Document: 127 S. Ct. 1057 (2007) PHILIP MORRIS USA, Petitioner, v. Mayola WILLIAMS, Personal Representative of Estate Jesse D. Williams, Deceased. No. 05-1256. Supreme Court United States. Argued October 31, 2006. Decided February 20, 2007. *1060 Andrew L. Frey, New York, NY, for Petitioner. Robert Peck, Washington, DC, Respondent. Kenneth Geller, Evan M. Tager, Nickolai G. Levin, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, William F. Gary, Sharon A. Rudnick, Harrang Long Gary Rudnick P.C., Eugene, OR, H. Schapiro, Lauren R. Goldman, Daniel B. Kirschner, Murray Garnick, Arnold Porter James Coon, Raymond Thomas, Swanson Thomas Portland, Gaylord, Gaylord Eyerman Bradley, Ned Miltenberg Center Constitutional Litigation, Charles Tauman, Maureen Leonard, Kathryn Clarke, Justice BREYER delivered the opinion Court. The question we address today concerns a large state-court punitive damages award. We are asked whether Constitution's Due Process Clause permits jury to base that award in part upon its desire punish defendant harming persons who not before court (e.g., victims whom parties do represent). hold such an would amount taking "property" from without due process. I This lawsuit arises out death heavy cigarette smoker. Respondent, Williams' widow, represents his estate this state negligence and deceit against Philip Morris, manufacturer Marlboro, brand Williams favored. A found *1061 was caused by smoking; smoked significant because he thought it safe so; Morris knowingly falsely led him believe so. ultimately negligent (as Williams) had engaged deceit. In respect deceit, claim at issue here, awarded compensatory about $821,000 (about $21,000 economic $800,000 noneconomic) along with $79.5 million damages. trial judge subsequently "excessive," see, e.g., BMW North America, Inc. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 116 1589, 134 Ed. 2d 809 (1996), reduced $32 million. Both sides appealed. Oregon Appeals rejected Morris' arguments restored Subsequently, sought review (which denied review) then here. remanded case light State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. Campbell, 538 408, 123 1513, 155 585 (2003). 540 801, 124 56, 157 12 adhered original views. And sought, time obtained, made two relevant First, said should have accepted, but did accept, proposed "punitive damages" instruction specified could seek injury other court. particular, pointed plaintiff's attorney told "think how many last 40 years there been. ... Oregon, people see outside, driving home smoking cigarettes? [C]igarettes going kill ten [of every hundred]. [And] market share Marlboros [i.e., Morris] is one-third one three killed]." App. 197a, 199a. argument, tell "you may consider extent harm suffered others determining what [the] reasonable relationship is" between any "the Williams" misconduct, "[but] you impact alleged misconduct on persons, bring lawsuits their own which juries can resolve claims ...." Id., 280a. proposal instead "[p]unitive deter misconduct," "are intended compensate plaintiff or anyone else defendant's conduct." 283a. view, result likelihood portion represented punishment having harmed others, here forbid. Second, roughly 100-to-1 ratio bears noted emphasized constitutional need awards reflect (1) "reprehensibility" conduct, (2) "reasonable relationship" (or related victim) suffered, (3) presence absence) "sanctions," criminal penalties, law provided comparable U.S., 575-585, 1589. Farm, longstanding historical practice setting two, three, four times *1062 size damages, while "not binding," "instructive," "[s]ingle-digit multipliers more likely comport process." 425, 1513. claimed that, law, "grossly excessive." See TXO Production Corp. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 443, 458, 113 2711, 125 366 (1993) (plurality opinion); BMW, supra, 574-575, 1589; 416-417, these arguments. Constitution prohibits "from using nonparties." 340 Or. 35, 51-52, P.3d 1165, 1175 (2006). reprehensible 63-64, P.3d, 1181-1182. certiorari. It us consider, among things, unconstitutionally permitted be punished nonparty victims; effect disregarded requirement reasonably harm." Pet. Cert. (I). granted certiorari limited questions. For reasons shall set forth, only first vacate Court's judgment, remand further proceedings. II has long clear properly imposed State's legitimate interests punishing unlawful conduct deterring repetition." 