Supreme Court throws out Philip Morris verdict

[JPSartre12]

From MSNBC's website

WASHINGTON - 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.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17239146/


While I applaud the verdict, I'm curious about the 5-4 decision. The vote broke down in a rather weird way:

Majority Opinion:
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.

More to follow.

[Def.I.Nition]

Another act of judicial activism.

Shielding the Powerful

The Supreme Court’s decision yesterday overturning a nearly $80 million punitive damage award against Philip Morris is a win for corporate wrongdoers. It stretches the Constitution’s guarantee of due process in a way that will make it easier for companies that act reprehensibly to sidestep serious punishments.

It also provides unsettling new evidence that the court is more concerned about — and more willing to protect — the powerful than the powerless.

An Oregon jury awarded Mayola Williams, the widow of a cigarette smoker, about $821,000 in compensatory damages and $79.5 million in punitive damages. Ms. Williams argued that Philip Morris had spent 40 years denying the connection between smoking and cancer, even though it knew cigarettes were deadly. The Oregon Supreme Court upheld the punitive damages award, saying that Philip Morris’s actions had been “extraordinarily reprehensible.” By keeping Oregonians smoking longer than they otherwise would have, the court said, the company’s actions would, “naturally and inevitably, lead to significant injury or death.”

By a 5-to-4 vote that did not follow the usual ideological lines, the court ruled that the award was improper because it punished Philip Morris for harm done to people who were not part of the lawsuit. There is nothing unusual, or wrong, about courts considering the broader impact of a wrongdoer’s misdeeds. As Justice John Paul Stevens noted in dissent, “A murderer who kills his victim by throwing a bomb that injures dozens of bystanders should be punished more severely than one who harms no one other than his intended victim.” The fact that Philip Morris hurt so many other smokers along with Jesse Williams is surely relevant to its punishment.

The court in recent years has become increasingly activist when it comes to defending the rights of corporations by striking down punitive damage awards. And yesterday’s ruling continues that trend. It expands the notion of due process. And it overturns the decisions of a jury and a state supreme court.

Unfortunately, the court has been far less activist when ordinary people seek protection or challenge their punishments. The ruling stands in particular contrast with the court’s 2003 decision that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishments” did not bar California, under its “three strikes” law, from sentencing a man to 50 years in prison for stealing $153.53 worth of videotapes. Yesterday’s decision is another disturbing sign that — as the current court reads the Constitution — powerful parties have more rights than regular people.


NY Times Editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/opinion/21wed1.html)

[Hawkyfan99]

Based on what I read, the reason that the award was thrown out was because the jury wasn't advised that they could only punish the company for damage to the victim. The award was not vacated specifically because it was unreasonable (though *I* would argue that it was), it was vacated because there was a construct of law that was not adhered to. Which would mean that it was NOT an activist court's work.

[holychicken]

Yeah, doesn't sound like judicial activism to me either. It sounds like the case was thrown out on a technicality. . . like a murderer getting off because the cop who arrested him didn't read him his miranda rights.

I agree with the ruling, I just disagree with the reasons why.

[JPSartre12]

Another act of judicial activism.

NY Times Editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/opinion/21wed1.html)

It appears that the Editor od the NYT needs to learn what the term judicial activism means. From what I've read, the court ruled that the jury wasn't given proper instructions regarding punitive damages. I hardly see that as legislating from the bench.

[kmhowe72]

That is not good

[JPSartre12]

That is not good

Why? Do you think that the widow of some fool that ignored warnings on his cigarette packs and everywhere else for 40 years should receive ~$80Million for his being stupid?!

[abcNKH]

Why? Do you think that the widow of some fool that ignored warnings on his cigarette packs and everywhere else for 40 years should receive ~$80Million for his being stupid?!actually, warnings on cigarette packages began in 1965, about 13 years after this man began smoking. Not that I agree with the judgement, but the guy was only stupid for 32 years ;)

[ByoQemFizzix]

Let's just ban cigarettes full stop. Shut down the companies that produce them. Oh, and inject the people who run these companies with fifty years worth of nicotine... they're just pedlars in slow, excruciating deaths anyhow. May they rot in Hell...

For those of you wondering why I hold such strong views... I had to watch my mother die slowly in hospital over the course of a week due to those foul things. When they finally turned the life support off it took her two hours to finally die... So like I said - may those bastards rot in hell if there is one...

[JPSartre12]

actually, warnings on cigarette packages began in 1965, about 13 years after this man began smoking. Not that I agree with the judgement, but the guy was only stupid for 32 years ;)

Better redo your math. If the warnings started in 1965, that was 41+ years ago. .
I have as much sympathy for him as I do for the drunks with sclorosis of the liver. You play the game, you pay the price.

[JPSartre12]

Let's just ban cigarettes full stop. Shut down the companies that produce them. Oh, and inject the people who run these companies with fifty years worth of nicotine... they're just pedlars in slow, excruciating deaths anyhow. May they rot in Hell...

