Yes, I'm *sure* a properly crafted jury instruction will solve *that* problem. No wonder Breyer decided to leave it up to the states ... which I suspect to be a euphemism for "we have no f---ing clue how to implement the rule we have invented."

More actual lawyers on the Court, please.

Under the Ginsburg-Scalia-Thomas logic, the tobacco companies could be repeatedly made to pay for the same damages with each individual suit. That’s simply unreasonable.

Without having read the opinions, I don't think that would be the result of the minority view. One of the factors the jury is instructed to consider in determining the amount of punitive damage awards is the amounts of previous punitive damage awards (if there have been any) for the same conduct.

Of course, this means theoretically, the first plaintiff to trial gets a big, fat slice of the punitive pie. Subsequent plaintiffs should (assuming equal juries, equal lawyers, . . .) get smaller and smaller punitive damage awards, even if they've suffered greater harm. The law does not consider this a problem, though, because, as indicated in the opinion blurb, punitive damages aren't meant to compensate plaintiffs. The subsequent plaintiffs get everything they're entitled to and don't have any right to complain that someone else got even more than their fair share.

...

The Supreme Court threw out a $79.5 million punitive damages award to a smoker's widow Tuesday, a bo...