In 2002, Mayola Williams, the widow of a man who smoked as many as 3 packs of Marlboro cigarettes a day for almost 50 years, sued Philip Morris USA for the torts of negligence and fraud. Williams's husband had eventually died from a smoking-related disease. Williams argued that the products produced by Philip Morris were a cause of her husband's death. The case was important because it could have redefined how large punitive damages ought to be against tobacco and other large and powerful corporations in product liability cases. In 2006, the Supreme Court of Oregon awarded Williams $800,000 in compensatory damages and $79.5 million in punitive damages.
Philip Morris appealed the court's decision, arguing that punitive damages should more equally fit the actual damages suffered. In other words, Philip Morris argued that the amount of the punitive damages should be based on the damages only the plaintiff in the instant case suffered, rather than any damages that other users of the product (who were not in court) might have suffered. What could be the dangers of punishing the defendant for the damage the defendant has caused to individuals who are not in court? How did the Supreme Court decide in this case?