Tobacco.org

Appellate Court Case Information - Trial Court Detail: Bullock et al. v. Philip Morris USA Inc.  

Trial Court Name: Los Angeles County Superior Court

County: Los Angeles

Trial Court Case Number: BC249171

Trial Court Judge: Ettinger, Joan

Trial Court Judgment Date: 01/06/2003

Jump to full article »

Appellate Court Case Information - Party and Attorney Detail: Bullock et al. v. Philip Morris USA Inc.  

Bullock, Betty : Plaintiff-respondent-x/appellant

Michael J. Piuze . . .

Philip Morris USA Inc. : Defendant-appellant-x/respondent

Maurice A. Leiter

Arnold & Porter

Jump to full article »

Appellate Court Case Information - Disposition Details: Bullock et al. v. Philip Morris USA Inc. 

Description: Affirmed in part and reversed in part

Date: 04/21/2006

Status: Final

Jump to full article »

Appellate Court Case Information - Briefing Summary: Bullock et al. v. Philip Morris USA Inc. 

Jump to full article »

Appellate Court Case Information - Docket Entries 

02/10/2006 Filed letter from: atty. Garnick dtd. 2-10-06 in response to ltr of plaintiff Bullock (by permission of the court) (C)

04/21/2006 Opinion filed. The judgment is affirmed, and the sanctions order is reversed. Bullock and Piuze are entitled t recover their costs on appeal. C,K PK-Dissent 68pgs. Dissent-10pgs. cfp

Jump to full article »

Case Summary: Bullock et al. v. Philip Morris USA Inc.  

Jump to full article »

• BULLOCK v. PHILIP MORRIS Appeal (PDF) 

We conclude that the refusal of Philip Morris’s proposed jury instructions on punitive damages was proper and hold that the extreme reprehensibility of Philip Morris’s conduct justifies a ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages significantly greater than a single-digit. . . .

There was more than sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Philip Morris knew that the consensus among scientific and medical professionals was that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer and other serious diseases and that smokers suffered lung cancer and other diseases at rates far greater than nonsmokers. Philip Morris knew that cigarettes contained many carcinogens. Despite that knowledge, Philip Morris and other cigarette manufacturers for many years conducted a public campaign designed to obscure and deny the truth. Philip Morris falsely asserted that there was no consensus in the scientific and medical community concerning the adverse health effects of smoking and that the relationship between smoking and health was unknown. Philip Morris assured its customers that if it learned that any cigarette ingredient caused cancer it would remove that ingredient, and falsely stated that it did not believe that smoking was hazardous. Philip Morris repeatedly asserted that more research was needed and that it was diligently pursuing that research, but avoided sponsoring any research that would reveal the hazards of smoking and went to great lengths to avoid disclosing its own toxicological data. Rather than remove nicotine from its cigarettes as it had the ability to do, Philip Morris added urea to its cigarettes to enhance the effect of nicotine so as to further exploit its customers’ addiction and gain new customers. Its customers included individuals such as Bullock who first began to smoke as youths before July 1, 1969, attracted in part by an aggressive advertising campaign in television and in print and other media that was particularly appealing to youths.

The harm caused by Philip Morris’s misconduct was physical rather than economic because the evidence tends to show that Bullock suffered a debilitating and terminal illness, lung cancer, as a result of Philip Morris’s fraudulent scheme. The first reprehensibility factor listed by the court in State Farm, supra, 538 U.S. at page 419, “whether: the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic,” therefore weighs in favor of high reprehensibility. The second factor, “whether . . . the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others” (ibid.), also weighs in favor of high reprehensibility because the evidence tends to show that Philip Morris knew that many smokers would suffer death or serious injury as a result of smoking but, for pecuniary gain, sought to convince its customers and the public in general that the health concerns were unfounded. . . .

Finally, Bullock was only one of many smokers affected by Philip Morris’s nationwide efforts to disseminate misleading information and create a false controversy concerning the adverse health effects of smoking. The evidence shows that Philip Morris earned over $5.2 billion in operating income from domestic sales of tobacco products in 2001 alone, and earned approximately $100 billion cumulatively, in 2001 dollars, in operating income from 1967 to 2001. Philip Morris acknowledged that it earned “billions of dollars in profits.” Those large figures presumably resulted in no small part from Philip Morris’s misconduct. We therefore conclude that the vast “scale and profitability” of the course of misconduct (Johnson, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1206) weighs in favor of high reprehensibility. . . .

