]

jh, thank you for that, honestly, but many many more smokers have no such consideration.

flswanson, you state a more or less legitimate concern. however, i've been through the steel mill closings, a much more critical loss of American productivity, and nothing has taken it's place. farmers would more easily move on to something else.