Categories
· Lawsuits
· Editorial
USA, by State
· Oregon
Lawsuits
· Scotus
· Williams
Organizations
· MO
|
By dismissing an Oregon case involving the death of a cigarette smoker, the justices have left open questions about their instructions to lower courts and the limits of punitive damages.
Jump to full article: Los Angeles Times, 2009-04-13
Author: dismissing an Oregon case involving the death of a cigarette
Intro: The justices should take another case that would enable them to resolve that question. While they're at it, they should find one that raises the other issue in the Oregon example: How far can juries go in awarding punitive damages? The latter question may seem technical, but confusion in this area of the law has wasted the time of lawyers, judges and injured parties, and sometimes has led to injustices. . . .
the court's rejection of the case is bad news not just for Philip Morris but for other defendants ordered to pay inflated punitive damages.
In 1997, in a case involving a doctor who was awarded $4 million in punitive damages because BMW had repainted his supposedly new car, the Supreme Court said that there must be a "reasonable relationship" between the amount of punitive damages and the actual harm to a plaintiff. But the court has stopped short of establishing a clear ratio, encouraging juries and lower courts to push the envelope in a way that guarantees further litigation.
Now that the court has withdrawn from the Philip Morris case, it should look for an opportunity to clarify what it means by "grossly excessive."
Jump to full article » |