Court Rules in Favor of Philip Morris

Washington - The big tobacco company Philip Morris won a victory in court today when the Supreme Court threw out a case against the company. This decision is not only good news for Philip Morris, but for all businesses, especially larger companies that are frequently sued for huge dollar amounts, and have been seeking tougher laws on frivolous, fraudulent, and high dollar lawsuits.

The lawsuit was originally heard in Oregon and the ruling was upheld by the state's higher courts at $800,000 in compensatory damages, and $79.5 million punitive damages. The widowed plaintiff, Mayola Williams, filed the lawsuit as a dying wish of her husband, a smoker who died of complications from 'smoking related illnesses' and lung cancer, after smoking several packs per day for most of his life.

Williams was determined to see the lawsuit through all the way to the Supreme Court, seeking what she called justice for her husband. The Supreme Court initially seemed unsure as to whether the case should be heard or remanded to the state courts, but did eventually choose to hear the appeal at the highest court.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the lower court's ruling was a small victory for Philip Morris USA, who contested the Oregon court's decision to uphold the ruling. The Supreme Court, however, did not rule on whether the punitive damages were unconstitutionally excessive, which was something Philip Morris had asked them to do. An opinion on the amount of punitive damages would have been a landmark and precedent setting opinion for all big businesses, but the justices did not comment on this aspect of the case.

The Philip Morris Supreme Court case made international news today when the BBC picked up the story. (Retrieved February 20, 2007, from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6379767.stm) AP carried the story on the newswire, as well as breaking news headlines on new media outlet sites such as MSNBC.COM, CNN.COM, and other major news organization.

The 5-4 decision broke down as follows:

Dissenting Justices: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Clarence Thomas.

The majority: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter, Stephen Breyer.

In Justice Stephen Breyers opinion, according to the Baltimore Sun Times, he wrote that the states "provide assurances that juries are not asking the wrong question... seeking, not simply to determine reprehensibility, but also to punish for harm caused strangers..." ( Retrieved February 20, 2007, from http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal- scotus0220,0,6429535.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines)

In an article from CNN.COM, William's attorney, Robert Peck, was quoted to say, "[Philip Morris] was engaged in a massive, market-driven fraud ... to deceive customers." In the same article, he continued by saying he believed the jury rightfully considered and took "the harm suffered by others into account." (Retrieved February 20, 2007, from: http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/31/scotus.tobacco/index.html)

Compensatory damages are those that are intended to compensate the plaintiff for actual loss, monetary loss, and physical loss, while punitive damages are awarded to 'punish' the defendant and make them pay for their negligence and / or wrongdoing in the actual damages. The Supreme Court's decision would seem to indicate that punishing Philip Morris for wrongdoings done to all smokers instead of only considering Williams' own damages was the reason for overturning the lower courts award or punitive damages.

This decision does not affect the $800,000 award to Williams for the compensatory damages for the lawsuit Williams filed against Philip Morris for fraud, claiming her husband believed the tobacco company when they original said years ago that smoking was not dangerous.

Tobacco companies like Philip Morris have been defending themselves in court and class action lawsuits for decades over marketing strategies and allegations that the tobacco companies hid or flat out misrepresented the actual dangers and health risks of smoking to potential customers.