Devoted to Managers and those that seek to improve their management skills

In a 5-4 decision, the supreme court struck down a $79.5 million award to the widow of a smoker. At the same time they refused to rule on the issue of whether punitive-damage awards are excessive.

The specific issue that was dealt with was actually concerning jury instruction, which in this case an Oregon judge refused to instruct a jury that the only damages that could be rewarded were those directly related to the plaintiff, not for harm done to smokers who weren't even involved in the case.

Justice Stephen Breyer in writing the majority opinion said that states must "provide assurances that juries are not asking the wrong question ... seeking not simply to determine reprehensibility but also to punish for harm caused strangers."

Philip Morris had proposed a jury instruction that would have told jurors that they were "not to punish the defendant for the impact of its alleged misconduct on other persons, who may bring lawsuits of their own in which juries can resolve their claims and award punitive damages for those harms, as other juries see it." The Oregon judge decided not to allow it.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce added that with the ruling, it could be an important step that might aid in cutting back the large size of jury awards. They also said that industries in phamaceuticals, insurance and manufacturing autos would consider this very important in relationship to huge liability awards.

Quentin Riegel, vice president for litigation for the National Association of Manufacturers, commented, "It is unfair to allow a lawyer for a single plaintiff to try to turn his or her claim into a stealth class-action case."

Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law said that "It's confusing. I think it's not clear what exactly the court is suggesting. On the one hand it says you can't consider third-party damage directly but you can consider it in terms of reprehensibility."

For now it seems that business was handed a victory in that it puts a discipline on judges who simply say a case can be passed on from the plaintiff, to anyone who has allegedly suffered from the same thing. Now a jury can't award damages based upon what harm has been done to somebody outside the specific case. That brings a little more sanity to the process.