Williams v. Philip Morris Inc.
Decision Date | 02 February 2006 |
Docket Number | (CC 9705-03957; CA A106791; SC S51805). |
Citation | 340 Or. 35,127 P.3d 1165 |
Parties | Mayola WILLIAMS, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jesse D. Williams, Deceased, Respondent on Review, v. PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, nka Philip Morris USA Inc., Petitioner on Review, and RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, Fred Meyer, Inc., and Philip Morris Companies, Inc., Defendants. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
William F. Gary, of Harrang Long Gary Rudnick P.C., Eugene, argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner on review. With him on the briefs were Sharon A. Rudnick and James E. Mountain, Jr.
James S. Coon, of Swanson, Thomas & Coon, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for respondent on review. With him on the surreply brief were Raymond F. Thomas, Portland, Robert S. Peck, of Center for Constitutional Litigation PC, pro hac vice, Washington, D.C., William A. Gaylord, of Gaylord Eyerman Bradley PC, Portland, Charles S. Tauman, Portland, Kathryn H. Clarke, Portland, and Maureen Leonard, Portland.
Thomas W. Brown, of Cosgrave Vergeer Kester LLP, Portland, filed the briefs for amicus curiae Associated Oregon Industries.
Thomas W. Sondag, of Lane Powell PC, Portland, filed the brief for amicus curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America.
Steven C. Berman, of Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter P.C., Portland, filed the brief for amici curiae Alliance for Lung Cancer Advocacy, Support and Education; American Cancer Society (Greatwest Division); American Heart Association; American Lung Association of Oregon; and Tobacco Free Coalition of Oregon.
David F. Sugerman, of Paul & Sugerman, PC, Portland, filed the brief for amici curiae Oregon Trial Lawyers Association and Oregon Consumer League.
Charles F. Adams and James A. Zehren, of Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, filed the brief for amicus curiae Oregon Business Association.
Before CARSON, Chief Justice,** and GILLETTE, DURHAM, RIGGS, and De MUNIZ,*** Justices.****
This tort case arose out of the death of Jesse Williams, a smoker, who died of lung cancer. Plaintiff Mayola Williams is the widow of Jesse Williams and personal representative of his estate. Plaintiff sued defendant Philip Morris Inc. for, inter alia, negligence and fraud, asserting a causal connection between Jesse Williams's smoking habit and his death. A jury found for plaintiff on both causes of action. The jury awarded both economic and noneconomic damages; it also awarded plaintiff punitive damages of $79.5 million. The issue before us is whether that punitive damage award violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court of Appeals concluded that it did not. Williams v. Philip Morris Inc., 182 Or.App. 44, 48 P.3d 824 (2002) (Williams I), adh'd to on recons., 183 Or.App. 192, 51 P.3d 670, rev. den., 335 Or. 142, 61 P.3d 938 (2002), vac'd and rem'd, 540 U.S. 801, 124 S.Ct. 56, 157 L.Ed.2d 12 (2003), on remand, 193 Or.App. 527, 92 P.3d 126 (2004) (Williams II). For the reasons that follow, we agree.
Because the jury ruled in favor of plaintiff, we state all facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff. See Parrott v. Carr Chevrolet, Inc., 331 Or. 537, 556, 17 P.3d 473 (2001) (). Because the parties do not dispute the way that the Court of Appeals framed the facts, we quote extensively from that court's opinions.
Jesse Williams was a lifelong smoker who eventually died of lung cancer. The cancer was caused by Williams's smoking.
Williams II, 193 Or.App. at 530-31, 92 P.3d 126.
Plaintiff based her fraud claim against Philip Morris on a 40-year publicity campaign by Philip Morris and the tobacco industry to undercut published concerns about the dangers of smoking. Id. at 531, 92 P.3d 126. Philip Morris and the tobacco industry had known for most of those 40 years, if not all of them, that smoking was dangerous. Id. Nevertheless, they tried to create in the public mind the impression that there were legitimate reasons to doubt the danger of smoking. Id. Philip Morris and the tobacco industry did so to give smokers a reason to keep smoking (or, perhaps more accurately, to undermine one of the main incentives for smokers to stop smoking). Id.
The Court of Appeals summarized the evidence regarding the campaign as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bullock v. Philip Morris Usa, Inc., B164398.
...after the Boeken case was filed, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed a punitive damages award of $79.5 million in Williams v. Philip Morris, Inc. (2006) 340 Or. 35, 127 P.3d 1165. 3. In Simon, supra, 35 Cal.4th at page 1182, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 379, 113 P.3d 63, the court stated: "We understand th......
-
Sony Bmg Music Ent. v. Tenenbaum, Civil Action No. 07cv11446-NG.
...using punitive damages to punish a defendant for harm to nonparties.’ ” Id. at 356, 127 S.Ct. 1057 (quoting Williams v. Philip Morris Inc., 340 Or. 35, 127 P.3d 1165, 1175 (2006)). The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Oregon Supreme Court's judgment and remanded for reconsideration of the pro......
-
Estate of Schwarz v. Philip Morris Inc., 0002-01376.
...vac'd and rem'd, 540 U.S. 801, 124 S.Ct. 56, 157 L.Ed.2d 12 (2003), on remand, 193 Or.App. 527, 92 P.3d 126 (2004) (Williams III), aff'd, 340 Or. 35, 127 P.3d 1165 (2006), we considered a similar issue.8 In that case, the defendant argued that Oregon did not recognize a common-law claim of ......
-
Vasquez-Lopez v. Beneficial Oregon, Inc., 021010108.
...between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damage award[.]" In Williams v. Philip Morris Inc., 340 Or. 35, 127 P.3d 1165, cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2329, 164 L.Ed.2d 838 (2006), the Oregon Supreme Court explicitly interpreted State Farm as c......
-
Table of Cases
...City of, v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617, 98 S.Ct. 2531, 57 L.Ed.2d 475 (1978), 871-72, 886-87 Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Williams, 127 P.3d 1165 (Or. 2006), 1234-35 Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U.S. 156, 118 S.Ct. 1925, 141 L.Ed.2d 174 (1998), 392, 590, 962-64 Pickering v. Boar......
-
The Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amensments
...See generally Steven R. Hamlin, Punitive Damages After Campbell: The Role of Out-of-State Conduct, 28 Campbell L. Rev. 63 (2005). [90] 127 P.3d 1165 (Or. 2006), cert. granted, 74 U.S.L.W. 3665 (2006). On the "multiple punitive damages" problem, see Nitin Sud, Punitive Damages: Achieving Fai......
-
A Complex Achievement: The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement
...supra note 50, at 698. 213. Gostin, supra note 21, at 211–12. 214. Id. at 224. 215. See, e.g. , Williams v. Philip Morris Inc., 127 P.3d 1165 (Or. 2006) (awarding the plaintif’s estate $79.5 million in punitive damages), rev’d in part , 549 U.S. 345 (2007) (holding that the punitive damages......
-
Punitive damages & due process: trying to keep up with the United States Supreme Court after Philip Morris USA v. Williams.
...538 U.S. at 422. (38.) Williams v. Philip Morris Inc., 92 P.3d 126, 141-42 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). (39.) Williams v. Philip Morris Inc., 127 P.3d 1165, 1175-76 (Or. (40.) Id. at 1176-82. (41.) Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S. Ct. 1057 (2007). (42.) Id. at 1062. (43.) Id. at 1063. (44.) Id......