Because each of the four factors weighs in favor of high reprehensibility and in light of the vast “scale and profitability” of its actions, we conclude that Philip Morris’s misconduct was extremely reprehensible. . . .

California’s interests in punishment and deterrence are very strong in light of the extreme reprehensibility of Philip Morris’s misconduct. Moreover, Philip Morris’s persistent efforts to mislead the public about the health hazards of smoking despite its understanding that smoking was hazardous show that “strong medicine is required to cure the defendant’s disrespect for the law.” . . .

Philip Morris contends its obligations under the MSA reduce the need for punishment and deterrence. Philip Morris contends its substantial and continuing payment obligations under the agreement and the MSA’s prohibition of some of the same types of conduct on which its liability in this case is based are deterrent measures, and argues that “there is little, if anything, left to deter.” We disagree. . . .

With respect to the MSA, we conclude that Philip Morris’s agreement not to engage in certain conduct is neither punishment nor an effective deterrent and does not reduce the need for punishment and deterrence, as we have stated. . . .

In summary, we conclude that Philip Morris’s conduct was extremely reprehensible, that the approximately 33-to-1 ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages is not constitutionally excessive in light of the extreme reprehensibility of the misconduct, including the vast “scale and profitability” of the course of misconduct, and that those considerations together with Philip Morris’s financial condition justify the $28 million punitive damages award for purposes of the due process clause. We therefore reject Philip Morris’s contention that the award is constitutionally excessive.

Appeals court upholds damages against Philip Morris 

A state appeals court today upheld $28 million in punitive damages against Philip Morris in a suit by a woman who smoked the company's cigarettes for 45 years and died of lung cancer in 2003.

A Los Angeles jury initially awarded a record $28 billion in punitive damages to Betty Bullock of Newport Beach, in addition to $850,000 in compensation for her economic losses and pain and suffering. The trial judge cut the punitive award to $28 million, but Philip Morris said the amount still exceeded limits on punitive damages established by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The high court, in a 2003 ruling, set out a 9-1 ceiling for punitive damages -- that is, nine times the amount of compensation that was awarded for the plaintiff's actual losses -- and said punitive awards significantly above that ratio would violate a defendant's property rights in most cases. But in today's 2-1 ruling, the Court of Appeal panel in Los Angeles said the punitive damages awarded to Bullock's family, 33 times the amount of compensation, were justified by Philip Morris' "extremely reprehensible" conduct.

Jump to full article »

Betty Bullock 

An undated photo of Newport Beach resident Betty Bullock holding her grandchild, Jacqueline Goldstein. Bullock began smoking when she was 17 and was diagnosed last year with lung cancer that has since spread to her liver.

Jump to full article »

• Calif. Appeals Court Stretches Punitives Precedent, Upholds $28M Award Against Philip Morris 

A California appellate court has defied -- or at least stretched -- precedent by upholding a $28 million punitive damages award against a major tobacco company, an amount 33 times greater than the compensatory damages.

Friday's 2-1 ruling by Los Angeles' 2nd District Court of Appeal acknowledged that the nation's and state's highest courts have declared single-digit ratios between punitives and compensatories generally satisfactory, but nonetheless found the hefty award justified by Philip Morris USA Inc.'s "extremely reprehensible" behavior.

"Philip Morris' persistent efforts to mislead the public about the health hazards of smoking despite its understanding that smoking was hazardous," Justice H. Walter Croskey wrote, "show that 'strong medicine is required to cure the defendant's disrespect for the law.'"

Justice Joan Dempsey Klein concurred. But Justice Patti Sue Kitching dissented in part, saying the punitive damages constituted "a grossly excessive punishment" that violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. . . .

"Philip Morris' considerable wealth and ability to pay many times the amount awarded supports our conclusion that a $28 million award is not excessive," Croskey wrote. . . .

