Cancer Inc gets enough money as it is.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Widow wins $23.6 Billion in a Cigarette Lawsuit
- Thread starter Smellycat
- Start date
- Status
Cancer Inc gets enough money as it is.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
haha at 23 billion
HoodWinked
Member
these large verdicts are made purposely so that they do get appealed. its done to make a statement.
terrisus
Member
terrisus
Member
George Oscar Bluth II
Banned
This award is unconstitutionally disproportionate to the actual damages awarded. The trial judge will reduce the award (called remittitur) before its even appealed. Of course, the cigarette company will probably still appeal the reduced amount.
So, yes, this is all about sending a message.
it wasn't. the widow gets the 117m. the 23.6b is punitive damages.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
I'd assume the people who do heroin know that they shouldn't do heroin beforehand too. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try and get people to stop doing heroin.
See You Next Wednesday
Banned
The amount is going to get thrown out in an instant.
She'll be luck to get anything after the appeals are done with the case.
If the Jury wanted her to get something, they should have awarded her something like a few 100 grand. Something that the company wouldn't fight.
Citation required.
20cent
Banned
locked homepage at work??
Like where in Asia?
In Hong Kong you can't smoke anywhere except in unmarked street portions. Other public area/bars/etc, no way.
In Japan it becomes more and more difficult to even smoke in the street, and many restaurants don't allow smoking anymore since the recent years.
Singapore also follows the trend.
And China slowly ban cigarettes in public areas big cities.
OuterLimits
Member
Federal and State government make a ton of money off cigarette and alcohol taxes. They love "sin" taxes. Imagine them having to scramble to find a way to replace the lost tax money if smoking was banned. Of course it would help healthcare costs in the long term but it wouldn't really help the immediate loss of revenue. Plus some people would just purchase cigarettes illegally on the black market.
Virginia(tobacco state) the state tax is lowest in country I believe at 30 cents a pack. Compared with $4.35 in New York which is the most expensive. Damn, a $4 difference.
In Virginia you can still get a pack of Marlboro for about $4.50 to $5.25 depending on the store.
Virginia(tobacco state) the state tax is lowest in country I believe at 30 cents a pack. Compared with $4.35 in New York which is the most expensive. Damn, a $4 difference.
In Virginia you can still get a pack of Marlboro for about $4.50 to $5.25 depending on the store.
ItAintEasyBeinCheesy
it's 4th of July in my asshole
Is she still single?
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
As if it matters, you do not need nor did you ever need someone telling you it was bad for your health. If you have ever smoked before you would know this. A pack a day habit for a while will leave you waking up in the morning with a nice cough/etc.
God, that jingle is gonna be stuck in my head, lol
Enter The 36 Chambers
Member
I love smoking. A cigarette after food or sex is incredible.
freenudemacusers
Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death
edit: Wiki says that chart is outdated, so here's another chart on the page:
Yoda
Member
Right but these people will eventually qualify for Medicare. Which our taxes will have to pay for. The people who self-inflict higher health-care costs on themselves ought to pay for said higher costs.
She'd instantly be one of the richest 30 people in the world.lessthananth725
Member
Why does this jury think they should send a message to tobacco companies? I'm pretty sure no one from the company held a gun to the mans head and said "smoke these cigarette or be shot", the man chose to smoke.People have known since the late 80s/early 90s tobacco is bad for you. This lawsuit would be like me shooting myself in the head and my family suing Smith and Wesson for not putting a label on the gun saying "this can call you".
I apologize if this offends some people but this type of abuse of out legal system angers me.
I apologize if this offends some people but this type of abuse of out legal system angers me.
burnside13
Member
I've heard laws banning sale of cigarettes to people born after the 2000.
Would support.
Whatever this woman gains from this case, she has a moral responsibility to give most of it towards cancer treatment and other legal cases against Tobacco cartels.
Would support.
Whatever this woman gains from this case, she has a moral responsibility to give most of it towards cancer treatment and other legal cases against Tobacco cartels.
Blackstarhat
Member
yeah and the first cigarette when you wake up feels good too. Its a horrible habbit that i enjoy.
Basileus777
Member
We should tax fast food too. Hell, let's tax everything that's cheap and unhealthy, regressive taxation is great for society and the economy!
Your welcome. As an added layer of strategy, once the judge has reduced the obviously unconstitutional punitive damages award (say to around an award of ~$100m total), the plaintiff's attorney will probably call up defense counsel and say, "Look, I realize you're going to appeal this. Even if you win on appeal, you're still going to be on the hook for a ton of money. If a new trial is ordered, we're just going to win again at trial, because jurors really, really hate your company. Let's save your client a bunch of money in legal fees and deal."
If RJ Reynolds is simply looking to get out of the news, they'll probably be able to negotiate this down to $25-$50m. If they have some sort of strategic reasons for appealing it, say if there are a bunch of these cases teed up and ready for trial and they want to set good precedent on appeal, then they may fight it to the bitter end.
Read the thread instead of just the first post
That's on the idiot with the habit/addiction but the real problem is that it's harmful to others.
Funny how that list differentiates between poor diet and overweight/obesity.
Mr.Wreckless
Banned
He started smoking when he was 13 and died in 1996 when he was 36. Meaning he started smoking in '73. That's not "this day and age." You could at least pretend to read the first post.
considering the time the man lived, second hand smoke was a lot more harmful to him than it is to people today. smoke free public places were the exception and not the rule.
why is that funny? would you lump a mineral deficiency in with obesity? they're pretty different things.
Bedameister
Member
I hope the company really has to pay that much money. I hope she doesn't get that much. Sure she deserves some money, maybe a couple mills but this is insane. The money should be used for a good purpose instead.
I meant it more in a sense that obesity such a big problem that you can't lump it together with having a poor diet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death
edit: Wiki says that chart is outdated, so here's another chart on the page:
I wonder what the criteria for alcohol death is. Alcohol does raise your cancer risk, especially when combined with tobacco, but I'd imagine it'd be difficult to single it out.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I'd agree not in this day and age, but this case is regarding a death in '96 of someone who had been smoking for 20 years, i.e. since '76. Maybe they were misleading about health effects back then?
But yeah, I'm going to join in the chorus of other Gaffers saying that there's no way she actually gets this much money. That would be insane.
- Status