So if a pharmaceutical company manufactures a drug that, years later, we find to be harmful, that company is not at fault and therefore should not be sued?
Loved this quote: “We have paved the road for these other litigants to come in and seek their day in court as well. We’re happy to be able to do that for them.”
The road to hell will be paved with other litigants now. Hope those attorneys get run over on the road.
That is two different situations. Putting hot smoke and tar in your lungs is obviously bad for you; taking an FDA certified pill is presumably okay, except for the listed side affects.
I see your point, but a company that KNOWINGLY gets you addicted to a product that puts smoke & tar in your lungs is exempt from any responsibility? I could be wrong, but could I have heard that they at one point said there is no danger to smoking? That may be a stretch, but it sounds somewhat familiar.
Two words for you all….. TAX DOLLARS!!!! That’s what is really at work here people. Unlike the pharmaceuticals, which the FDA is supposed to regulate, this a know product, that causes health issues/damages, that the Federal Government won’t regulate because they get so much $$ from it. Yet, they allow the Federal Court systems to award damages t oschmucks that smoke, get sick and want money. FYI – I am a smoker and I take full responsibility for my life and my actions. Everytime I light up a smoke I know what it may be doing to me, yet I still make that CHOICE – yes CHOICE.
We need to take all the judges out into the streets and whip them. This is getting crazy out of hand.
Lawman, all the more reason to not smoke. People are responsible for their choices but when most people now days make the wrong choice they look for someone to blame. Should Mickey Mantle sue Jack Daniels for the cost of his new liver, or can his health insurer subrogate against the distillers of liquor? I just think it is wrong to award someone a large sum of money because of their poor choices.
Lawman: nice dissertation on the chemical compounds in cigarettes, but that level of detail isn’t needed to know there’s something wrong with taking a bunch of dried leaves, rolling them in paper, setting it on fire, then sucking the smoke into the organs you depend upon to breathe and live.
This moron smoked like a chimney since he was 15. There is no excuse to ignore warnings even an idiot can understand, and if you do, you get what comes with it. There are plenty of things that, WHEN ABUSED, will kill you. People have the personal responsibility to recognize that and TAKE ACTION. It’s a concept that has been eroding in America called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. It’s what differentiates (or should) humans from animals…….the ability to CONTROL OURSELVES.
Awarding millions to the surviors is a warped concept fabricated by plaintiff attorneys. All the plaintiffs and their money grubbing attorneys say “it’s not about the money”. That’s pure bull…..it’s ONLY about the money. Have any of these verdicts altered the manufacturing of cigarettes? No. Anyone who exhausts all avenues and help quitting and fails has a problem. All the warnings in the world aren’t going to solve that character flaw. We need to stop pretending that business needs to protect people from themselve.
It’s a legal product that has multiple warnings. There is no secret that sucking up smoke is bad for you. There is no secret that they are addictive. Why should these individuals be made rich due to their bad habits? To fill the pockets of the lawyers is why. If they are so bad (and they are) make them illegal. Won’t happen.
You know what would be cool now? Someone comes forward and sues the lady who got the award because the second hand smoke from her dead husband gave them cancer!
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.
So if a pharmaceutical company manufactures a drug that, years later, we find to be harmful, that company is not at fault and therefore should not be sued?
Loved this quote: “We have paved the road for these other litigants to come in and seek their day in court as well. We’re happy to be able to do that for them.”
The road to hell will be paved with other litigants now. Hope those attorneys get run over on the road.
That is two different situations. Putting hot smoke and tar in your lungs is obviously bad for you; taking an FDA certified pill is presumably okay, except for the listed side affects.
I see your point, but a company that KNOWINGLY gets you addicted to a product that puts smoke & tar in your lungs is exempt from any responsibility? I could be wrong, but could I have heard that they at one point said there is no danger to smoking? That may be a stretch, but it sounds somewhat familiar.
Two words for you all….. TAX DOLLARS!!!! That’s what is really at work here people. Unlike the pharmaceuticals, which the FDA is supposed to regulate, this a know product, that causes health issues/damages, that the Federal Government won’t regulate because they get so much $$ from it. Yet, they allow the Federal Court systems to award damages t oschmucks that smoke, get sick and want money. FYI – I am a smoker and I take full responsibility for my life and my actions. Everytime I light up a smoke I know what it may be doing to me, yet I still make that CHOICE – yes CHOICE.
We need to take all the judges out into the streets and whip them. This is getting crazy out of hand.
FYI, from Wikapedia, here’s the history of warnings:
Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health (1966-1970)
Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health (1970-1985)
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy. (1985-)
Lawman, all the more reason to not smoke. People are responsible for their choices but when most people now days make the wrong choice they look for someone to blame. Should Mickey Mantle sue Jack Daniels for the cost of his new liver, or can his health insurer subrogate against the distillers of liquor? I just think it is wrong to award someone a large sum of money because of their poor choices.
Lawman: nice dissertation on the chemical compounds in cigarettes, but that level of detail isn’t needed to know there’s something wrong with taking a bunch of dried leaves, rolling them in paper, setting it on fire, then sucking the smoke into the organs you depend upon to breathe and live.
This moron smoked like a chimney since he was 15. There is no excuse to ignore warnings even an idiot can understand, and if you do, you get what comes with it. There are plenty of things that, WHEN ABUSED, will kill you. People have the personal responsibility to recognize that and TAKE ACTION. It’s a concept that has been eroding in America called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. It’s what differentiates (or should) humans from animals…….the ability to CONTROL OURSELVES.
Awarding millions to the surviors is a warped concept fabricated by plaintiff attorneys. All the plaintiffs and their money grubbing attorneys say “it’s not about the money”. That’s pure bull…..it’s ONLY about the money. Have any of these verdicts altered the manufacturing of cigarettes? No. Anyone who exhausts all avenues and help quitting and fails has a problem. All the warnings in the world aren’t going to solve that character flaw. We need to stop pretending that business needs to protect people from themselve.
It’s a legal product that has multiple warnings. There is no secret that sucking up smoke is bad for you. There is no secret that they are addictive. Why should these individuals be made rich due to their bad habits? To fill the pockets of the lawyers is why. If they are so bad (and they are) make them illegal. Won’t happen.
You know what would be cool now? Someone comes forward and sues the lady who got the award because the second hand smoke from her dead husband gave them cancer!