Hawaii Supreme Court: No Reduction for Smoker's Own Negligence in $2M Philip Morris Award

• Hawaii Supreme Court restores $2 million award against Philip Morris to Ramona Ricapor-Hall.
• Court holds that plaintiff's own negligence cannot be used to reduce damages for an intentional tort.
• Decision clarifies application of comparative negligence law in Hawaii and may have far-reaching implications for smokers seeking compensation from tobacco companies.
• Philip Morris had attempted to use Ricapor-Hall's carelessness as a shield, but the court rejected this argument.
• Ruling sends a strong message that tobacco companies will be held responsible for their intentional misconduct.

In a significant ruling, Hawaii's Supreme Court has restored a $2 million award to Ramona Ricapor-Hall against Philip Morris. The court held that a plaintiff's own negligence cannot be used to reduce damages for an intentional tort. This decision clarifies the application of comparative negligence law in Hawaii and may have far-reaching implications for smokers seeking compensation from tobacco companies.

Ricapor-Hall, who started smoking at 12 years old and continued for 66 years, was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2019. A jury found that Philip Morris had helped keep her hooked through decades of lies about the effects of cigarettes on the body. The company attempted to reduce its liability by arguing that Ricapor-Hall's own carelessness contributed to her injuries.

However, the Hawaii Supreme Court disagreed, citing a century-old precedent that bars fraud defendants from using a victim's carelessness as a shield. Justice Todd Eddins wrote for the court, 'A party guilty of fraud can take no benefit from a victim's carelessness.'

The ruling is significant because it clarifies the application of comparative negligence law in Hawaii. The state's 1969 statute governs actions for negligence, but does not apply to intentional torts like fraud. The court held that reducing intentional-tort damages by a plaintiff's negligence would encourage defendants to target careless victims and cut the price of their misconduct.

Philip Morris had argued that the lower court broke trial rules by recalling two alternate jurors after deliberations had begun. However, the Supreme Court found that discharging an alternate does not mean discharging them forever, and that nothing stopped the trial judge from calling them back and restarting deliberations from scratch.

This ruling may have significant implications for smokers seeking compensation from tobacco companies. The decision clarifies that a plaintiff's own negligence cannot be used to reduce damages for an intentional tort, which could lead to increased awards in similar cases. Lawyers advising clients who are suing tobacco companies should take note of this development and consider its potential impact on their cases.

The ruling also highlights the importance of holding tobacco companies accountable for their actions. Philip Morris had attempted to use Ricapor-Hall's own carelessness as a shield, but the court rejected this argument. This decision sends a strong message that tobacco companies will be held responsible for their intentional misconduct.

This ruling may have significant implications for smokers seeking compensation from tobacco companies, as it clarifies that a plaintiff's own negligence cannot be used to reduce damages for an intentional tort. Lawyers advising clients who are suing tobacco companies should take note of this development and consider its potential impact on their cases.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service