Posted on 02/20/2007 7:21:23 PM PST by The Pack Knight
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A closely divided U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a $79.5 million (40.7 million pound) punitive damages award won by the widow of a longtime smoker against Philip Morris.
By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled the huge damages award was unconstitutional because it was intended to punish the tobacco company for harming not just the plaintiff but other smokers as well.
The court ruled that the company, a unit of Altria Group Inc., could not be punished for harm to other smokers in a case involving Mayola Williams, an Oregon woman whose husband died of lung cancer in 1997 after smoking for more than 40 years.
The case had been closely watched by business groups that wanted the court to impose new limits on punitive damages designed to punish and deter misconduct. The court last placed limits on such awards in 2003.
Legal experts said the ruling could have a big impact on other types of product liability cases, such as lawsuits against drug companies and automakers.
Businesses have long complained that punitive damages are skyrocketing out of control, can be arbitrary, and encourage frivolous lawsuits. Lawyers for those who have been injured defend big awards as a way to get companies to fix harmful product defects.
The ruling is "a victory for big business", said Anthony Sabino, a law professor at St. John's University's College of Business in New York. "It puts a heavier burden on plaintiffs to make a strong case for large punitive damage awards."
(Excerpt) Read more at today.reuters.co.uk ...
Very strange vote breakdown though.
BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, SOUTER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., and THOMAS, J., filed dissenting opinions. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined.
Common sense at last!!!
Last time we tried tort reform, it lead to the EPA, NTSB, OCR, and a whole bunch of other agencies. Are we sure this is what we want. If the awards are high, maybe it is because the behaviour was egregious enough that the award is called for. Once you start limiting the payoff of the suits, you are going to make it harder to bring legitimate suits. This is going to lead to either more harm to people, or to a need for more government regulation.
When you start looking at who is really pushing for the reform, it starts to look like a poor idea.
With no info as to the reasons for dissent, I for one, will wait before assessing the 'strangeness' of it (though admittedly it seems a disorganized lot).
Often times the devil is in the details.
You must be a lawyer to think like that.
We are supposed to be using the tort system for making victims whole, not imposing punishment. That is the criminal system's job.
Yow. That is one odd vote breakdown.
I think I remember this kind of vote sometime ago. Scalia and Thomas hold that the award was a finding of fact and that the punitive damage issue must be settled by Congress and not the Court.
True, but technically speaking, punitive damages aren't punishment in a criminal sense.
Additionally, if there is not the chance of a large punitive damages award, there is no way that a lawyer can bring suit against a company in a situation like this. It is next to impossible to organize a class-action for damages, and the company has so much more money and resources to throw at the case than the victim does, that no lawyer would take the case. Although it seems like an outrageous reward, this needs to happen in order for it to be profitable for lawyers to help "regulate" our economy. The alternative is more federal agencies, increased taxes to support them, and less individual freedom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.