Bullock

*550 Opinion

Philip Morris USA, Inc. (Philip Morris), appeals a judgment awarding Jodie Bullock $13.8 million in punitive damages after a jury trial. A jury previously had awarded $850,000 in compensatory damages. Philip Morris contends the punitive damages award is barred by res judicata as a result of the settlement of an action by the California Attorney General against Philip Morris and other cigarette manufacturers, and the award is unconstitutionally excessive. Philip Morris also challenges the award of prejudgment interest from the date of the verdict. We conclude that each of these contentions is without merit.

This action involves a different cause of action from the prior action by the Attorney General so res judicata is inapplicable. In addition, Philip Morris’s conduct in intentionally deceiving smokers and the public in general for several decades concerning the adverse health effects of cigarette smoking, while formulating its cigarettes so as to make them more addictive, and aggressively advertising to youths and others before July 1, 1969, was extremely reprehensible. In light of such extreme reprehensibility, including the vast scale and profitability of Philip…

In State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell (2003) 538 U.S. 408 [ 155 L.Ed.2d 585 , 123 S.Ct. 1513 ] (State Farm), the United States Supreme Court addressed the circumstances under which an award of punitive damages violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. A key component of the court’s analysis was the ratio between punitive and compensatory damages. Although the court declined to impose a bright-line rule, it stated that “in practice, few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process.” (State Farm, at p. 425.) Later, in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (2008) 554 U.S. 471, 507 [ 171 L.Ed.2d 570 , 128 S.Ct. 2605 ], the high court reiterated that the ratio between punitive and compensatory damages is “a central feature in [its] due process analysis.”

*575 The majority in this case has affirmed an award of $13.8 million in punitive damages and $850,000 in compensatory damages. This is a ratio of more than 16 to 1. As I will explain, however, because plaintiff was awarded substantial compensatory damages, the ratio of punitive to…