I wouldn't read a whole lot of significance into this ruling. It's just a finding of error by the trial court in its instructions to the jury regarding punitive damages.

John

This court is nothing more than a dog and pony show. I doubt any one on this court wants to force any corporation to pay for the negative health effects its product has on the people of this country.

This is the right verdict, but focusing on the wrong issue.

From a Time article:

Williams, according to his widow, never gave any credence to the surgeon general's health warnings about smoking cigarettes because tobacco companies insisted they were safe. Only after falling sick did Williams tell his wife: "Those darn cigarette people finally did it. They were lying all the time."

Somehow, the company was guilty of fraud because the gentleman didn't want to believe that what he was doing was bad for him. Even though every pack he opened told him so.

Thomas and Scalia also believe in states' rights and were probably reluctant to overturn a state jury verdict.

Yep, Scalia believes in states' right in the sense of "state of emergency".

For Scalia and Thomas, their dissent was about a logical hole in the majority opinion (there is no reason to limit punitive damages factors to the plaintiff's facts if the purpose is to punish rather than compensate). The reason for their vote is probably more not giving credence to the concept of substantive due process.

Once upon a time "substantive due process" was a powerful legal doctrine for conservatives, it was used protected things like the right to contract for employers. But it was eviscerated by the Court as essentially "made up law" during the first half of the 20th Century.

But it didn't die completely as a concept and continued to offer the court a convenient hook for arriving at "just" decisions without a clear constitutional authority. When it comes to punitive damages, supporters of substantive due process theory assert that at some point large awards become clearly "unjust".

For example, imagine a jury awarding punitive damages to penalize a major insurance company for denying a claim. It's not too hard to imagine a really angry jury deciding to awarding ten times the entire value of the insurance company (say, a hundred billion dollars) to send a message to other insurance companies. Such a decision might bankrupt the insurance company and leave tens of thousands of their customers unprotected (not to mention the shareholders, mutual funds and pension fund investments stripped of their stock value).

Adherents of substantive due process say that at some point such a decision works a manifest injustice (although the line is not at all clear).

Originalists like Scalia and Thomas dislike substantive due process because it is an invitation to discover concepts of "justice" without the guidance of (written) objective standards.

I feel like I should clarify my previous post: Undoubtedly the ruling sucks for the plaintiffs, and anytime the tobacco companies or any other deep pocket can delay or get a mistrial or find some procedural defect, they win and the rest of us lose.

I was just responding to the OP's attempt to count noses on the Court in order to draw a conclusion on the substantive issue.

John

A couple of points, first of all this is the second time that the US Supreme Court has sent this case back to Oregon so they are trying to send a message. Not sure if Oregon gets it yet or not.

Second, the primary blame has to be assigned to the original trial lawyer who got too greedy and went for the $80M payout. Had he just asked for $1M it would've been paid and finished up years ago. He screwed his client by getting greedy and in the long run his mistake will cost lots of other plaintiffs money also. The $80M payout was a stupid gesture on the part of the lawyer, his client, the jury and the judge. They'll keep getting spanked because of their greed.

Of course, the whole trial was a farce since the guy consumed a legal product with a warning label. So it is someone else's fault that the guy was too stupid to pay attention to the warning label? If the product is such a hazard then why not have the FDA regulate it? Oh wait, then we would lose all of that tax revenue that is supplied by the addicts.

"...where it is considered incredible that George W. Bush from his corporate buddies raised $140 million in ’04, now the press is talking about Hillary and McCain and Giuliani raising $200 million, $300 million. If Mayor Bloomberg gets in the race -- and let me tell you, they’re talking about it in his circles -- he’ll spend half-a-billion dollars from his own fortune, which means that the press not only deals largely with the horse race instead of the substantive issues and the records of the candidates, it deals with it like a bar graph. You know, how much did Hillary raise this last week compared to McCain? It’s so rancid. It’s so disrespectful of the voters in this country."

