National News

Supreme Court Denies Review of $50M Award in Tobacco Case

The Supreme Court refused Monday to consider tossing out a $50 million (euro41 million) damage award to the family of a two-pack-a-day smoker who died of cancer.

Advertisement

Philip Morris USA, which controls about half the U.S. cigarette market, had asked the justices to declare the award unconstitutionally excessive and to rule that the company should have been shielded from some of the smoker's claims.

Justices declined, without comment.

Richard Boeken, who initially won $3 billion (euro2.46 billion) in punitive damages, was 57 when he died in 2002, a year after a California jury found the tobacco company guilty of negligence, misrepresentation, fraud and selling a defective product.

The damage award was reduced to $100 million, and then cut in half by an appeals court.

Lawyers for Boeken's family had asked justices to consider "Philip Morris's immensely reprehensible, immensely profitable fraud scheme perpetuated for decades.''

Attorneys for the tobacco company asked the high court to use the case to clarify the formula for deciding punitive damages.

Three years ago the Supreme Court said that punitive damage awards should be "reasonable and proportionate to the amount of harm'' someone suffers. Justices did not give a specific formula, and lower courts have been conflicted in handling follow-up cases.

Boeken's case reveals a highly addicted smoker who took up the habit at 13 and tried everything from hypnosis to classes and nicotine gum in an effort to quit. He switched to Marlboro Lights in the belief they were safer. He smoked even in his final days, after his lung cancer spread to his brain. His mother, a smoker, also died of lung cancer.

Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Comments? Click here to post a comment about this article

Subject Posted By Posted On
RE: Why is this dude... Bob
Mar 22, 2006, 8:31 am
Why is this dude... Tony
Mar 21, 2006, 3:44 pm
RE: RE: Please pass the Heroin Big Biz
Mar 21, 2006, 3:41 pm
RE: Please pass the Heroin TXGuru
Mar 21, 2006, 3:11 pm
RE: RE: I love smokers! Mr. Recall
Mar 21, 2006, 2:53 pm
RE: I love smokers! Amy
Mar 21, 2006, 2:50 pm
Please pass the Heroin Big Biz
Mar 21, 2006, 2:13 pm
Shame on the High Court Light one Up
Mar 21, 2006, 2:01 pm
I love smokers! Mr. Idiot
Mar 21, 2006, 1:26 pm
Not my fault Fed Up
Mar 21, 2006, 1:19 pm
is 9:1 the max the Supreme Court will allow? 9 to 1
Mar 21, 2006, 1:01 pm
RE: Someone Else Always to Blame Kim
Mar 21, 2006, 12:53 pm
Someone Else Always to Blame Ever Read a Warning Label?
Mar 21, 2006, 12:36 pm
reprehensible conduct Mr. Recall
Mar 21, 2006, 10:39 am