A Little Sanity in the Tort System

The Supreme Court today returned a degree of sanity to the tort system in this country by restricting the type of punitive damages that can be awarded:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court threw out a $79.5 million punitive damages award to a smoker's widow Tuesday, a boon to businesses seeking stricter limits on big-dollar jury verdicts.

The 5-4 ruling was a victory for Altria Group Inc.'s (MO) Philip Morris USA, which contested an Oregon Supreme Court decision upholding the verdict.

In the majority opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the court said the verdict could not stand because the jury in the case was not instructed that it could punish Philip Morris only for the harm done to the plaintiff, not to other smokers whose cases were not before it.

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," Breyer said.

It has become quite fashionable for plaintiffs to demand...and get...huge punitive awards designed to not only punish companies for damages to the plaintiff, but for perceived damage to others. The court's point seems to be it's not the job of juries to play avenging angel for persons not included in the lawsuit. This may help reduce some of the craziness in jury awards.