Bullock v. Philip Morris Inc.
(Personal Injury, CA 2nd Ct of App. 2001 On Appeal) Citation: 138 Cal.App.4th 1029, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 140 (April 2006); 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 365 (August 2006)This individual personal injury suit was filed by Betty Bullock against Philip Morris in April, 2001.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's products caused her to develop lung cancer. The plaintiff began smoking Marlboros in 1955 at age 17. She switched to Benson & Hedges in 1966, and smoked that brand until February, 2001. She smoked up to two packs a day. She was diagnosed with terminal small cell lung cancer on February 19, 2001. Contrary to its repeated public statements, the defendant acknowledged the link between cigarettes and lung cancer and sought to avoid promoting research that would reveal that link. The defendant sucuessfully developed a substitute for nicotine that would avoid its cardiovascular effects but did not market it. Instead they added other substances to their cigarettes to enhance the effects of nicotine, the flavor, and other purposes.
The case was heard in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (No. BC249171) before the Honorable Warren L. Ettinger. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff consisting of $850,000 in compensatory damages and $28 billion in punitive damages on September 26, 2002. On December 19, 2002, the judge granted a new trial motion as to excessive punitive damages unless the plaintiff consented to a reduced award of $28 million. She consented and an amended judgment was entered in January, 2003. Both sides appealed.
Betty Bullock died in February, 2003 and was represented by Jodie Bullock in further appeals. On April 29, 2003, the defendant filed for an award of sanctions against the plaintiff and her attorney for failing to withdraw judgment liens as ordered by the court. The court granted the motion for $45,809.48 in attorney fees in June, 2003.
The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Three affirmed the judgment on April 21, 2006. The court found that no prejudicial error was show regarding the counts of intentional misrepresentation, false promise, and fraudulent concealment. It was not necessary for the plaintiff to show that she heard and relied on a specific representation made by the defendant. The refusal of a jury instruction regarding punitive damages proper absent any indication in the record that an error occurred. The degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct justifies an award of greater than a single digit ratio. The plaintiff failed to show any error in the reduction of punitive damages. It also found that the district court did not have authority to award attorney fees as a sanction, so the sanction order was reversed.
The California Supreme Court (48 Cal.Rptr.3d 365) granted the defendant's petition for review on August 2, 2006 and deferred all further proceedings pending a decision in Williams v. Philip Morris.