Support NeoGAF

[Smellycat]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/b...3-6-billion-in-florida-smoking-case.html?_r=0

A jury in northwestern Florida awarded a staggering $23 billion judgment late Friday against the country’s second-largest tobacco company for causing the death of a chain smoker who died of lung cancer at the age of 36.

The company, the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, promised a prompt appeal.

Michael Johnson Sr. died in 1996 after smoking for more than 20 years. In 2006, his widow, Cynthia Robinson, of Pensacola, sued R. J. Reynolds the maker of the Kool brand cigarettes her husband had smoked, arguing that the company had deliberately concealed the health hazards its product caused.

The four-week trial ended Wednesday. The jury deliberated for 18 hours over two days, first awarding $17 million in compensatory damages and then emerging at 10 p.m. Friday with a $23.6 billion punitive judgment.

“When they first read the verdict, I know I heard ‘million,’ and I got so excited,” Ms. Robinson said in a phone interview Saturday. “Then the attorney informed me that was a ‘B’ — billion. It was just unbelievable.”

She said Mr. Johnson, a longshoreman and hotel shuttle bus driver to whom she was married from 1990 until his death six years later, began smoking around age 13. He often lit a fresh cigarette with the butt end of another.

“He really did smoke a lot,” she said.

He had two children, who are now 23 and 29.

“The damages awarded in this case are grossly excessive and impermissible under state and constitutional law,” J. Jeffery Raborn, vice president and assistant general counsel for R. J. Reynolds, said Saturday in a statement. “This verdict goes far beyond the realm of reasonableness and fairness and is completely inconsistent with the evidence presented. We plan to file post-trial motions with the trial court promptly and are confident that the court will follow the law and not allow this runaway verdict to stand.”

Such efforts by the industry are often successful. In October 2002, a Los Angeles jury awarded $28 billion in punitive damages against Philip Morris USA. In August 2011, an appeals court reduced the punitive damages to $28 million.

The Florida case was among the thousands of the so-called “Engle progeny” cases that stemmed from a 2006 court decision ruling that smokers could not file class-action suits but were free to do so individually.

That decision reversed a $145 billion verdict in a class action awarded in 2000 on behalf of a Miami Beach pediatrician, Howard A. Engle. An appeals court voided the award, saying it was excessive and the cases of individual smokers were too disparate to be considered as a class.

The plaintiffs petitioned the Florida Supreme Court, which upheld the decertification of the class but permitted individuals to sue, which set the stage for Ms. Robinson’s lawsuit.

Friday’s verdict was the highest granted to an Engle progeny case.

Ms. Robinson was represented by Christopher M. Chestnut, based in Georgia, and Willie E. Gary and Howard M. Acosta, both based in Florida.

“The jury just got it,” Mr. Chestnut said. “The jury was outraged with the concealment and the conspiracy to conceal that smoking was not only addictive but that there were deadly chemicals in cigarettes.”

He said the jury seemed most persuaded by 1994 C-Span footage of tobacco industry executives claiming smoking did not cause cancer and was not addictive, and by 60-year-old internal documents showing the company knew otherwise.

Scott P. Schlesinger, a Fort Lauderdale, Fla., lawyer who has sued big tobacco but was not involved in the Robinson case, said a verdict this large is not typical.

“There have not been multibillion-dollar punishments in the Engle cases for one reason: We are afraid to ask for them. We are afraid of what will happen in the appellate process,” he said. “This verdict is important because it goes back to an ongoing saga that goes back to 1990. People have been filing suit one by one, and we have been winning about 70 percent of them.”

23.6 billion dollars?

 

[Einbroch]

Yeah she's not getting that much money.

 

[R3TRODYCE]

Shit...

I wouldn't even know what to do with that kind of money.

 

[……forgetit]

The world is becoming very anti-tobacco, heck next year it will become illegal to smoke on college campuses in my state.

 

[Yoda]

That is an astronomical amount for this kind of lawsuit.

 

[Two Words]

That's just stupid.

 

[nhlducks35]

Won't it go down after appeals?

