Philip Morris USA V. Williams: Punitive Damages, Due Process, and the U.S. Supreme Court

CASE DESCRIPTION The primary subject matter of this case is the impact of recent United States Supreme Court decisions regarding the application of the Due Process Clause in determining punitive damages awards. Specifically, this case looks at the most recent decision in Philip Morris USA v. Williams (2007) of three significant Supreme Court decisions regarding punitive damages awards. The case looks at the two previous Court decisions regarding the criteria used in determining punitive damages awards and the effect of those decisions on the final decision in this trilogy. Given new appointments to the U. S. Supreme Court, the case provides an opportunity to examine the impact of those changes on this recent decision. All three decisions raise questions about the commitment of firms to ethical and socially responsible behavior given the restrictions to the size of punishments that may be levied against them when their behavior is found to fall below the recognized standards of "acceptable." This case would be appropriate for use in business law/legal environment of business, business marketing, or business ethics with a difficulty level of two or three depending on the course. CASE SYNOPSIS In Philip Morris USA v. Williams (2007), the United States Supreme Court decided that the Due Process Clause prohibits a state from using punitive damages awards to punish a defendant for injuries it inflicts upon non-parties, i.e. strangers to the litigation because such awards amount to a taking of property without due process, there being no fair notice of the severity of the penalty the state may impose (Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 2007). This decision is the third in the United States Supreme Court's recent forays into the constitutionality of punitive damages awards, but the first punitive damages case decided by the Court since the retirement of Justice O'Connor and the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist, and the addition of Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts to the Court (Murray, 2007). The purpose of this paper is to examine how Philip Morris USA v. Williams fits into the trilogy of punitive damages decisions issued by the United States Supreme Court, to assess the impact of the Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito's joining the majority decision, and to determine the reach of the Due Process Clause in restricting punitive damages awards (Hamdini, 2006). Careful discussion of the case should enable the students to better understand (1) the use of punitive damages in legal decisions; (2) the concept of Due Process; (3) the possible implications of these decisions of corporate behavior; (4) the significance of the composition and creation of majorities on the United Supreme Court. WILLIAMS V. PHILIP MORRIS INC. (2002) Jesse Williams began smoking cigarettes manufactured by Philip Morris while serving in the army in Korea in the early 1950s. The Army provided the cigarettes, and soldiers encouraged Williams to smoke to keep the mosquitoes away. Williams continued to smoke the cigarettes until the mid-1950s, when he switched to the Marlboro brand, also manufactured by Philip Morris and positioned as the first male-oriented filter cigarette. Williams smoked Marlboros or Marlboro Lights for the rest of his life, his cigarette consumption ultimately increasing to three packs a day (Williams v. Philip Morris Inc., 2002). While his family encouraged him to stop smoking and told him cigarettes were hazardous to his health, Williams insisted that the cigarette companies would not sell cigarettes as dangerous as his family claimed, that he heard on television smoking cigarettes does not cause cancer and was not harmful to the smoker's health, and that the tobacco companies never said smoking was harmful or something was wrong with tobacco (Williams v. Philip Morris Inc., 2002). Williams was unsuccessful in his several attempts to stop smoking, regardless of the approach he took: quitting "cold turkey," cutting down on the number of cigarettes smoked, or using nicotine patches or gum. …