Support NeoGAF

[MariosGirlfriend33]

1996 - 20 = 1976

Yes... years after the first warning was placed on labels.

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

Yes *rolls eyes*.

 

[terrisus]

Yes... years after the first warning was placed on labels.

Your claim was "in this day and age"

1976 is 38 years ago.

 

[BigAl1992]

Far, Far , Far too much money. What the hell would you do with it all?

 

[Winterfang]

Why is she getting that much Money!!! Oh my God.

 

[MariosGirlfriend33]

Your claim was "in this day and age"

1976 is 38 years ago.

He died in 1996... he had years before he died to stop smoking... don't act as though his body broke down the minute he first lit up.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

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.

I view that as punishment I guess. vices are often tied in with poverty and addiction and taxing them doesn't stop the behavior it just is regressive taxation. I don't also think your as harmed (or at least you should be as harmed if the government ran fiscal and health policy as it should). as you are portraying.

I really don't think about it too much but its just something I have a hard time justifying.

 

[Metaphoreus]

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.

This judge probably won't enter judgment for the full amount awarded by the jury. Doing so would be patently unconstitutional given the ratio of punitive damages to actual damages.

 

[alex chilton]

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.

Nah, early death of smokers evens out the cost in the end. You ain't paying more because of smokers. Are you in favor of taxing fatty food?

 

[Camp Lo]

I wonder how many packs of Newport's were sold to get that kind of revenue.

 

[terrisus]

Meh, nevermind, not worth getting into it.

 

[MIMIC]

Is there a reason for this? It seems arbitrary

Well, the ratio seems to come from just looking at other cases. 9-1 isn't the standard...just that the punitive damages usually never go that far in respect to the compensatory damages.

The rule I'm referring to comes from "State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Campbell" (U.S. Supreme Court, 2003) and "Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker" (U.S. Supreme Court, 2008)

edit: all in all, the ratio should be in single digits (2-1, 3-1, etc), but NEVER past 9-1.

 

[2San]

Nah, early death of smokers evens out the cost in the end. You ain't paying more because of smokers. Are you in favor of taxing fatty food?

Fatty food is generally good for people though.

 

[Volimar]

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

Tobacco companies have continuously made their products more addictive over the years while simultaneously denying the health hazards. They deserve every judgment against them.

That's a ridiculously large amount for one person though.

 

[InFamousRaiden]

So after 20 years of smoking the guy dies ?

was there and if any scientific analysis or the cigarettes

 

[jett]

How can these jurors be so stupid?

 

[friskykillface]

The widow should have been awarded money but that much, holy shit 0_o getting a billion with a B

That's just crazy

I wonder if this will open a flood gate for others to sue .

But still 20 years , he didn't smoke one pack and die, I wonder how many he smoked during that time

 

[Danthrax]

Only $23.6 billion? How much is a life worth?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Only $23.6 billion? How much is a life worth?

usually a few million (1-3)

edit: I'm wrong thats only if your killed in an accident or terrorist attack. most lives are worth less than 200,000 http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1808049,00.html

 

[slit]

Your choices cost me money. My healthcare premiums and my taxes are necessarily morebecause 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.

.....and with that gasp the black market arose

 

[Casimir]

This amount will be successfully appealed. The widow will probably get around 10-20 million at the top end.

 

[_Nemo]

 

[Omni]

usually a few million (1-3)

edit: I'm wrong thats only if your killed in an accident or terrorist attack. most lives are worth less than 200,000 http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1808049,00.html

We live in a very strange time :3

 

[Stinkles]

Completely ridiculous.

Ridiculous? The number is silly, but the case against the tobacco companies is legit. They promoted an addictive and deadly drug and lied about it thousands of times.

 

[terrisus]

We live in a very strange time :3

I remember back in the 90s, my school had sent home a pamphlet with insurance/protection that parents could take out to protect against their child getting injured at school.

The payout for things like a broken arm or leg were like 10 times higher than for being killed.

 

[Winterfang]

Ridiculous? The number is silly, but the case against the tobacco companies is legit. They promoted an addictive and deadly drug and lied about it thousands of times.

Do they? I haven't seen a single Marlboro Ad since I was a little kid, they put multiple warnings in their boxes, the prices are ridiculous. I'm honestly surprised they keep making money.

 

[entremet]

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

Go to Asia and you'll see that's not the case.

 

[ThreePiMatt]

I guess I'm all for tobacco companies being taken to the cleaners, but how do they convince a jury that tobacco companies are engaged in a conspiracy to hide the health effects of smoking? I mean, I figure all that has been out in the open for decades now.

