TITLE

RECONCEPTUALIZING SPLIT-RECOVERY STATUTES: Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S. Ct. 1057 (2007)

AUTHOR(S)
Rietema, Paul B.
PUB. DATE
June 2008
SOURCE
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy;Summer2008, Vol. 31 Issue 3, p1159
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article discusses a court case that reconceptualizes split-recovery punitive damages laws in the U.S. The split-recovery system shifts a part of the punitive damage award to society. It is noted that a comprehensive and coherent approach to third-party harms in such cases was articulated by the Supreme Court by closing the door for recovery for harms to nonparties. It provides an overview of suit filed by plaintiff Mayola Williams against Philip Morris USA for alleged negligence and deceit in the death of her chain smoker husband, Jesse Williams.
ACCESSION #
34074160

 

Related Articles

  • High Court to rule again in Oregon punitives case. Hofmann, Mark A. // Business Insurance;12/8/2008, Vol. 42 Issue 49, p3 

    The article reports that according to Chief Justice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court may use the Oregon case Philip Morris USA versus Mayola Williams, which it has already ruled on twice, to provide more guidance on when punitive damage awards violate the Constitution's due process...

  • Working the Unworkable Rule Established in Philip Morris: Acknowledging the Difference Between Actual and Potential Injury to Nonparties. Agle, Daniel Sulser // Brigham Young University Law Review;2007, Vol. 2007 Issue 5, p1317 

    The article examines the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court on the case Philip Morris USA v. Williams, wherein the court prohibited the consideration of injury to nonparties when determining the amount of punitive damages to assess. The analysis made by the court on the case was centered on the...

  • Clearing the Smuke from Philip Morris v. Williams The Past, Present, and Future of Punitive Damages. Colby, Thomas B. // Yale Law Journal;Dec2008, Vol. 118 Issue 3, p392 

    In Philip Morris USA v. Williams, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not permit the imposition of punitive damages to punish a defendant for harm caused to third parties. This Article critiques the reasoning, but seeks ultimately to vindicate the result, of that landmark decision....

  • Reviewing the Law Reviews.  // Defense Counsel Journal;Apr2009, Vol. 76 Issue 2, p265 

    The article offers several reviews on the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Philip Morris v. Williams, which has a profound impact on the law regarding punitive damages in the U.S. Thomas B. Colby states that the trend of using punitive damages as a punishment for public wrongs violate due...

  • Questions on punitives need to be settled soon.  // Business Insurance;12/8/2008, Vol. 42 Issue 49, p8 

    The author reflects on the importance for the U.S. Supreme Court to make clear that it has the final word regarding punitive damages law. The author mentions the Supreme Court of Oregon used a state procedural rule involving jury instructions to circumvent the U.S. Supreme Court's instructions...

  • High court considers punitives. Hofmann, Mark A. // Business Insurance;11/6/2006, Vol. 40 Issue 45, p1 

    The article reports that the U.S. Supreme Court may use the case Philip Morris USA vs. Mayola Williams to determine whether due process guarantees allow a jury to levy punitive damages on a defendant for the effects of its conduct on people who are not party to the suit. The case centers on the...

  • PHILIP MORRIS USA V. WILLIAMS: IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY AND PRACTICE. Younger, Kristin; Rosenbaum, Sara // Public Health Reports;Sep/Oct2007, Vol. 122 Issue 5, p702 

    The article provides information on the U.S. Supreme Court case Philip Morris versus Williams. The focus of the case is on the extent to which the Constitution imposes limits on the sanctions that can be imposed by the judicial system on firms which products affect the public's health. It...

  • High Court lets stand $79M punitives award. Hofmann, Mark A. // Business Insurance;4/6/2009, Vol. 43 Issue 14, p4 

    The article focuses on the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Philip Morris USA vs. Mayola Williams case. The ruling leaves unanswered whether state courts have to follow the Supreme Court's guidelines on how disproportionate a punitive damage award must be to the underlying compensatory...

  • High Court limits scope of punitives. Hofmann, Mark A. // Business Insurance;2/26/2007, Vol. 41 Issue 9, p1 

    This article reports on the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn a $79.5 million punitive damages award against a tobacco company. The case is Philip Morris USA versus Mayola Williams. According to some tort reform advocates the decision may not represent a total victory for businesses. It...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY AND SYSTEM

Sign out of this library

Other Topics