Give me a break. This liberal jury award is outrageous. Sucking on fire can\’t be good for you and all should have known it and should know it by now. If you don\’t don\’t come crying for money. By the way, drinking is also bad for you as well as driving a car, jumping out of airplanes, or walking down a busy street. Get real people! The attorneys for this plantiff are also a joke. GREED will get you.
What?, a conservative jury would support the right of a corporation knowingly to addict, enslave and kill people without consequences? Tobacco products are legal, were deceptively promoted and were promoted when the board room fat cats knew that they were harmful. And now it is time for them to participate in the legal system based on their legal actions.
If they don\’t like it, they should just go underground with all the other sleazo drug dealers. America (and its legal system). Love it or leave it! You non-liberals are big on personal responsbility and accountability for others (but not for you). Corporations are apparently exempt from either in your self-serving universe.
Destroy Big Tobacco! Good riddance to bad rubbish! Get drugs out of American life!
Take a look in the mirror, pal. You won\’t see a liberal, but neither will you see a human being.
Sorry Smokin, but I must take issue with just about everything you have to say.While I know that excessive alcohol use can create a myriad of problems, I don\’t think most people will suffer from having a drink or two. In fact, there may even be some medicinal benefits from doing so. As respects your comments about driving a car,walking down the street, etc.., what the heck are you talking about?
For many years, the Tobacco Industry denied that Cigarettes were harmful, spent millions denying a connection with cancer, even though their internal studies proved that they well knew that their Product was killing people.
It was inevitable that Lawsuits would follow, and predictable that at some point,juries and/or judges would rule against them.
You call the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs a joke?
I call them good attorneys, who obviously convinced the Court of the correctness of their position, and represented their clients well.Don\’t you think Phillip Morris utilized the best, most expensive legal talent available, and undoubtedly will continue their appeals until all legal avenues have been exhausted?
Personally, I believe the Punitive Damages awarded in this case were excessive,and I suspect and hope they will be reduced to a more reasonable level.
However, I have little sympathy for the Tobacco Industry as a whole, and believe they have probably caused more American\’s deaths than all the wars we have ever particpated in, and I hope that while reduced, the penalties against \”Big Tobacco\” in this and future cases, will be sufficient to make them hurt, and think twice before mis-leading and harming their customers in the future.
You make some good points, but also fail to see the larger picture on some issues.
First, as a generally moderate conservative, I\’m VERY big on responsibility and accountability for both all individuals and entities. Reap what you sow, live by the golden rule, etc. Those that utilize deceptive marketing or other underhanded practices should be punished accordingly. If that\’s self-serving, so be it. I\’ll continue to serve myself and worry about me, and let you live how you want to provided you do the same for me. Welcome to the concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
With regards to your comment about destroying Big Tobacco and (I assume) other companies that are bad for our health, let me add a few more to your hit list. Keep in mind that all of those previously employed by these evil companies will now be forced to rely, at least temporarily, on the social welfare programs that are already over-strained by the entitlement politics of the political left. How about we get rid of…
…and everything else that has the potential to be bad for our health when misused/abused/overindulged?
Gee, but wouldn\’t that include such evil things like the sun?
To wrap this up, I\’ll just state that I\’m a smoker, am fully aware of the risks, and have accepted those in my self-serving drive to give myself lung cancer.
Looks like she already collected $800,000 and I am sure she can live the rest of her life very comfortably and it will help reduce the pain of her loss. Now the new idea: punitive damages are mean to be a punishment of wrongdoing, so why not take the remainder of the award (reward?) and reduce the public debt, increase education benefits, health benefits, whatever and at the very least keep the bottom sucking politicians, whatever their ilk, away from it. We may have some real progress then. Nah, what was I thinking?
On one hand, I think the tobacco company should pay the woman. On the other hand, I wonder if her husband had health problems related to smoking prior to developing lung cancer.
Having attempted to smoke before (teenages will try almost anything once), I know for a fact that it makes you cough. Isn\’t coughing one of the body\’s ways of trying to eliminate irritants or other unwanted/potentially harmful matter?