568, also Gertz Welch, Inc., 418 323, 350, 94 2997, 41 789 (1974); Newport Fact Concerts, 453 247, 266-267, 101 2748, 69 616 (1981); Pacific Life Haslip, 499 1, 22, 111 1032, 1 (1991). At same time, avoid arbitrary determination award's amount. Unless insists proper standards will cabin jury's discretionary authority, system deprive "fair notice severity penalty impose," 574, threaten "arbitrary punishments," i.e., punishments "application law" "a decisionmaker's caprice," 416, 418, 1513 (internal quotation marks omitted); and, where amounts sufficiently large, impose jury's) "policy choice," say as conditions under even whether) certain products sold, "neighboring States" different public policies, 571-572, similar reasons, imposes limits, both procedures awarding forbidden Honda Motor Oberg, 512 415, 432, 114 2331, 129 336 (1994) (requiring judicial awards); Cooper Industries, Leatherman Tool Group, 532 424, 121 1678, 149 674 (2001) (review must de novo); 574-585, 1589 (excessiveness decision depends reprehensibility *1063 actual potential plaintiff, difference sanctions "authorized cases"); exceeds single digits). Because decide excessive," now procedural limitations. III our forbids use inflicts nonparties those they directly represent, are, essentially, strangers litigation. thing, individual providing "an opportunity present available defense." Lindsey Normet, 405 66, 92 862, 31 36 (1972) omitted). Yet threatened injuring victim no defend charge, showing, example this, entitled she knew dangerous rely statements contrary. another, permit add near standardless dimension equation. How there? seriously were injured? Under circumstances occur? answer questions victims. left speculate. fundamental process cases referrisks arbitrariness, uncertainty lack noticewill magnified. 1513; Finally, find authority supporting purpose others. appropriate reasonableness caused. But potentially plaintiff. ("[W]e been reluctant identify concrete limits harm, award" (emphasis added)). TXO, 460-462, 2711 opinion) (using kind comparison basis finding excessive). term "error-free" (in BMW) describe lower calculation included n. 11, context makes footnote referred errors hand. Although elsewhere suggestion "or purchaser additional harm" purport 582, Rather, appears open. Respondent argues free show *1064 equation, namely, reprehensibility. That say, shows conduct. turn, does deny order demonstrate Nor we. Evidence help posed substantial risk general public, so particularly reprehensiblealthough counsel argue particular resulting nonetheless grave converse. given above, go than verdict account harms visited nonparties. Given risks unfairness mentioned, constitutionally important provide assurance ask right question, wrong one. concern adequate notice, can, practice, policies banning cigarettes) Statesall accompany today, 18th 19th centuries, id., 594-595, (BREYER, J., concurring)it States procedure unnecessarily deprives legal guidance. therefore conclude requires asking seeking, simply determine reprehensibility, strangers. IV suggests well Court, essence, agreed us, authorize based concede might read some portions focusing See, Ore., 51, ("[T]he misfortune merely exemplars prepared inflict large"). court's held few phrases suggest. distinguishes equation allow) punishment. punishable 280a added). explicitly recognized, argued "prohibits state, acting through civil jury, 1175. claim. doing so, "dissimilar" acts defendant. 52-53, 1175-1176. added "[i]f *1065 cannot difficult why all." 52, 3, 1175, 3. stated "[i]t unclear `consider' yet withhold consideration calculus." Ibid. statement correct. previously now. agree second statement. explained inflicting recognize few. consequently take fact into Cf., Witte States, 515 389, 400, 115 2199, 132 351 (1995) (recidivism statutes "`additional earlier crimes,' `a stiffened latest crime, considered aggravated offense repetitive one'" (quoting Gryger Burke, 334 728, 732, 68 1256, 1683 (1948))). third raises practical problem. know rubric seeks others? Our courts create unreasonable unnecessary confusion occurring. misunderstanding onebecause, instance, sort evidence introduced kinds argument jurya court, request, protect risk. flexibility implement, federal obligates them form protection cases. V As preceding discussion clear, applied standard when considering appeal. apply forth. application lead new trial, change level award, judgment proceedings inconsistent opinion. ordered. STEVENS, dissenting. Fourteenth Amendment substantive constraints