Why would the jury verdict in this case have generated significant controversy?

The Case of Ex-Smoker Lucinda Naugle and Her $300 Million Jury Award

Lucinda Naugle started smoking Benson and Hedges cigarettes in 1968 when she was 20 years old, believing that it made her look older and more sophisticated. She quit at age 45, but by then it was too late; she had con- tracted severe emphysema. She sued the manufacturer of Benson and Hedges, Philip Morris USA, claiming that it had committed fraud by hiding knowledge that smoking was addictive and harmful to smokers' health. Remember that the public knew little about the health hazards of cigarette smoking in 1968, so the critical issues in these cases are what tobacco industry insiders knew, when they knew it, and what they shared with the public.

When her case was tried before a jury in 2009, Ms. Naugle's condition was serious: she testified that she could not walk without struggling for breath and that she had to carry a walkie-talkie to the bathroom in case she needed help. She required a lung trans- plant that she was unable to afforduntil the jury determined that Philip Morris was 90% responsible for Naugle's condition and awarded her $56 million

in compensatory damages and $244 million in puni- tive damages.

As the largest single damage award in an individual lawsuit against a tobacco company, the verdict generated significant publicity and controversy. Its size stunned even the judge, who said, "From the moment I read the verdict and took a deep breath, I have considered that verdict and what I should do." Judges can reduce jury awards they deem excessive, and Judge Jeffrey Steitfeld, who presided over the trial in Broward County, Flor- ida, vowed to do so. He called the jury award "excessive and shocking" and suspected that jurors were upset and inflamed by Philip Morris' "blame the smoker" defense. He may also have considered that more than 9,000 former smokers have filed similar lawsuits against the tobacco industry in courts across Florida.

CRITICAl THOUGHT QUESTION

Why would the jury verdict in this case have generated significant controversy?