Background
Ramona Ricapor-Hall began smoking at age twelve in 1953 and continued for sixty-six years. After she was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2019, she sued Philip Morris USA Inc. and other tobacco manufacturers and vendors. She alleged that Philip Morris’s cigarettes caused her cancer and that the company participated in a decades-long conspiracy to conceal and misrepresent the dangers of smoking.
After Ricapor-Hall settled with the other defendants, a jury found Philip Morris liable for negligence, strict products liability, conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment, and conspiracy to commit fraudulent misrepresentation. It awarded $6 million in general damages and later awarded $8 million in punitive damages. The jury attributed 46% of the fault to Ricapor-Hall, and the circuit court reduced her general damages to $3.24 million before applying settlement credits.
Philip Morris appealed, challenging the substitution of alternate jurors during deliberations, the investigation into a juror’s possible exposure to outside information, the rejection of two requested instructions, and the availability of punitive damages. Ricapor-Hall cross-appealed the reduction of her damages on the intentional-tort claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi held that a plaintiff’s negligence does not reduce damages for an intentional tort. HRS § 663-31 applies only to negligence actions, and Hawaiʻi common law prevents an intentional wrongdoer from benefiting from the victim’s lack of reasonable care. Because the jury returned a single $6 million general-damages award covering negligence, strict-liability, and intentional conspiracy claims without allocating damages among them, the intentional-tort verdict protected the entire award from comparative-negligence reduction.
The court rejected each of Philip Morris’s appellate arguments. It held that HRCP Rule 47(b) permits a trial court to recall discharged alternate jurors and, alternatively, that any violation was harmless because the reconstituted jury was instructed to begin deliberations anew. Philip Morris failed to make the prima facie showing necessary to require further investigation of the juror’s possible disclosure of outside information; the circuit court’s individual questioning was adequate in any event, and any misconduct was harmless.
The court also held that the requested preexisting-injury instruction was redundant because the jury had been expressly limited to damages from lung cancer, and that cigarettes are not “unavoidably unsafe” products protected by comment k to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A. Finally, neither the tobacco Master Settlement Agreement nor claim preclusion barred Ricapor-Hall’s punitive-damages claim because she sought individual relief for her own distinct injuries. The court vacated only the 46% damages reduction, remanded for entry of an amended judgment awarding the full $6 million in general damages subject to appropriate settlement credits, and otherwise affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff’s negligence cannot reduce damages awarded for an intentional tort under Hawaiʻi law.
- When one unallocated damages award covers both negligence and intentional-tort theories arising from the same injury, the intentional-tort verdict shields the full award from comparative-negligence reduction.
- HRCP Rule 47(b) permits recall of discharged alternate jurors, and carefully instructed mid-deliberation substitutions do not automatically require a new trial.
- The tobacco Master Settlement Agreement preserves an individual smoker’s punitive-damages claim for separate personal injuries.
Why It Matters
The decision establishes a broad Hawaiʻi rule that comparative negligence does not diminish recovery for any intentional tort, not merely fraud. It also overrules Ozaki v. Association of Apartment Owners of Discovery Bay to the extent that decision allowed a victim’s fault to reduce damages attributable to intentional wrongdoing.
The ruling additionally clarifies Hawaiʻi civil-jury procedure by recognizing courts’ authority to recall alternates after deliberations begin and confirms that the tobacco industry’s settlement with the states does not extinguish private punitive-damages claims tied solely to an individual smoker’s injuries.