 

[kess]

That's half the the freaking state budget

 

[MIMIC]

I saw the headline on MSN.com and thought it was a class action.

It was just for one person? Jeez

 

[kswiston]

Won't it go down after appeals?

Ya, probably 1000 fold.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Seems a bit excessive

 

[JJDinomite]

 

[Parablank]

arguing that the company had deliberately concealed the health hazards its product caused.

During the four-week trial, lawyers for Ms Robinson argued that RJ Reynolds was negligent in informing consumers of the dangers of consuming tobacco.

This negligence, the lawyers said, led to her husband Michael Johnson Sr contracting lung cancer from smoking after becoming "addicted" and failing multiple attempts to quit.

Completely ridiculous.

 

[freenudemacusers]

for legal gaf, are these kinds of judgements more about sending a message? I mean clearly she isn't getting several billion in damages when the dust settles.

 

[soultron]

What's the point in getting this kind of money unless you're going to spend it educating the country about abusing tobacco, donating to cancer research, or simply helping people quit smoking?

No amount of money is going to bring her husband back.

 

[JJDinomite]

This makes her the 25th wealthiest human being alive.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Yeah she's not getting that much money.

Not even close.

 

[kess]

What is it with Florida juries?

 

[MariosGirlfriend33]

Shouldn't get anything. No justification in this day in age to sue a cigarette company arguing you didn't know the dangers.

 

[M.W.]

She'll get a few grand.

 

[akira28]

They'll just take her to court again, get a different judge to retry and reduce the amount, and she'll come out with a few million. This shit happens all the time. Companies no longer even break a sweat with these lawsuits. They know they're dealing with more money and time than this woman can even live long enough to see.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

is there some actuary formula that gets them to these large numbers?

that'd be ridiculous in a class action suit too.

I don't even know if an individual should be able to sue for something like that. Its more like sue the government for not enforcing the law or not doing its job.

 

[Ivan 3414]

The world is becoming very anti-tobacco, heck next year it will become illegal to smoke on college campuses in my state.

Good.

 

[BY2K]

Seriously, what!?

 

[Randolph Freelander]

On the one hand, that's egregious. On the other hand, the tobacco companies knowingly misled the public. On the other other hand, it wasn't exactly a secret that smoking was bad for you when the plaintiff's husband started smoking. Warnings had appeared in the 60s, when the deceased would have been a child.

Bah, if you can't outlaw cigarettes, at least tax them enough to make a pack $20 or something.

 

[sixteen-bit]

wow, with a B?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Shouldn't get anything. No justification in this day in age to sue a cigarette company arguing you didn't know the dangers.

The dude died in 1996, after smoking for more than 20 years (so, since before 1976).

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Bah, if you can't outlaw cigarettes, at least tax them enough to make a pack $20 or something.

Things like vices are where my libertarian side comes out. People make choices. I don't think we should penalize choices people make of their own free will if the cost borne by society is only monetary (AKA not drunk driving where you kill people or second hand smoke).

 

[Randolph Freelander]

The dude died in 1996, after smoking for more than 20 years (so, since before 1976).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages#United_States_of_America

United States was the first nation to require a health warning on cigarette packages.[29]

Cigarettes[edit]
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–)
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health. (1985–)
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking By Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, And Low Birth Weight. (1985–)
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide. (1985–)

 

[Dynamite Shikoku]

If anyone deserves to lose all their money, it's tobacco companies

 

[Timeless]

is there some actuary formula that gets them to these large numbers?

The Apple vs. Samsung case did have a formula. The jury found which patents infringed and multiplied them by the value of the patent and how many devices were sold.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Good. All tobacco companies need to be destroyed.

 

[MariosGirlfriend33]

The dude died in 1996, after smoking for more than 20 years (so, since before 1976).

And? Folks in 1976 knew the dangers of smoking. Smoking didn't cause him to die day one either. He had years. It's a money grab for ignorance.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

And? Folks in 1976 knew the dangers of smoking. Smoking didn't cause him to die day one either. He had years. It's a money grab for ignorance.

You know what addiction is?