Andy,

This issue has nothing to do with the lawyer being greedy or the plaintiff being warned. This case was presented to a jury --your peers --who heard evidence of wrongdoing by the tobacco companies and concluded that a money award was required to correct the wrongdoing.

First you should be aware that Oregon juries are notoriously stingy --they rarely lavish foolishly large awards on plaintiffs. In this case they heard evidence from both sides and concluded that 1) the tobacco companies caused harm to the plaintiff, 2) the warnings on the package don't sheild those manufacturers from being held accountable for their actions, 3) the manufacturers actions were so bad that there needed to be additional punitive damages to make them stop their bad behavior, and 4) that it would require $80 mill to make them change their ways.

The lawyers didn't pluck that figure out of thin air. The jury picked the figure because something less --like $1mil that you suggested --would be chump change to these companies, who would simply pay it off and go right on harming other people.

So I'm not sure what "message" you think "Oregon" should get here. Jurors usually have quite a bit of common sense, and they don't hand out huge verdicts for no reason. They are the ones who listened to both sides present the most pursuasive information they could. You didn't.

John

John,

Ya right, jurors had common sense when they handed out a $80M award to some guy who smoked for 30 years. They were morons and you know it, they know it, everyone knows it. That is why the case has bounced around for 10 years and will continue to bounce around.

The jury system hands out stupid results on a regular basis, especially when the jurors think that someone else is paying the bill. It didn't take more than a few case studies in law school to figure that one out.

The Oregon courts knew better than passing this one and they messed up. The Supremes were fairly clear in BMW and in State Farm that punitive damages can't become so large that they become arbitrary or policy choices. The Oregon courts ignored the precedents and got slapped. And it all started because the original lawyer (or his client) got greedy and swung for the fence.

Kari,

Sorry, I took too many logical jumps in that phrase to follow. Basically you're correct but only if tobacco would remain a legal product. But the FDA could't keep tobacco as legal in light of the thousands of deaths a year that it causes. If Viagra killed thousands of people a year it would be quickly pulled off the market.

The issue with tobacco is complicated by tradition, economics (lots of farmers) free choice, addiction, etc. People like to use it, it ciculates a lot of money in the economy, and it kills people. Personally I don't care if people smoke it and kill themselves. Guess I'm a libertarian on the issue. But I don't see any reason to extort money from the company that makes the product when we all know what the game is. The plaintiffs in these cases are just free loaders trying to extort money from their fellow addicts.

Jeff Alworth:

But Thomas and Scalia generally rule in favor of the market, don't they? Moreover, it's surprising to see those two siding with the trial lawyers

Bob Tiernan:

I keep telling people like you that USSC justices are more unpredictable than anyone admits - and maybe "unpredictable" is the wrong word.

Bob Tiernan

Blizzak:

Thomas and Scalia also believe in states' rights and were probably reluctant to overturn a state jury verdict.

Bob T:

Oh, here we go -- fishing for an explanation. "States'rights" has different meanings, and besides, even a generic definition doesn't call for not overturning state jury verdicts. Get off that high horse of yours and look reality in the face.

Bob Tiernan

Lebanese-American:

If Mayor Bloomberg gets in the race....he’ll spend half-a-billion dollars from his own fortune

Bob T:

And? I can remember when lefties used to complain about personal fortunes being spent to attain powerful offices (well, they still do, sort of) but then I need to remind myself that they were stone silent when Cantwell bought her Senate seat and Corzine bought his as well as the NJ statehouse. But that's okay -- to me the real issue to talk about is where these people stand on the issues. Forget the money they spend (because you guys forget it when you want to).

Bob Tiernan

<h2>The basic problem with punitive damage awards, based upon the late 1990's notorious BMW of Alabama Supreme Court decision, is that they violate the due process clauses of the Constitution. Yes, those are the same clauses used to justify all sorts of rights, like the right to privacy (hint, hint, NARAL types). The Court has suggested a punitive award of more than nine times the actual damages is going to be consittutionally suspect, and I would suggest that the Oregon Supreme Court, the next time it considers this matter, throw down the towel instead of the gauntlet.</h2>