power tortfeasors. (2003); (2001); (1996); (1994); S.Ct. *1066 (1993). remain firmly convinced announcing correctly decided. my view faithfully reasoning opinions egregious facts disclosed record. GINSBURG's explanation error arguably justifying reversal occurred case. post, p. 1068-1069. Of greater importance me, however, imposition novel limit Unlike reason interest wrongdoer "for court," ante, 1060, taken assessing sanction Whereas measured threatened. There little justification sanction, fine imprisonment, 1678. early history either type litigation prosecuted private citizen. Steel Citizens Better Environment, 523 83, 127-128, 118 1003, 140 210 (1998) (STEVENS, concurring judgment). neither typically include pecuniary parties, contexts surely factor evaluating wrongdoing. never otherwise. attesting possible extensive deceitful Oregonians presented jury. No offered establish measure injuries, serve purpose. To remedy third-party constitute property process, 1060. serving purpose, serves entirely purposes retribution deterrence underlie sanction. salience when, case, Ore.Rev. Stat. § 31.735(1) (2003), payable whole rather litigant.[1] While apparently recognizing novelty holding, 1065, majority relies distinction *1067 assess conductwhich permittedfrom "directly"which forbidden. Ante, 1064. nuance eludes me. When increases injuries enhanced definition defendantdirectlyfor harm.[2] murderer kills throwing bomb injures dozens bystanders severely victim. Similarly, engaging campaign distributing poisonous addictive substance thousands smokers statewide "bystanders" endorses contrary conclusion reasoned justification. far too late day guarantees fair lawmaking power. Moore East Cleveland, 431 494, 544, 97 1932, 52 531 (1977) (White, dissenting); Poe Ullman, 367 497, 540-541, 81 1752, 6 989 (1961) (Harlan, Whitney California, 274 357, 373, 47 641, 71 1095 (1927) (Brandeis, concurring). remains true, "reluctant expand concept guideposts responsible decisionmaking unchartered area scarce open-ended." Collins Harker Heights, 503 115, 125, 112 1061, 117 261 (1992). Judicial restraint counsels "exercise utmost care whenever break ground field." Today ignores sound advice announces rule law. Essentially affirm judgment. THOMAS, join dissent full. write separately reiterate "`the constrain awards.'" 429-430, (2003) (THOMAS, dissenting) concurring)). matters styles today's holding "procedural" confusing implementation regime created 26-27, (1991) (SCALIA, judgment) ("In 1868 undoubtedly established American common torts. *1068 deemed necessary circumscribe discretion regarding amount"). Today's proves once again jurisprudence "insusceptible principled application." 599, (1996) joined dissenting). GINSBURG, SCALIA THOMAS join, hardly denied, compensate, punish. Punish what? Not actually "strangers litigation," 1063, states, 1063-1064. "[C]onduct many," observes, "is few." 1065. thus conveys issue, instructed mete sustained 1063-1065. They endeavored follow decisions, most recently "deprive[d] [no jury] guidance," Vacation am convinced, unwarranted. acknowledges, ____8, train large." (2006)). 55, 1177 Morris's actions, threatened) identifies charge inquiry. vacating all inexplicable preserve objection charges opposing counsel's argument. sole preserved refusal give requested number 34. 54, 1176. pertinent part: "If defendant, your task appropriate. achieve objectives formula reaching amount, advise factors wish connection. "(1) bear misconduct. is, *1069 harms, fit. ..... "(2) appropriately degree conductthat departed accepted societal norms just make others"? slips grasp. seeking enlighten confuse resist delivering charge. ventures propriety though Rather addressing preserved, reaches outside bounds postured entered accord respectful treatment dispositions diligently adhere changing, less crystalline precedent. * stated, abundant [Philip Morris'] caused," 1063 deleted), NOTES [1] Browning-Ferris Industries Vt., Kelco Disposal, 492 257, 109 2909, 106 219 (1989), distinguished, appellate Excessive Fines Eighth Amendment, fines lends support treated functional equivalent 263-264, 2909. continue O'Connor scholars concluded applicable regardless receives ultimate payout. 286-299, 2909 (O'Connor, dissenting part). [2] refer, does, recidivism statutes. context, distinguished prior crimes aggravating penalizing versus crimes. if enhancing crime already permissible, certainly enhance punished, injured multiple

Category: 7