What was the nature of the lawsuit?
- A widow sued Phillip Morris after her husband died from lung
cancer after smoking Marlboros his entire life
- A jury awarded $800,000 in compensatory damages for medical bills
and the loss of her husband.
- In addition, the jury gave her over $79 million in punitive damages.
What was the purpose of the punitive damage award in that case?
In closing, it was argued that Philip Morris should be punished for
harm caused to all smokers in Oregon, not just the plaintiff’s
husband.
Why did the Supreme Court overturn the jury’s verdict
on punitive damages?
- The high court threw out the $79 million in punitive damages on
the basis that it was improper argument to request damages for everyone
harmed from cigarettes in Organ since they were not parties to the
lawsuit.
- The case will now go back to the Oregon state trial court.
Are there any specific limits on punitive damages?
- In prior cases, the Supreme Court has suggested that punitive damages
should not be greater than roughly ten times the amount of the compensatory
damages.
- But this is only a guideline, not a strict rule.
Are punitive damages a real legal problem for our court system?
- Only 2 to 3% of all civil trials result in punitive damages awards
- In those rare cases, the average award for punitive damages is $43,000.
In spite of the sensational news headlines, punitive damages
are not a problem in this country, and as in the recent Phillip Morris
case, the courts are there to reduce any unfair jury verdicts.
Q: Can negligence toward other people not involved in the lawsuit
be considered at all when calculating punitive damages?
A: The majority decision muddied the waters somewhat by saying
that such negligence could be considered when figuring out punitive
damages, but that a company can only be punished for negligence against
the plaintiff. If that sounds confusing and contradictory, the dissenting
Supreme Court judges thought so too.
Q: So this was a big win for Philip Morris?
A: Not as big as they would have liked. Philip Morris was hoping
the court would throw out the award on the basis that it was unconstitutionally
large. In other words, they were hoping for some kind of limit on the
amounts of jury awards – the court did not give that to them.
