WASHINGTON, Feb. 20, 2007
Big Tobacco Gets Big Win In High Court
Supreme Court Throws Out $79.5M Punitive Damages Verdict Against Philip Morris
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Big Tobacco Wins In High Court
The Supreme Court overturned a $79.5 million punitive-damages award to the widow of a lifelong smoker. It was a win for Philip Morris, the defendant, and other big businesses. Wyatt Andrews reports.
-
Photo
(AP)
-
Timeline
Tobacco Road
Review a history of the tobacco industry, court battles and smoking's health risks.
-
Interactive
The Supreme Court
History, traditions and key cases, plus what it takes to get on the bench.
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.
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Video and Galleries from Supreme Court
-
Video
Alito Discusses Abortion
-
Video
Questioning Of Alito Begins
-
Video
Challenging 1st Day For Alito
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 79 Comments"An Oregon jury had ruled in favor of the estate of building custodian Jesse Williams, who died in 1997 after having smoked as many as three packs per day for 47 years."
Corporations and individuals "BOTH" need to take responsibility for these types of situations.
Corportations, can not knowingly produce products for the consumer market that they know are "health or safety" issues....... and
Consumers, need to take responsible action when "health and saftey" issues are communicated through our media.....
I agree with most of your post. Bottom line is, money, especially lots of it, will rule in the end if you have it. Just ask O.J.
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.
Sue-ing cigarette companies for making people sick would be like sue-ing Playboy for giving people carpal tunnel syndrome.
Neither makes any sense.
....
Posted by processor2 at 11:29 AM : Feb 20, 2007"
We should not have citizens operating businesses that knowingly provides poison for profit.
Personal responsiblity has very little meaning when addictions are involved.
The children/younger minds are first provided with the cigarette poison to get them addicted in their youth.
When they become addicted adults, mere warning on cigarete boxes HAVE NO effect!
If warnings were that effective, then all we would need to do is to put warning on alcohol bottles, and drunkards would stop immediately, yes?
Also, by your witless argument, we can let cocaine loose in the country by only demanding that drug dealers put warning label on the packages of cocaine, no?.
Even prescription drugs with CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS are being abused and creating addictions.
So one good solution is to PUT THE COMPANIES THAT SELL CIGARETTES POISON OUT OF BUSINESS.
Only a mere business will suffer; but no individual will directly suffer. People will just go with another kind of business.
And finally, first one has to have sense for things to 'make sense'. OK?
Less than 2 months later I can walk, and even run, without being out of breath. At 45, I am getting back into shape at a remarkably fast pace. I'm only 20 lbs. overweight, so the exercise will help me to manage that. Point is: I feel great now.
I'm writing this only to say that cigarettes are harmful and deadly. And don't fool yourselves. I made the choice to put the cigarettes up to my lips, but Phillip Morris and R.J. Reynolds have always made sure that I craved those nasty things enough to keep coming back for more.
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.
....
That was wry. Touche' old boy. I agree, you can't get Budweiser to buy you a new liver either.
Sounds kind of like a Spiderman excerpt. Oh well - it's true.
Suing cigarette companies for making people sick would be like suing Playboy for giving people carpal tunnel syndrome.
Neither makes any sense.%u201D
Posted by processor2 at 11:58 AM : Feb 20, 2007
-------------------------
Cigarette companies were finally required to post warnings on the packages, but they increased their advertising campaigns, in effect telling people to ignore the warnings, that cigarettes really would not harm them.
They dramatically increased the addictive chemical (nicotine) and deliberately targeted the very young. They also lied to congress about knowing that nicotine was addictive.
These are or should be punishable, criminal acts. Neither the tobacco companies nor any executives have ever been held accountable because corporate America now owns/controls our government, ALL BRANCHES.
blockquote
The majority opinion was written by Justice Stephen Breyer. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and justices David Souter, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in dissent, said: "I see no reason why an interest in punishing a wrongdoer for harming persons who are not before the court ... should not be taken into consideration when assessing the appropriate sanction for reprehensible conduct."
/blockquote
I quit smoking about 20 years ago. I still miss them but when I quit cold turkey I quit. If I come down with lung cancer tomorrow it still is not the fault of the company that made the Winstons that I loved to smoke.
Stop and look at a ladder for sale in Lowes or Home Depot. Just look at all the signs and stickers to keep the total idiots from hurting themselves.
Posted by nestorius at 12:46 PM : Feb 20, 2007
--------
Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant to the facts that nicotine IS the addictive ingredient in cigarettes and that the percentage of nicotine in cigarettes HAS RISEN over the last several years.
People are responsible for their actions but that doesn%u2019t excuse the tobacco companies for their actions.
I personally smoked for several years before quitting in 1986.
I was lucky. Today smokers who try to quit face a much harder task due to the stronger nicotine presence now present in cigarettes.
Many people don%u2019t seem to understand that breathing the smoke from someone else%u2019s cigarette is no different from, and just as deadly as, inhaling directly.
That is the biggest reason most smokers fail in their first few attempts to quit. Nicotine withdrawal is impossible when it is periodically breathed into the lungs, even in small amounts.
If there exists only one Bar, grocery store etc. in the town/area the problem is even more complex.
