Hawaii High Court Reviews Blame Split in Tobacco Addiction Case
Hawaii's Supreme Court is reviewing if Philip Morris can reduce damages by assigning fault to an addicted smoker.
Why it matters: The outcome clarifies whether companies can offset liability in addiction lawsuits by citing a consumer’s choices—even when deception is alleged. This has direct impact on strategies for corporate defendants and plaintiff lawyers in product liability cases, especially in Hawaii and similar jurisdictions.
- On May 14, 2026, Hawaii’s Supreme Court heard Ramona Ricapor-Hall v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
- The case examines if Hawaii’s comparative negligence rule reduces damages in intentional deception cases.
- Jury found Philip Morris 54% at fault (negligence, strict liability, and conspiracy), Ricapor-Hall 46%.
- Appeals challenge whether consumer fault should reduce damages when a manufacturer intentionally deceives.
The Hawaii Supreme Court is weighing whether Philip Morris can reduce the damages it owes a former smoker by claiming the plaintiff’s own decisions contributed to her illness—even though a jury found the company intentionally misled consumers on cigarette safety.
Ramona Ricapor-Hall, who developed lung cancer after decades of smoking Marlboro, won a verdict for negligence, strict product liability, and what the court described as conspiracy to commit fraudulent misrepresentation—meaning the company purposely deceived customers about smoking’s risks. However, the jury ruled Ricapor-Hall was also 46% responsible. The trial court lowered her damages accordingly, as required by Hawaii’s comparative negligence rule, a law that splits financial responsibility based on each side’s share of blame.
Ricapor-Hall appealed, arguing comparative negligence shouldn’t reduce damages for intentional torts like fraud or conspiracy to deceive—claims where the manufacturer’s wrongful conduct was purposeful, not just careless. Philip Morris challenged the verdict and raised concerns about juror issues during the trial. The Supreme Court’s review addresses whether a defendant who commits intentional misconduct may still lessen its payout by pointing to the victim’s decisions.
This issue holds broader significance. As discussed in Courthouse News and legal digests, the ruling will shape blame-and-damages rules for future tobacco and product liability lawsuits, and guide how much responsibility the law assigns to consumers who use potentially dangerous or addictive products despite known risks or corporate deception. For background on Hawaii’s doctrine of comparative negligence, see the state statute.
By the numbers:
- 54% — Fault assigned to Philip Morris by jury for Ricapor-Hall’s lung cancer
- 46% — Ricapor-Hall’s own share of fault, leading to a damages reduction by the same percentage
- May 14, 2026 — Hawaii Supreme Court oral arguments heard
Yes, but: Hawaii’s law generally allows damages reduction for plaintiff fault, but whether this applies to intentional torts is disputed and lacks clear precedent.
What's next: A Hawaii Supreme Court decision is expected by late 2026, with possible implications cited in legal briefs and commentary.