Philip Morris USA v. Mayola Williams, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jesse D. Williams, Deceased (549 U.S. 346)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided February 20, 2007 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 549 U.S. 346 · 127 S. Ct. 1057
- Decided
- February 20, 2007
- Term
- October Term 2006
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. The question we address today concerns a large state-court punitive damages award. We are asked whether the Constitution’s Due Process Clause permits a jury to base that award in part upon its desire to punish the defendant for harming persons who are not before the court (e. g., victims whom the parties do not represent). We hold that such an award would amount to a taking of “property” from the defendant without due process. I This lawsuit arises out of the death of Jesse Williams, a heavy cigarette smoker. Respondent, Williams’ widow, represents his estate in this state lawsuit for negligence and deceit against Philip Morris, the manufacturer of Marlboro, the brand that Williams favored. A jury found that Williams’ death was caused by smoking; that Williams smoked in significant part because he thought it was safe to do so; and that Philip Morris knowingly and falsely led him to believe that this was so. The jury ultimately found that Philip Morris was negligent (as was Williams) and that Philip Morris had engaged in deceit. In respect to deceit, the claim at issue here, it awarded compensatory damages of about $821,000 (about $21,000 economic and $800,000 noneconomic) along with $79.5 million in punitive damages. The trial judge subsequently found the $79.5 million punitive damages award “excessive,” see, e. g., BMW of…
Excerpt of a 17,536-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.