Some of my friends smoke and I often see them hacking, whooping and choking up junk. Aside from the fact that I think it\’s a little yucky, I wonder if these people have made the connection between smoking and their bodies trying to eject whatever they\’ve sucked in from the cigarette. Did the plaintiff\’s husband ever make this connection?
The coughing and hacking is the body\’s own version of a published or broadcast warning from the Surgeon General. Nevermind those times when the tobacco companies used to say smoking wasn\’t harmful, certainly the bodies of the smokers were sending signals to the contrarty in the form of gagging and choking?
I think there are two liable parties in this particular situation. The tobacco company is liable for it\’s dangerous product and Mr. Williams is liable for ignoring all the signals his body most likely sent him over the course of his two-packs-a-day for 45 years.
There we are at the personal responsibility thing again. Somebody giving credence to the consequences of their actions instead of looking for someone else to blame.
For older smokers, I agree that some level of compensation is warranted based on the fact that, personal bodily functions aside, the information available to them about the consequences of smoking wasn\’t as established as it is today, and the tobacco companies undeniably practiced deceptive marketing to keep the information clouded. They have at least come clean about that for the rest of us, and future generations of nicotine addicts, and now provide information about the dangers and even give you help to quit. Nobody in the future will be able to peg liability on them.
But to complete my thoughts from the earlier post. The issue isn\’t about whether or not punitive damages are warranted (I think most of us agree on that), it is about what is fair and reasonable based on prior case law.
Aren\’t punitive damages in excess of 80-to-1 reasonable? How about 50-to-1? Where is the cutoff? Supreme Court said 9-to-1 in a prior case.
Keep in mind, these decisions won\’t always impact a company with a \”dangerous\” product like tobacco, and the odds of getting the funds away from trial lawyers and into the hands of those it\’s meant to benefit is slim.
TEH SMOKER CHOSE TO BECOME A DRUG ADDICT. HE MADE THE CHOICE TO SMOKE REGARDLESS OF ALL OF THE WARNINGS IN PRINT AND SPEECH. I DON\’T SMOKE, BUT DID AS A TEEN. I DECIDED THAT THE GIRL I WAS GOING WITH WAS WORTH A LOT MORE THAN ADDICTING MYSELF TO A DRUG. SHE MUST HAVE BEEN A GOOD INFLUENCE AS I AM STILL AROUND AFTER 50 YEARS OF MARRIAGE. I HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR ANY DRUG ADDICTS. WHY SHOULD THIS CORPORATION BE PUNISHED FOR PROVIDING COFFIN NAILS AS HE PROBABLY CALLED THEM. THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE SAYING THE MANUFACTURERS OF GUNS ARE THE CAUSE OF SOMEONE\’S DEATH DUE TO SHOOTING.
No, I don\’t think 80-to-1 is reasonable at all. 9-to-1 is still pushing it, in my opinion.
You make a very good point about litigation attorneys, too. They\’ll absorb a great deal of whatever is awarded.
I hope I didn\’t come across as judgmental of people who smoke. We all have our hobbies. I just prefer sniffing permanent markers. LOL =)
Unfortunately, I think you\’re the exception and not the rule. You hold yourself personally accountable for the things you consciously choose to do… too bad more people don\’t follow suit.
Does this woman (and her attorneys) deserve to be overly compensated with this punative damage award that rightfully should go to ALL smokers who were supposedly led to believe smoking wouldn\’t kill them?
I think that is the sticky part of the case. Even if the tobacco company should be punished with the punative award, I don\’t think it needs to go to one person.
If the award is to be distributed to ALL smokers, then 80-1 is reasonable. If it is to one person, then even 9-1 is excessive. All that does is open the door for any other smoker with a bad memory to sue the tobacco companies and get their 9-1 award and shortly the tobacco companies will be out of business and 98% of the smokers that were originally injured will not be compensated at all.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Give me a break. This liberal jury award is outrageous. Sucking on fire can\’t be good for you and all should have known it and should know it by now. If you don\’t don\’t come crying for money. By the way, drinking is also bad for you as well as driving a car, jumping out of airplanes, or walking down a busy street. Get real people! The attorneys for this plantiff are also a joke. GREED will get you.
