The Confusion of Philip Morris: How the Supreme Court Came to Hold That Punitive Damages Cannot be Used to Punish for Harm to Non-Parties, but that Jurors are Allowed to Consider Harm to Non-Parties When Deciding to Impose Punitive Damages

Authors

Anne Passino

Abstract

In Philip Morris USA v. Williams,1 the United States Supreme Court examined the constitutional propriety of a large punitive damages award levied against a defendant tobacco company in favor of a single plaintiff. A jury had awarded $821,000 in compensatory damages and $79.5 million in punitive damages to the widow of a heavy cigarette smoker for her husband's smoking-related death because the tobacco company knowingly and falsely promoted smoking as safe. The Court held that permitting a jury to base any part of a punitive damages award upon a desire to punish the defendant for harming non-parties amounted to a taking of "property" from the defendant in contravention to the Constitution's Due Process Clause.

Recommended Citation

Passino, Anne (2014) "The Confusion of Philip Morris: How the Supreme Court Came to Hold That Punitive Damages Cannot be Used to Punish for Harm to Non-Parties, but that Jurors are Allowed to Consider Harm to Non-Parties When Deciding to Impose Punitive Damages," Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy: Vol. 3 : Iss. 2 , Article 5.

Available at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/tjlp/vol3/iss2/5