University of Wisconsin Law School Professor Arthur F. McEvoy is counsel for amicus on Williams v. Philip Morris USA, a case of substantial importance before the U.S. Supreme Court on October 31, 2006.
In the underlying case, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld a jury’s verdict of $79.5 million in punitive damages against cigarette maker Philip Morris on behalf of the family of a smoker who died of lung cancer. The punitive damages were nearly one hundred times the compensatory damages awarded to the widowed spouse of the deceased smoker. Philip Morris now seeks review of the award from the Supreme Court on the ground that the award is excessive and therefore in violation of the constitutional guarantee of due process. Philip Morris further argues that the Supreme Court should be allowed to review the verdict de novo. McEvoy and Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar served as amici curiae on a brief submitted in support of the respondent, the smoker’s widow.
“This is a longstanding issue,” said McEvoy, who has participated in four similar cases that have gone before the Supreme Court. Tort reformers have since the 1980s sought ways to limit the kinds and amounts of damages that can be awarded for personal injury, he explained, adding that his participation is motivated by a desire to ensure that interpretations of history on the issue of punitive damages not be abused. “I have an interest in this case as a legal historian,” he said.
Historical issues arise in Williams because the petitioner, Philip Morris, argues that American history and tradition do not support the use of punitive damages to punish a defendant for conduct against non-parties to the action. In other words, punitive damages cannot be used to deter conduct. The Williams respondents, on the other hand, argue that juries have awarded punitive damages to deter bad conduct for several centuries. The petitioner also argues that punitive damage awards should be reviewable de novo. Again, the response brief sets forth a historical analysis of law that counters this argument.
Williams v. Philip Morris USA
has been earmarked by the New York Times as a case that will reveal much about the future of the newly re-formed U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
McEvoy, who is the J. Willard Hurst Professor of Law at Wisconsin, teaches American Legal History, Environmental Law, and Torts. He has published extensively in the fields of American legal history, environmental law, and legal studies.
Submitted by on November 1, 2006
This article appears in the categories: Articles