What?, a conservative jury would support the right of a corporation knowingly to addict, enslave and kill people without consequences? Tobacco products are legal, were deceptively promoted and were promoted when the board room fat cats knew that they were harmful. And now it is time for them to participate in the legal system based on their legal actions.
If they don\’t like it, they should just go underground with all the other sleazo drug dealers. America (and its legal system). Love it or leave it! You non-liberals are big on personal responsbility and accountability for others (but not for you). Corporations are apparently exempt from either in your self-serving universe.
Destroy Big Tobacco! Good riddance to bad rubbish! Get drugs out of American life!
Take a look in the mirror, pal. You won\’t see a liberal, but neither will you see a human being.
Sorry Smokin, but I must take issue with just about everything you have to say.While I know that excessive alcohol use can create a myriad of problems, I don\’t think most people will suffer from having a drink or two. In fact, there may even be some medicinal benefits from doing so. As respects your comments about driving a car,walking down the street, etc.., what the heck are you talking about?
For many years, the Tobacco Industry denied that Cigarettes were harmful, spent millions denying a connection with cancer, even though their internal studies proved that they well knew that their Product was killing people.
It was inevitable that Lawsuits would follow, and predictable that at some point,juries and/or judges would rule against them.
You call the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs a joke?
I call them good attorneys, who obviously convinced the Court of the correctness of their position, and represented their clients well.Don\’t you think Phillip Morris utilized the best, most expensive legal talent available, and undoubtedly will continue their appeals until all legal avenues have been exhausted?
Personally, I believe the Punitive Damages awarded in this case were excessive,and I suspect and hope they will be reduced to a more reasonable level.
However, I have little sympathy for the Tobacco Industry as a whole, and believe they have probably caused more American\’s deaths than all the wars we have ever particpated in, and I hope that while reduced, the penalties against \”Big Tobacco\” in this and future cases, will be sufficient to make them hurt, and think twice before mis-leading and harming their customers in the future.
Hey Ex…
You make some good points, but also fail to see the larger picture on some issues.
First, as a generally moderate conservative, I\’m VERY big on responsibility and accountability for both all individuals and entities. Reap what you sow, live by the golden rule, etc. Those that utilize deceptive marketing or other underhanded practices should be punished accordingly. If that\’s self-serving, so be it. I\’ll continue to serve myself and worry about me, and let you live how you want to provided you do the same for me. Welcome to the concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
With regards to your comment about destroying Big Tobacco and (I assume) other companies that are bad for our health, let me add a few more to your hit list. Keep in mind that all of those previously employed by these evil companies will now be forced to rely, at least temporarily, on the social welfare programs that are already over-strained by the entitlement politics of the political left. How about we get rid of…
…fast food
…Crackrocks (err, Starbucks)
…artificial sweeteners
…food preservatives
…prescription medications
…and everything else that has the potential to be bad for our health when misused/abused/overindulged?
Gee, but wouldn\’t that include such evil things like the sun?
To wrap this up, I\’ll just state that I\’m a smoker, am fully aware of the risks, and have accepted those in my self-serving drive to give myself lung cancer.
Looks like she already collected $800,000 and I am sure she can live the rest of her life very comfortably and it will help reduce the pain of her loss. Now the new idea: punitive damages are mean to be a punishment of wrongdoing, so why not take the remainder of the award (reward?) and reduce the public debt, increase education benefits, health benefits, whatever and at the very least keep the bottom sucking politicians, whatever their ilk, away from it. We may have some real progress then. Nah, what was I thinking?
On one hand, I think the tobacco company should pay the woman. On the other hand, I wonder if her husband had health problems related to smoking prior to developing lung cancer.
