RAMONA RICAPOR-HALL, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, vs. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, and R.J. REYNOLD TOBACCO COMPANY, LIGGETT GROUP LLC, FOODLAND SUPER MARKET, LIMITED, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellees.

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant RAMONA RICAPOR-HALL:
     Wayne Parsons, Sergio Rufo, Alejandro Alvarez, William F. Brown, and Nicholas Reyes

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.:
     David M. Louie and Nicholas R. Monlux of Kobayashi Sugita & Goda, LLP

NOTE: Order granting Application for transfer, filed 04/07/25.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Jordon J. Kimura, due to a vacancy, filed 03/25/26.

NOTE: Order granting motion for oral argument, scheduled on 05/14/26 at 10:00 AM, filed on 3/27/26.

COURT: Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ. and Circuit Judge Kimura assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

Ramona Ricapor-Hall sued Philip Morris USA Inc., other cigarette manufacturers, and a cigarette retailer for damages, alleging that her lung cancer was caused by cigarettes made by the manufacturer defendants.  Ricapor-Hall’s negligence, strict products liability, and conspiracy claims proceeded to trial against Philip Morris.  The jury found Philip Morris liable for all claims.  It allocated 54 percent of the negligence or fault to Philip Morris and 46 percent to Ricapor-Hall.  It awarded general and punitive damages. 

In its final judgment, the Circuit Court of the First Circuit reduced Ricapor-Hall’s general damages award by 46 percent according to her percentage of negligence.  Both sides appealed.

In Philip Morris’ appeal, it argues that a new trial is warranted because the circuit court erred in (1) substituting in alternate jurors after phase one deliberations began, (2) failing to properly investigate the influence of extrinsic information, (3) declining to give Philip Morris’ proposed jury instructions on pre-existing injuries and unavoidably unsafe products, and (4) denying Philip Morris’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on punitive damages.

In Ricapor-Hall’s cross appeal, she argues that the circuit court erred in applying comparative negligence principles to reduce her award for the intentional tort of conspiracy to commit fraudulent misrepresentation.  She asks that we vacate the portion of the final judgment reducing her general damages by 46 percent, and remand for entry of an amended judgment for the full amount of damages.