Court nixes award against Philip Morris

[Lucky... 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_bi_ge/scotus_philip_morris_5&printer=1;_ylt=AtuobIuO87g6jHcQm497ogBv24cA

The Supreme Court threw out a $79.5 million punitive damages award to a smoker's widow Tuesday, 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.

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.

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.

________________________________________________________________________________

Irony is this: 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.



A little partisan flip-flopping here. At least Thomas still has his nose stuck up Scalia's ass....that'll never change.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

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.

Nuts, he believed as he did because he wanted to continue to wallow in his gross addition. Of course the cigarette company will lie about their product.

Now how will Mayola get her Payola.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

A little partisan flip-flopping here.

How so? Who in particular?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

A little partisan flip-flopping here.

How so? Who in particular?

and on which topic - restricting awards, or sticking it to smokers, or sticking it to big business, or being for workers, or being against workers, for lawyers, against lawyers, ........

a vote for or against big awards against big smoking business can be spun as either left OR right

if there's a mix of (presumed) party alliance, just shows that smoking is a mixed issue and not simply cut down artificial party lines

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Of course the cigarette company will lie about their product.

That does not make it right.

While the idea of smokers getting massive payouts for living so unhealthily is like a dagger to the soul, I also very strongly feel that big tobacco should be held to account for their lies.

It's an uncomfortable position to be in.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

A little partisan flip-flopping here. At least Thomas still has his nose stuck up Scalia's ass....that'll never change.

Occasionally Thomas strays from his master, but those are usually 8-1 decisions with him in the minority.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

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.

Strange bedfellows.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zipp0 1]

Everything surrounding smoking is, pardon the pun, a smokescreen. They got the HUGE tobacco settlement, and many states are only spending a TINY portion on smoking prevention and cessation. It was a cash grab.

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/

At the same time, states are funding health care by taxing cigarettes, which tells me they really don't want people to quit. I mean, if everone quit, where would the money come from?

Big tobacco is so big, there can be no doubt that the majority of public officials are in their back pocket.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Everything surrounding smoking is, pardon the pun, a smokescreen. They got the HUGE tobacco settlement, and many states are only spending a TINY portion on smoking prevention and cessation. It was a cash grab.

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/

At the same time, states are funding health care by taxing cigarettes, which tells me they really don't want people to quit. I mean, if everone quit, where would the money come from?

Big tobacco is so big, there can be no doubt that the majority of public officials are in their back pocket.

And then there's the whole business about nicotene being an unregulated drug. I guess implementing government controls that would drive the cost of cigarettes up, would be counter-productive to tobacco tax revenues.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

A little partisan flip-flopping here.

How so? Who in particular?

It would be expected to think:

For the upholding of the verdict:David Souter, Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy.


Dissenting were Justices Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, and Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.

I realize the argument made had to do with instructions to jurors, so that might skew things. The alliances usually don't change but by a person or 2, these are whacky.

[Lucky... 0]

Exactly

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

Strange bedfellows.

See, Kalledn gets what I'm talking about. These justices decide based upon alliances, not issues.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Everything surrounding smoking is, pardon the pun, a smokescreen. They got the HUGE tobacco settlement, and many states are only spending a TINY portion on smoking prevention and cessation. It was a cash grab.

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/

At the same time, states are funding health care by taxing cigarettes, which tells me they really don't want people to quit. I mean, if everone quit, where would the money come from?

Big tobacco is so big, there can be no doubt that the majority of public officials are in their back pocket.

W/o a doubt, many things teh gov claims to want to prevent they really want to perpetuate.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

These justices decide based upon alliances, not issues.

Is that what they said in their opinions?

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

These justices decide based upon alliances, not issues.

Is that what they said in their opinions?

Slow day for you, isn't it?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Jib 0]

The ruling just encourages major companies' bean counters to make health and safety decisions based on what a jury is likely to award to a likely number of people, now times two.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

The ruling just encourages major companies' bean counters to make health and safety decisions based on what a jury is likely to award to a likely number of people, now times two.

Just like Ford did with the design of the Pinto gas tank. The bean counters decided it was cheaper to kill people than to change the design.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Of course the cigarette company will lie about their product.

That does not make it right.

While the idea of smokers getting massive payouts for living so unhealthily is like a dagger to the soul, I also very strongly feel that big tobacco should be held to account for their lies.

It's an uncomfortable position to be in.

yep, agree with all the above

I can separate the ****** of those that choose to smoke even if they know the risks; and the lies and manipulation of big smoke companies. Two different things and both should reap the rewards of their choices.

Too bad we can't seem to find a solution that when one is punished it isn't twisted as a loss of responsibility for the other.

THe big payouts would have been one, but that cash cow was just taken by the various governments involved for their own uses.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Of course the cigarette company will lie about their product.

That does not make it right.

While the idea of smokers getting massive payouts for living so unhealthily is like a dagger to the soul, I also very strongly feel that big tobacco should be held to account for their lies.

It's an uncomfortable position to be in.

I quit smoking 7 years ago after lighting up for 22 years. I knew cigs were doing nasty things to my health, but I didn't care. I would cuss at the tobacco companies for being a bunch of liars in one breath, and light up a cig with the next. I don't see this issue ever being resolved to everyone's satisfaction, and I'm not even considering how the tobacco companies feel.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

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

That's a good news.
The only pity is that they won't force her to pay for all the legal expenses - which would be even better news.

Something should be done to those a$$holes wasting taxpayers money and court time in unreasonable attempts to get some money for themselves.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[lawrocket 3]

Edited - to just get rid of it

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[NCclimber 0]

Nicely done, Lawrocket!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

A little partisan flip-flopping here. At least Thomas still has his nose stuck up Scalia's ass....that'll never change.

Occasionally Thomas strays from his master, but those are usually 8-1 decisions with him in the minority.

Edited on basis of explanation given.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

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

That's a good news.
The only pity is that they won't force her to pay for all the legal expenses - which would be even better news.

Something should be done to those a$$holes wasting taxpayers money and court time in unreasonable attempts to get some money for themselves.

How's that Phillip Morris stock doing?

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[lawrocket 3]

As an aside, I have reasons to agree with and disagree with the verdict. I do, however, agree with the verdict.

Reasons to disagree with it - punitive damages are designed to punish the tortfeasor - to make an example out of him and discourage future similar conduct in the future. I think that the extent of damage outside the Plaintiff is something that logically can be considered.

Why I agree - I do not believe the jury should be making any decision based upon the damages suffered by people that are not asking for it. It's a windfall for that plaintiff to recover damages for harm suffered by others. Let's say ten people sue a defendant and all ten get punitive damages awards, each of them based upon the damages suffered by others. All ten recover their damages and everyone else's. It's like multiplying liability times ten.

The first in line will take it all. Others will not receive it, which would mean that the others can be prohibited from recovering from their OWN harm because the first victorious plaintiff took their share.

This is not a pro-business or anti-business issue, despite attempts to spin it. IT also provides and explanation for the accused "strange bedfellows." When getting to the real issue, political questions like those being stated are smoke and mirrors.

My wife is hotter than your wife.