Posted by gunnerv1 at 12:47 PM : Feb 20, 2007"
If I were in a business that DELIBERATELY GET AMERICANS ADDICTED AND THEM POISON AMERICANS, then please, don't just 'shut down my business'; SHUT ME THE HELL DOWN ALSO because I would have lost my way in life and not fit to be among you!
if nicotine is so adictive and non=-smokers are inhaling all this smoke why aren't they smokers now if it is so additive?
Everyone just needs to get over it already. Every time you turn around something is bad for you and then in the next 1-2 years it's not.
Pollution is just as bad for you if not worse, why don't we shut done all the factories so we won't breathe that?
It's not the companies fault if people choose to start smoking, yeah maybe they do become addicted to it, but it was the person who choose to start in the first place. JUST GET OVER IT!!!!
I completely agreed with you . I wrote my governor and ask why if people wanted to, they could have an non-smoking bar and a smoking bar, completly separate and same would go for restaurants. I think that would be fair. And then all the poor little Non-smokers would have their way and wouldn't have to deal with the smoke and smokers could go out again. But do you think i heard back from my governor, no it is all about control.
---------------------------
In California its a public health issue. If you want to smoke go outside. If you don't like the state telling you how to run your buisness leave the state. As a smoker I try to be curtious of those who do not wish to inhale the posions I am addicted to. I am pi$$ed off that the tobaco companies have been putting more nicotine in cigarettes as if it wasn't hard enough to quit.
Posted by cbscrash07 at 01:49 PM : Feb 20, 2007
+ report this comment
-------------------------
bildooreilly
I completely agreed with you . I wrote my governor and ask why if people wanted to, they could have an non-smoking bar and a smoking bar, completly separate and same would go for restaurants. I think that would be fair. And then all the poor little Non-smokers would have their way and wouldn't have to deal with the smoke and smokers could go out again. But do you think i heard back from my governor, no it is all about control.
Posted by ozziepooh90 at 02:32 PM : Feb 20, 2007
+ report this comment
Children who have no "choice" are exposed to secondhand smoke too.
If you have never smoked, or are still smoking and have never tried to quit, you cannot really know how addictive cigarettes are. If you have quit or failed to quit you should.
--------------------------
ozziepooh90
Children who have no "choice" are exposed to secondhand smoke too.
If you have never smoked, or are still smoking and have never tried to quit, you cannot really know how addictive cigarettes are. If you have quit or failed to quit you should.
Posted by jn122736 at 02:49 PM : Feb 20, 2007
+ report this comment
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.
....
So, why make and sell a product that does that? Did you know that there are people who were exposed to second hand smoke as children, who later grew up and were diagnosed with lung cancer? Too bad they didn't get much say about that stupid lame warning on the package! A plague on big tobacco and their supporters!
they have removed punitive damage awards from juries.
now if a company gets caught in a reprehensible situation. they walk away without any fear of monetary loss. in my opinion this will make corporations even more aggressive in all their actions. the chances of ever getting sued, unless it is a class action lawsuit. just became a moot point. the supreme court just took away one of your rights.
This way second hand smoke can stop making everyon else sick, and smokers will have healthy lungs. Why breathe in tar?
Well, evidently what we have here is a failure to listen! Maybe if he would have taken "credence" to the warning, he may be alive today, maybe gained 5 extra yrs, maybe nothing at all, but at least he would have done something instead of absolutely nothing. I smoked for 30yrs and quit. I enjoyed smoking, I to knew it was deadly, and just plain stupid. It's funny cause I never hear a smoker say, "I want to die of lung cancer when I grow up." All I ever hear is, "It's my choice." "It's my right." Absolutely true in every manner, but you might as well put your lips around the exhaust pipe of your car and inhale. Batting the rights issue on something like this is a lost cause. The health issues will more likely prevail. As for second hand smoke...I just wonder how many toxins we breath in, in every breath we take?
Want an example? A guy eats at McDonalds every day, he gets fat, and has a heart attack.
If we apply the same mentality that most of you are using with the tobbaco companies, McDonalds should be suied for selling him the burgers that caused his heart attack.
These types of lawsuits suggest that the common person cannot think for themselves, that a person is to stupid to realize that smoking is bad for you. They realize it...they just don't care or their addicted to it and can't stop. So stop supporting these lawsuits that basically say that the common man or woman is not capable of thinking for themselves.
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.
....
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.
where i live you cannot smoke in a restauarnt of bars at all. Some of the bars here have taken the city to court to be allowed to become a smoking bar.
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.
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.
nowhere in that "bill of rights" are corporations even mentioned. let alone given rights over the people, or their courts.
I give up. I blame it all on Global Warming, SARS and Bird Flu. Now, do I get an honorary doctorate?????
Apparently the jury wanted to give a lot of money to a person who lost a loved one, and the "Judge" decided at the last minute that it was more money than he personally ...liked.
So then, he (or "they") decided that the jury was in error--that IN HIS OPINION the amount was unwarranted, unless the jury was trying (in his opinion) to punish the tobacco company for its over-all business practices, which was not supposed to be the nature of the trial.
Some say "It says on the cigarette package that smoking will make you sick and cause cancer."
Does it say on the package that you WILL be assisting in the early deaths of those surrounding you if they can even smell the smoke?
Hoew can a so called "Judge" opin that this sort of thing is really a "business" at all!!!!
This is not 1955---folks. YES--somebody needs to have a real good look at this judges Swiss Bank Account.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 79 Comments