In 1999, an Oregon
jury found cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris liable for misrepresentations that caused the death of Jesse Williams, a man
who smoked Marlboro cigarettes for 47 years. Williams died of lung cancer in 1997.
Since the 1950s, Phillip Morris engaged
in a massive fraud to deceive customers into believing that cigarettes were safe, so that the company could continue to generate
enormous profits.
The jury found that Philip Morris had knowingly and deceitfully sought to convince people like Williams
that cigarettes were safe, and that Williams believed these representations.
The jury found each party equally
negligent, but found for Jesse Williams’ widow, now suing Philip Morris, on the misrepresentation claim.
The Oregon jury awarded
Mr. Williams’ widow, Mayola, $821,000 in compensatory damages, and punished Philip Morris with a $79.5 million punitive
damages award.
Under Oregon law, the compensatory damages were reduced to conform with a cap in wrongful death cases
to $521,000. In addition, the trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $32 million.
Both parties appealed. The Oregon
Court of Appeals ruled in Mrs. Williams’ favor, restoring the full jury verdict. The Oregon Supreme Court declined further
review of the case.
Philip Morris petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the verdict. The U.S. Supreme
Court sent the case back to the Oregon Court of Appeals in 2003 to determine if the punitive damages award was proper. The
Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court both restored the verdict again to $79.5 million.
Philip Morris petitioned
the U.S. Supreme Court again to review the verdict, and this time the Court heard arguments in October 2006.
In February 2007,
the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 5-4 decision, focusing on Philip Morris’ request for a jury instruction regarding
punitive damages. The Court held that “upon request” a trial court must guide a jury on the proper use
of evidence about the misconduct being harmful to others when considering punitive damages.
The U.S. Supreme
Court remanded the case back to the Oregon Supreme Court for application of its new ruling. The Oregon Supreme Court reaffirmed
the jury’s original punitive damages verdict.
The Oregon Supreme Court said that under Oregon’s
law, Philip Morris had failed to properly request the constitutional protection because it had mingled its request
with other, incorrect descriptions of the law.
The “request” Phillip Morris had submitted during the trial
was a jury instruction that misrepresented the state’s written law.
Under the law of Oregon – and
18 other states – a jury instruction must be correct in all respects in order to be proper. The improper jury instruction
was rejected by the trial court; therefore, the proper request had not been made.
Philip Morris now says that its failure
to comply with Oregon state rules regarding jury instructions was identified by the Oregon courts too late and that it should
be given an entirely new trial, which will take all parties back to the very beginning of the proceedings to determine liability
– not just punitive damages.