 

[MariosGirlfriend33]

If anyone deserves to lose all their money, it's tobacco companies

Good. All tobacco companies need to be destroyed.

Yes because they force people to buy and use their products. Obviously.

You know what addiction is?

You do know that the dangers of smoking warnings were plastered on labels before he even started, right?

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Things like vices are where my libertarian side comes out. People make choices. I don't think we should penalize choices people make of their own free will if the cost borne by society is only monetary (AKA not drunk driving where you kill people or second hand smoke).

Your choices cost me money. My healthcare premiums and my taxes are necessarily more because of your freedom. If you want to be libertarian about it, I might want to be libertarian and say pay for your own disease.

I wouldn't say that, of course, and I favor universal healthcare, but smoking should be taxed into oblivion.

 

[TheContact]

billion...what the hell

 

[Blargonaut]

donashun 2 me pls. i nub

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Your choices cost me money. My healthcare premiums and my taxes are necessarily more because of your freedom. If you want to be libertarian about it, I might want to be libertarian and say pay for your own disease.

I wouldn't say that, of course, and I favor universal healthcare, but smoking should be taxed into oblivion.

I'm not actually a libertarian I just have a hard time justifying punishing people for their vices.

 

[MIMIC]

is there some actuary formula that gets them to these large numbers?

that'd be ridiculous in a class action suit too.

I don't even know if an individual should be able to sue for something like that. Its more like sue the government for not enforcing the law or not doing its job.

Well I'm just in law school but I learned in my torts class that the judge will consider the difference between the civil damages and the punitive damages....and that it shouldn't exceed a 9-1 ratio.

Here....well.....$23 billion to $17 million is a little more than 9-1

 

[Dynamite Shikoku]

Yes because they force people to buy and use their products. Obviously.

Didn't say they did, so don't put words in my mouth

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Well I'm just in law school but I learned in my torts class that the judge will consider the difference between the civil damages and the punitive damages....and that it shouldn't exceed a 9-1 ratio.

Here....well.....$23 billion to $17 million is a little more than 9-1

Is there a reason for this? It seems arbitrary

 

[Spinluck]

While I am having a hard time believing that they didn't know the health hazards (they probably did and it has more to do with these scumbag companies not disclosing said hazards) I am all for these companies getting fucked.

If anyone deserves to lose all their money, it's tobacco companies

Good. All tobacco companies need to be destroyed.

.

 

[MariosGirlfriend33]

Didn't say they did, so don't put words in my mouth

Then don't use the 'addiction' excuse. This guy could have and probably did read the label and didn't give a second thought. Juries shouldn't give a second thought to the lawsuits that people bring against tobacco companies.

 

[PumpkinPie]

And? Folks in 1976 knew the dangers of smoking. Smoking didn't cause him to die day one either. He had years. It's a money grab for ignorance.

Pretty much. He could've stopped at any point over the years.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Tobacco companies fucking suck so much and if cigarettes were banned I wouldn't shed a tear.

That being said 23 bil for one person is a bit excessive.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

I'm not actually a libertarian I just have a hard time justifying punishing people for their vices.

What's punishment about making their vice more expensive? Again, their vice punishes me. I pay higher healthcare premiums, I pay higher taxes. Their vice does not exist in a vacuum. I simply favor shifting the cost of the vice heavily in their direction.

 

[terrisus]

Shouldn't get anything. No justification in this day in age to sue a cigarette company arguing you didn't know the dangers.

Michael Johnson Sr. died in 1996 after smoking for more than 20 years.

1996 - 20 = 1976

This guy could have and probably did read the label and didn't give a second thought.

And you obviously didn't read the OP.

 

[Dynamite Shikoku]

Then don't use the 'addiction' excuse. This guy could have and probably did read the label and didn't give a second thought. Juries shouldn't give a second thought to the lawsuits that people bring against tobacco companies.

I didn't say anything about addiction either. Do you even read what you quote? Do you work for a tobacco company?

 

[MaxwellGames]

The world is becoming very anti-tobacco, heck next year it will become illegal to smoke on college campuses in my state.

I fail to see the problem there.

Horrible, disgusting and POINTLESS habit.