John Sorrells, a Washington, D.C.-based spokesman for Philip Morris, would only say "there are issues that need review and we will seek that review from the California Supreme Court."

Jump to full article »

Philip Morris' persistent efforts to mislead the public about the health hazards of smoking despite its understanding that smoking was hazardous show that 'strong medicine is required to cure the defendant's disrespect for the law.
Justice H. Walter Croskey, writing for the Los Angeles' 2nd District Court of Appeal majority decision which upheld the $28M Bullock award.

WARD: Smoking out the arsonist cigar smoker 

The benchmark by which all such performances will be forever judged, of course, occurred last fall in California. That's when maverick Los Angeles lawyer Michael Piuze prodded a runaway jury into awarding a woman $28 billion in punitive damages from the Philip Morris Co. for being forced against her will to puff away on cigarettes for 47 years so she could wind up with cancer. (A spoilsport judge subsequently was said to be considering reducing the award to a mere $100 million in walking-around money.) . .

But the pick of the litter, imagination staggering-wise, came off the Internet, courtesy of a Washington friend who swears the story is true. Perhaps it is, although buyer beware is always good advice when dealing with cyberspace. Supposedly, a North Carolina lawyer, too clever by half, insured a box of rare and expensive cigars against certain contingencies, including fire.

Jump to full article »

CAPLAN: Don't rights imply responsibility? 

Modem society is increasingly premised on the idea of victimhood, and lawyers are making a kill. Of course those who win the battle in court are also doing well, but the upshot is that we are losing the point. Doesn't right carry responsibility, too?

First off all, there were the smokers in the USA who won an enormous amount from Philip Morris, claiming they did not know that smoking could be harmful. Several US citizens were granted the privilege of having a fabulous death by receiving huge awards at a time when their tobacco-induced lung cancer was already beyond recovery. . .

She ultimately received $100 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

Jump to full article »

LETTER: SWEDA: Cigarette Companies Must Pay For Past Behavior 

"An Absurd Smoking Verdict," The Courant's Jan. 13 editorial denouncing juries that award punitive damages against tobacco companies in lawsuits brought by smokers who are dying, was way off base. . .

The Courant stated that "jurors ought to also consider the responsibility of smokers." Jurors already do that. They know that plaintiffs such as Betty Bullock are bearing the ultimate responsibility for their conduct - dying a painful death many years before their time. It is only appropriate that tobacco companies be held accountable, if only financially, for their long history of corporate wrongdoing.

Although The Courant claims that "deciding how to punish tobacco companies for their past behavior is a task for Congress, not individual juries," Congress has thus far proved itself to be unable or unwilling to do so. It is to their credit that American jurors have begun to step up to the plate and carry out that important responsibility.

Jump to full article »

LETTER: SWEDA: Judge agreed with jury in tobacco company case 

Responding to my letter of January 1, David Pyott (South China Morning Post, January 10) asks if, in order to provide a fair trial, a jury is under a duty "not to allow itself to be overcome by its emotions?" The answer is, yes. . .

As the trial judge ruled: "The jury found, with substantial evidentiary support, that Philip Morris' conduct was reprehensible and that a substantial award of punitive damages is necessary to have a deterrent effect upon the defendant. Exercising its independent judgment, this Court concurs with the findings of the jury. The evidence was overwhelming and uncontradicted."

If the jury had been overcome by its emotions, the court would have stricken its verdict. That did not happen in the case of Bullock v Philip Morris. -- EDWARD L. SWEDA

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: An Absurd Smoking Verdict 

Los Angeles jurors awarded Betty Bullock, a 64-year-old cancer patient, $28 billion in punitive damages against Philip Morris Inc. The amount was so ridiculous that it made a mockery of impartial justice. As expected, a judge found the award "legally excessive" and reduced it to $28 million.

The real point is that using the jury system to grant punitive damages to smokers is absurd...

Tobacco is a legal product. . .

In weighing claims against manufacturers, jurors ought to also consider the responsibility of smokers. Doctors, for example, warned Mrs. Bullock for decades about the health risks.

Deciding how to punish tobacco companies for their past behavior is a task for Congress, not individual juries.

Jump to full article »