Having attempted to smoke before (teenages will try almost anything once), I know for a fact that it makes you cough. Isn\’t coughing one of the body\’s ways of trying to eliminate irritants or other unwanted/potentially harmful matter?
Some of my friends smoke and I often see them hacking, whooping and choking up junk. Aside from the fact that I think it\’s a little yucky, I wonder if these people have made the connection between smoking and their bodies trying to eject whatever they\’ve sucked in from the cigarette. Did the plaintiff\’s husband ever make this connection?
The coughing and hacking is the body\’s own version of a published or broadcast warning from the Surgeon General. Nevermind those times when the tobacco companies used to say smoking wasn\’t harmful, certainly the bodies of the smokers were sending signals to the contrarty in the form of gagging and choking?
I think there are two liable parties in this particular situation. The tobacco company is liable for it\’s dangerous product and Mr. Williams is liable for ignoring all the signals his body most likely sent him over the course of his two-packs-a-day for 45 years.
There we are at the personal responsibility thing again. Somebody giving credence to the consequences of their actions instead of looking for someone else to blame.
For older smokers, I agree that some level of compensation is warranted based on the fact that, personal bodily functions aside, the information available to them about the consequences of smoking wasn\’t as established as it is today, and the tobacco companies undeniably practiced deceptive marketing to keep the information clouded. They have at least come clean about that for the rest of us, and future generations of nicotine addicts, and now provide information about the dangers and even give you help to quit. Nobody in the future will be able to peg liability on them.
But to complete my thoughts from the earlier post. The issue isn\’t about whether or not punitive damages are warranted (I think most of us agree on that), it is about what is fair and reasonable based on prior case law.
Aren\’t punitive damages in excess of 80-to-1 reasonable? How about 50-to-1? Where is the cutoff? Supreme Court said 9-to-1 in a prior case.
Keep in mind, these decisions won\’t always impact a company with a \”dangerous\” product like tobacco, and the odds of getting the funds away from trial lawyers and into the hands of those it\’s meant to benefit is slim.
TEH SMOKER CHOSE TO BECOME A DRUG ADDICT. HE MADE THE CHOICE TO SMOKE REGARDLESS OF ALL OF THE WARNINGS IN PRINT AND SPEECH. I DON\’T SMOKE, BUT DID AS A TEEN. I DECIDED THAT THE GIRL I WAS GOING WITH WAS WORTH A LOT MORE THAN ADDICTING MYSELF TO A DRUG. SHE MUST HAVE BEEN A GOOD INFLUENCE AS I AM STILL AROUND AFTER 50 YEARS OF MARRIAGE. I HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR ANY DRUG ADDICTS. WHY SHOULD THIS CORPORATION BE PUNISHED FOR PROVIDING COFFIN NAILS AS HE PROBABLY CALLED THEM. THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE SAYING THE MANUFACTURERS OF GUNS ARE THE CAUSE OF SOMEONE\’S DEATH DUE TO SHOOTING.
No, I don\’t think 80-to-1 is reasonable at all. 9-to-1 is still pushing it, in my opinion.
You make a very good point about litigation attorneys, too. They\’ll absorb a great deal of whatever is awarded.
I hope I didn\’t come across as judgmental of people who smoke. We all have our hobbies. I just prefer sniffing permanent markers. LOL =)
Unfortunately, I think you\’re the exception and not the rule. You hold yourself personally accountable for the things you consciously choose to do… too bad more people don\’t follow suit.
Does this woman (and her attorneys) deserve to be overly compensated with this punative damage award that rightfully should go to ALL smokers who were supposedly led to believe smoking wouldn\’t kill them?
I think that is the sticky part of the case. Even if the tobacco company should be punished with the punative award, I don\’t think it needs to go to one person.
If the award is to be distributed to ALL smokers, then 80-1 is reasonable. If it is to one person, then even 9-1 is excessive. All that does is open the door for any other smoker with a bad memory to sue the tobacco companies and get their 9-1 award and shortly the tobacco companies will be out of business and 98% of the smokers that were originally injured will not be compensated at all.