Phillip Morris U.S.A. v. Williams 549 U.S. 346, 127 S.Ct. 1057 (2007) Williams was a smoker. After he died, his estate sued the cigarette maker (Phillip Morris) for negligence and deceit. Williams argued that Phillip Morris hid the fact that smoking was a health hazard. The Trail Court found for Williams and awarded $821k in compensatory damages, and $79.5M in punitive damages. Phillip Morris appealed. The punitive damages were in part based on the idea that lots of other people out there had died from smoking as well. Phillip Morris argued that this was unfair because those other people (or their estates) could bring lawsuits and get their own damages. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed. Phillip Morris appealed. The US Supreme Court overturned the punitive damages award. The Court found that due process bars punitive damages for harm caused to individuals not involved in the litigation. Due process requires that Phillip Morris be allowed to present a defense, but how could they defend themselves against someone who wasn't even in court suing them? The Court found that it was impossible to know exactly how many people were smoking because of Phillip Morris' negligence. Therefore it was unfair to estimate a damage amount. BMW of North America v. Gore (517 U.S. 559 (1996)), suggested a three-part test in determining whether a damage award violated due process: The degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct. The ratio or harm to the compensatory damages awarded. A comparison of the punitive damages award to civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct.