## Facts

- Patricia Henley began smoking Marlboro cigarettes as a teenager and smoked for roughly 35 years, becoming addicted.
- Henley developed lung cancer and alleged it was caused by smoking Marlboros manufactured and marketed by Philip Morris.
- Henley presented evidence that Philip Morris knew cigarettes were dangerous and addictive yet concealed or minimized those risks and created doubt about smoking’s health effects.
- Evidence supported that Philip Morris targeted teenagers in advertising and used “light” cigarette marketing and consumer communications to reassure smokers and encourage continued smoking.
- A jury awarded Henley $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages; the trial court conditionally reduced punitive damages to $25 million, which Henley accepted.
- After intervening U.S. Supreme Court authority on punitive damages due process limits, the appellate court revisited the constitutionality of the $25 million punitive award.

## Issues

1. Whether a $25 million punitive award on $1.5 million compensatory damages violates substantive due process under the punitive-damages limits articulated in State Farm.
2. What punitive amount is constitutionally permissible considering reprehensibility, the punitive-to-compensatory ratio, and comparable sanctions.

## Decision

- The court reaffirmed the liability judgment and the $1.5 million compensatory award.
- The court held the $25 million punitive award was excessive and unconstitutional on the record under due process standards.
- The court concluded $9 million in punitive damages (approximately a 6:1 ratio) was constitutionally permissible.
- The court ordered a conditional remittitur: Henley could accept reduction of punitive damages to $9 million or face a new trial limited to the amount of punitive damages.

## Legal Principles

- Punitive damages are constrained by substantive due process and must be evaluated under guideposts including reprehensibility, ratio to compensatory damages, and comparable civil or criminal sanctions.
- Reprehensibility is the most important indicator; conduct endangering health and safety, exploiting vulnerable victims (including youth), and involving repeated misconduct over time supports a substantial punitive award.
- Ratios exceeding single digits generally raise constitutional concerns; single-digit multipliers are more likely to satisfy due process, though the permissible figure depends on the harm and the misconduct.
- Punitive damages may consider broader conduct to assess culpability and deterrence, but may not function primarily to punish for injuries to non-parties; the award must remain tied to the plaintiff’s harm.

## Conclusion

The court left intact the jury’s liability and compensatory findings but held that due process required reducing the punitive damages from $25 million to $9 million, allowing Henley to accept the reduced amount or proceed to a new trial limited to punitive damages.


Henley v. Philip Morris Inc., 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 29 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)