Is this for real? Does this not set a precedent for, you know, basically all those who have had a family member die due to lung cancer/smoking? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545327/ns/business-us_business/ LOS ANGELES - A jury has decided that cigarette maker Philip Morris USA should pay $13.8 million in punitive damages to the daughter of a longtime smoker who died of lung cancer. The Los Angeles Superior Court jury returned the verdict Monday, more than eight years after the smoker, Betty Bullock, sued the company for fraud and product liability. The panel voted 9-to-3 in favor of Bullock’s daughter Jodie Bullock, who is now the plaintiff in the case. Betty Bullock died of lung cancer in February 2003. She had sued Philip Morris in April 2001, accusing the company of fraud and product liability. A jury in 2002 recommended Philip Morris pay a record $28 billion in punitive damages to Bullock, but a judge later reduced the award to $28 million. In 2008, the 2nd U.S. District Court of Appeal reversed the jury’s decision and remanded the case for a new trial over the punitive damages. Philip Morris said the $28 million remained excessive. However, the original jury ordered the tobacco company to pay Bullock $750,000 in damages and $100,000 for pain and suffering, a verdict that still stands. Betty Bullock, 64, of Newport Beach, started smoking Marlboros when she was 17 and later turned to Benson & Hedges, both Philip Morris products. Attorneys for Philip Morris argued Betty Bullock could have stopped smoking at anytime and the harmful effects of cigarettes were known to smokers. Philip Morris is a unit of Richmond, Va.-based Altria Group Inc.
It's time to sue Walmart for selling the cigarettes, also. They are acting as a distributor for the cigarette companies. They have deep pockets, too. Way to go, California.
There better be a 13.8M lung cancer charity founded out of it. But doesnt the surgeon general's warning place liability on the smoker? How are you smoking for 40 years all the while thinking you're a victim of it?
This will be appealed and overturned. In cases like this, the jury award is only the first part of Round 1.
The problem that Philip-Morris has is that for a long time they hid their own research showing how harmful and addictive cigarrettes can be so there is a strong argument that the Tobacco Industry for a long time wasn't fully informing the public about the risks of tobacco use. Also in our society we don't just consider the user of a product to be responsible but also the vendor. Consider that we prosecture drug dealers harsher than drug users when an argument could be made that the drug users are the ones who have decided to use the drugs. Bars also can be held liable in the case of drunk driving accidents when they haven't cut someone off who goes out and drives drunk.
I'm not so sure - this seems to be the second round: Betty Bullock died of lung cancer in February 2003. She had sued Philip Morris in April 2001, accusing the company of fraud and product liability. A jury in 2002 recommended Philip Morris pay a record $28 billion in punitive damages to Bullock, but a judge later reduced the award to $28 million. In 2008, the 2nd U.S. District Court of Appeal reversed the jury’s decision and remanded the case for a new trial over the punitive damages. Philip Morris said the $28 million remained excessive. As for whether it's excessive or not, it depends if you believe Philip Morris withheld research over decades. This wasn't a one-time thing. The woman started smoking back in the 50s or so. From the 1950s to 1990's, PM supposedly had done plenty of research that indicated their products were dangerous but publicly denied it. That would be consumer fraud, and that's where the punitive damages come from. The point is specifically to be punitive - a small award has no punitive effect.
If the Supreme Court of California upheld a significant punitive award, wouldn't this open up the floodgates? Actually, massive tidal wave might be a better choice of words.
Possibly - but the tobacco companies settled with states for nearly $300 billion back in the 1990s, so I'm not sure this is really too far out of line. It certainly could open the door to more lawsuits, but they are still expensive on the part of the plaintiff and it's not like they are guaranteed to win every one (the tobacco industry has won plenty of these). Then again, I'm not an expert on the law, and I'm not sure how this would affect other lawsuits. Since it's a punitive award, it might be arguable as they pay more of these, that they've paid the punitive portion of their actions - I really have no idea.
If you do the math, Betty started smoking in 1956. There were no warnings on cigarettes until 1966. There was no Surgeon General's warning on cigarettes until 1970. And there was no warning of cancer on the packs themselves until 1985. So there was plenty of window to get addicted before the knowledge of how harmful cigarettes were became widespread.
Yes I was trying to factor in that in her first 10/15/30 years of smoking she should have realized that she's in danger and should quit. But you dont need medical factsheets to see when you're coughing up random things more often, your breathing is easily labored, food tastes worse, and your most likely increasing your smoking rate over the first 2 decades of starting the habit. And then while knowing all those dangers, deciding to still keep at it for another 15 years. At the age of 50, she may have been resigned to not bother, but then you do, to an extent, forfeit the victim mentality, at least outside of a court of law. Of course we dont know her hardships, life situations and how many times she did try to quit or wane off in all those years, and how reliant she may have been on them, so I cannot be too judgmental. But going from 1M to 28M is truly excessive, even if its from big tobacco. Just make them donate it to lung cancer research or something.