For those of you wondering why I hold such strong views... I had to watch my mother die slowly in hospital over the course of a week due to those foul things. When they finally turned the life support off it took her two hours to finally die... So like I said - may those bastards rot in hell if there is one...

They tried that with alcohol, which is much deadlier, and the people repealed prohibition because they didn't want a nanny government telling them what they could ingest. The same logic holds for tobacco. It isn't Uncle Sam's job to protect us from ourselves.

[ByoQemFizzix]

Hate to point it out to you but not everybody lives under the yolk of "Uncle Sam"...

And there is actually a small difference between alcohol and smoking. Yes, they *both* can cause you great harm, but I've never heard that one cigarette a day is actually good for your heart like they do with certain alcohol (red wine, iirc)...

Let's face it, the only reason that cigarettes have not been made illegal is the incredible amount of tax governments squeeze out of them...

[JPSartre12]

Hate to point it out to you but not everybody lives under the yolk of "Uncle Sam"...

And there is actually a small difference between alcohol and smoking. Yes, they *both* can cause you great harm, but I've never heard that one cigarette a day is actually good for your heart like they do with certain alcohol (red wine, iirc)...

Let's face it, the only reason that cigarettes have not been made illegal is the incredible amount of tax governments squeeze out of them...

maybe in your country, but we still value SOME of our freedoms here.

[Raven]

actually, warnings on cigarette packages began in 1965, about 13 years after this man began smoking. Not that I agree with the judgement, but the guy was only stupid for 32 years ;) :lol:

[Raven]

Let's just ban cigarettes full stop. Shut down the companies that produce them. Oh, and inject the people who run these companies with fifty years worth of nicotine... they're just pedlars in slow, excruciating deaths anyhow. May they rot in Hell...

For those of you wondering why I hold such strong views... I had to watch my mother die slowly in hospital over the course of a week due to those foul things. When they finally turned the life support off it took her two hours to finally die... So like I said - may those bastards rot in hell if there is one...

I am sorry about your mom :( After something like that, I can certainly understand why you might want cigarettes banned completely, though I don't agree.

I DO, however, agree that there is huge amounts of evidence that the cigarette makes not only knew (and covered up for many years) the health risks of cigarettes, they purposely increased the nicotine to make sure people got hooked. I do think that the specific people who can be indentified in that aspect should be prosecuted for, at the very least, manslaughter. And I think that your choice of punichment (as bolded above) sounds like perfect justice to me.

[ByoQemFizzix]

maybe in your country, but we still value SOME of our freedoms here.
So how come *you* guys managed to legislate for prohibition when *we* didn't? Some freedom, huh?

And before you spout about "freedom" both our countries have similar views upon suicide. Neither country has laws allowing such a practice, yet both allow people to die slowly from nicotine inhalation... :rolleyes2

Oh, and JPS... the USA isn't the only place that has a democracy. Just because *ours* isn't exactly the same as *yours* doesn't make ours any less valid. That's exactly the kind of attitude that alienates the US from the rest of the world - it's citizen's seemingly frenzied belief that the US constitution is the *only* valid set of democatic values valid in the world...

News for you. It isn't.

And before you cry "USophobe!"... I happen to very much like the US... But even I cannot defend asinine comments such as the one you just made about valuing freedoms... :rolleyes2

[JPSartre12]

I am sorry about your mom :( After something like that, I can certainly understand why you might want cigarettes banned completely, though I don't agree.

I DO, however, agree that there is huge amounts of evidence that the cigarette makes not only knew (and covered up for many years) the health risks of cigarettes, they purposely increased the nicotine to make sure people got hooked. I do think that the specific people who can be indentified in that aspect should be prosecuted for, at the very least, manslaughter. And I think that your choice of punichment (as bolded above) sounds like perfect justice to me.

While we're at it, let's throw the first user of palm kernel oil in jail for all of the arteries that he's clogged. :pointandl :headscrat

[JPSartre12]

So how come *you* guys managed to legislate for prohibition when *we* didn't? Some freedom, huh?

And before you spout about "freedom" both our countries have similar views upon suicide. Neither country has laws allowing such a practice, yet both allow people to die slowly from nicotine inhalation... :rolleyes2

Oh, and JPS... the USA isn't the only place that has a democracy. Just because *ours* isn't exactly the same as *yours* doesn't make ours any less valid. That's exactly the kind of attitude that alienates the US from the rest of the world - it's citizen's seemingly frenzied belief that the US constitution is the *only* valid set of democatic values valid in the world...

News for you. It isn't.

And before you cry "USophobe!"... I happen to very much like the US... But even I cannot defend asinine comments such as the one you just made about valuing freedoms... :rolleyes2

Congratulations. You're the only poster I know that can take a sarcastic comment made about the US and turn it into a slam on the UK.
:congrats: