Oregon Supreme Court Holds Its Own on Wrongful Death Punitive Damages
The Washington Post recently reported on recent arguments in front of the United States Supreme Court involving a large verdict against Phillip Morris. About ten years ago or so, a widow of cigarette smoker filed a law suit against the tobacco company, claiming that Philip Morris mislead her husband about the hazards of cigarattes, and contributed to his death. The jury agreed, and as part of its verdict, awarded the widow $80 million in punitive damages.
Punitive damages are unique. Unlike compensatory damages, which are designed to make up for or compensate for harms a negligent party causes, punitive damages aim to punish a person or company for bad behavior, like fraud, or criminal activity. In this case, the bad behavior was the tobacco company's misleading smokers about the health risks involved in using cigarettes, among other things.
Punitive damages are not common. Most cases that make a claim for negligence mean are basically saying that the defendant was not careful, or that the defendant was careless. In order to make a case for this kind of claim, a plaintiff needs to prove that the defendant's behavior far exceeded what is socially tolerable. A criminal act, like drunk driving, will get you there, but blowing a stop sign will not.
The fight in this case is whether a verdict ordering someone to pay $80 million dollars as punishment for misleading a person about the health risks of its product is unconstitutional. Twice the Oregon Supreme Court has found the verdict appropriate, and some think that this time, the US Supreme Court may take the matter into its own hands. Stay tuned.
