ABA Home
Tort Law

Oregon’s High Court Re-Reaffirms $79M Philip Morris Verdict

Posted Jan 31, 2008, 05:12 pm CDT
By Molly McDonough

For the third time, Oregon's high court has upheld a $79.5 million punitive-damages verdict against Philip Morris after the case was twice kicked back to them from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Central to arguments in the case are jury instructions. The Oregon court has ruled that jury instructions proposed by Philip Morris, which the trial judge disallowed, suffered defects, the Associated Press reports.

A Portland jury first awarded the damages in 1999 to the widow of a longtime cigarette smoker, Jesse Williams, who died in 1997. The actual damages amounted to $521,000, making the punitives about 150 times greater. The high court kicked it back down, first suggesting that punitives not be more than nine times actual economic damages.

On the second round, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling (PDF) last February, issued a narrower ruling that didn't take on the size of the award, but addressed how juries could consider the conduct of defendants in determining punitive damages, How Appealing explaines in a detailed analysis of the case.

E-Mail This Story


(Separate multiple addresses with a comma.)




Share This Story

URL to share: http://www.abajournal.com/news/oregons_high_court_re_reaffirms_79m_philip_morris_verdict/

Title: Oregon’s High Court Re-Reaffirms $79M Philip Morris Verdict


Comments

  1. Posted by Orergon makes other liberal judicial activist bast - 5 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 15 hours, 8 minutes ago

    Oregon’s Supreme Court must be filled with OTLA members bent on sending a message: feds go away, big verdicts are welcome here, don’t anyone tell us what to do.  What’s that sound I hear?  Oh, its the stampede of Chamber of Commerce hacks high-tailing it to Oregon.  Be careful what you wish for, Your Oregon Honors.

  2. Posted by Mark Buchanan - 5 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 9 hours, 52 minutes ago

    I think the Oregon Supreme Court is aware the that Supreme Court reached out to help Phillip Morris when no help was justified.  A review of the transcript of the oral argument reveals the majority did not have a rational reason for reversing the verdict, only a theoretical one.


Commenting has expired on this post.


Subscribe

Get the ABA Journal the way you want it — in print, online, by e-mail — and when you want it — monthly, weekly, daily or as news breaks.





Are you an ABA Member? Read This First

Subscribe via RSS
Subscribe to the mobile edition
Subscribe to the monthly magazine


Return to top