CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL REVERSES $28 MILLION PUNITIVE DAMAGES AWARD UNDER DUE PROCESS PRINCIPLES OUTLINED BY U.S. SUPREME COURT IN PHILIP MORRIS V. WILLIAMS

In Bullock v. Philip Morris (decided Jan 30, 2008) the California Court of Appeal reversed a $28 million punitive damages award against Philip Morris and ordered a new trial on the amount of punitive damages. The court ruled that the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury, "You are not to impose punishment for harms suffered by persons other than the plaintiff before you." By requesting that instruction, Philip Morris invoked the due process protection recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Philip Morris v. Williams, namely, that states may not impose punitive damages to punish a defendant for injury inflicted on nonparties. Contrary to the arguments of plaintiff and her amici curiae, Philip Morris was not required to include in its instruction a statement that the jury could consider harm to others in evaluating the reprehensibility of the conduct that harmed the plaintiff. Philip Morris had no duty to qualify its proposed instruction to encompass a rule of law favorable to the plaintiff.

OREGON SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO ORDER NEW TRIAL FOLLOWING REMAND IN PHILIP MORRIS V. WILLIAMS

In an opinion decided one day after the California Court of Appeal decision in Bullock, the Oregon Supreme Court refused to order a new trial on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court in Philip Morris v. Williams. Despite the U.S. Supreme Court's holding that due process requires a jury instruction to protect against the risk that a jury will punish the defendant for harm to nonparties, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the trial court had an adequate basis under state procedural laws for refusing such an instruction. The Oregon Supreme Court said the trial court properly refused Philip Morris's proposed instruction because it included language on other issues, some of which was erroneous under Oregon state law. Apparently, under Oregon law, a trial court can refuse a party's request for an instruction that correctly sets forth relevant principles of law - even principles essential to ensuring constitutional rights - if the proposed instruction is bundled with other language that is incorrect.

For more updates on these cases and other developments in the area of punitive damages, visit our punitive damages blog, www.calpunitives.com.

If you do not wish to continue to receive these informational bulletins,
please e-mail jpaul@horvitzlevy.com with a subject line "UNSUBSCRIBE."