 

[ronito]

I'm sorry there must be some mistake. I read it as $23.6 Billion

 

[DarkKyo]

He died in 1996... he had years before he died to stop smoking... don't act as though his body broke down the minute he first lit up.

Yes yes Americans are free to do as they please -- including killing themselves slowly at the hands of disgusting corporations. They don't need you to defend their deadly products, they already got enough over paid lawyers to do that for them. Just because people choose to smoke doesn't make the product and the business any less despicable.

 

[Amory]

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.

$23 billion dollars might actually bring her husband back, who knows

 

[t-ramp]

Didn't Grisham write a book about this? Seems like a familiar story.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

He died in 1996... he had years before he died to stop smoking... don't act as though his body broke down the minute he first lit up.

And don't act like big tobacco has just been selling to people who refuse to quit:

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.

You can put up any time line about warnings but the guy was smoking for nearly 20 years when that cspan footage happened. And he was addicted for a few years when the warning label on cancer came out. It was a systemic campaign of lies by big tobacco.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Didn't Grisham write a book about this? Seems like a familiar story.

The Runaway Jury

 

[Stinkles]

Do they? I haven't seen a single Marlboro Ad since I was a little kid, they put multiple warnings in their boxes, the prices are ridiculous. I'm honestly surprised they keep making money.

The victim became addicted 20 years ago.

Of course he should have and probably did know better, but the tobacco companies are a literal cancer on society. One more nail in their coffin is a good nail.

 

[Azuran]

Wow, that's a huge amount of money. Oh well, I'll let this one slide this time since it's always fun seeing cigarette corporations cry.

 

[Alienous]

Lol.

I'd sacrifice myself for that. That'd secure several dozen generations of my family, easily.

No way she's getting that though.

 

[entremet]

That's a ridiculous settlement.

Settlements shouldn't be the sizes of GDPs of 3rd world countries.

 

[ragon]

This Thread reminds me of This Video .

 

[mavs]

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

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.

Nah fuck that. Fuck these motherfuckers.

 

[Eppy Thatcher]

Jesus christ. This is so ridiculous. Obviously this will get appealed and either reduced or entirely thrown out.

Dude didn't die in the 70s. It was 2006... no way you get away with the excuse of now knowing cigs are bad for you in this day and age. Fuckin boo hoo your life choices ended up having consequences.

Pathetic.

 

[terrisus]

The victim became addicted 20 years ago.

Dude didn't die in the 70s. It was 2006.

Do people not even read the OP?

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

Started smoking: 1976
Died: 1996

 

[Winterfang]

Lol.

I'd sacrifice myself for that. That'd secure several dozen generations of my family, easily.

No way she's getting that though.

This, heck with that kind to money I'll pay the debt of my country LOL

 

[Darksol]

With that kind of dosh I'd start my own cigarette company.

 

[terrisus]

With that kind of dosh I'd start my own cigarette company.

 

[Eppy Thatcher]

Aw my bad. 10 years earlier. I saw the 2006 and mis read.

Since the entire world was living in a mud hut cave with our barely mammalian brains in 96 i'll side with the widow here..... oohh wait.

Still ridiculous. Still his choices. Will still be wildly reduced or thrown out entirely.

I've been seeing "smokings bad for you mmkay" shit on tv and school and print ads and everything else since i was a kid in the 80s. this comes across like "If we had only known he would have quit!!" and it's fucking dumb.


I smoke and the last thing i do if one day i'm diagnosed with a heart condition, cancer... whatever... is go after the product that i voluntarily bought and used. It's just stupid and part of our culture that i despise.

 

[Fushin]

I don't really have a problem with this. These execs are actively selling something they know is killing their customers. Fuck 'em hard.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

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



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

I'm not agreeing that Tobacco companies need to be destroyed, but to suggest that Tobacco companies share no ethical responsibility in the deaths because they are legally obligated to put a warning label on their products is crazy.

 

[Currygan]

I offer myself to be her new husband

 

[big_z]

I don't really have a problem with this. These execs are actively selling something they know is killing their customers. Fuck 'em hard.

A lot of products being sold can kill customers and its been well known for a long time now that smoking is hazardous to your health. I don't believe human stupidity should be awarded anything.

I'm not pro smoking, I'm happy it will be near extinct/banned in another generation or two but I don't think any money should be given in this case.

 

[Terrell]

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.

As a Canadian, I can confirm this doesn't work nearly as well as people think it does. All it does is subsidize public health care, in theory. In actuality, politicians just get more tax money that they do what they want with.