Sueing cigarette companies

[Jiggymike]

...is as ridiculous-or maybe even moreso-than the woman who sued McDonalds for dumping coffee on herself. At least that woman had a case for her lawsuit - the coffee was too hot and inflicted burns that should not be expected from a regular cup of coffee. Yes she is a moron for buying coffee and then putting it between her legs but what would have happened if she bought it and someone at work had knocked it onto her lap? This does not change the fact that McDonalds was keeping their coffee at unsafe temperature levels. (Let me be the first to say, though, that this will and SHOULD always be the benchmark case when talking about ridiculous and idiotic lawsuits; however, I can see how lawyers found a way to spin this in her favor).

Today in the Washington DC Express (here is the link (http://readexpress.com/) but I don't know how to find individual stories), there was an article on a court overturning a widow's $79M lawsuit against a tobacco company. Obviously, the money is crazy, but should people have the right to sue cigarette manufacturers in the first place? I say definitely not. Once again, I hate second hand smoke and smelling like cigarettes as much as the next guy. However, they are legally manufactured and sold in stores all across the country. Moreover, they put a warning DIRECTLY ON THE BOX that says they are harmful to your health, and at this point it is common knowledge with all the truth.com ads and such. It is your choice to smoke cigarettes regardless of these cautions and if they end up killing you (or someone you love), you were well aware that this was a potential consequence. I actually think that suing the companies is a disgusting practice and is only done because people know that they have tons of money, which the suer helped provide either directly or indirectly. This is probably a function of the larger problem in the USA (and maybe other countries) of people using any tragedy as an excuse to get rich. Please feel free to offer your opinions.

[madnak]

People react in strange ways. I think there are very few people who have a solid understanding of risk. You can see this in many situations. A great example is weather - the newscaster says "there's a 70% chance of rain," and it doesn't rain. So the newcaster was "wrong." It's a bit scary.

Many people actually believe that smoking always causes cancer. That may or may not be a good thing. I think sometimes it encourages them to smoke, and it definitely encourages people to smoke more - I smoke occasionally, and have heard the statement many times that "it doesn't matter if you smoke one cigarette per month or a carton per day, the negative effects are the same." This is definitely untrue and may encourage people to smoke as much as they can, because it "doesn't make a difference."

Given all this, it's bewildering to me that when a regular smoker gets emphezema or lung cancer, they immediately place the blame on someone (anyone) else. They were aware of the risks when they smoked.

A cynical part of me wants to chalk it up to a simple lack of accountability. But that's an oversimplification. It's understandable that they get angry and try to find a way to avoid the problem when they learn they have a serious disease. It's also natural, especially given our culture, that they feel guilty about having smoked and want to relieve the burden by making it someone else's fault.

But I don't think it's rational, no matter how understandable it is.

[MelchyBeau]

[ QUOTE ]

...is as ridiculous-or maybe even moreso-than the woman who sued McDonalds for dumping coffee on herself.

[/ QUOTE ]

If she would have drank the coffee, she would have recieved 3rd degree burns in her mouth.

[theweatherman]

most tobacco lawsuits are about getting sick from smoking, rather they are in regard to misleading advertising that low tar or light cigs are not bad for you, or that they didnt reveal that they are addictive, etc.

[Jiggymike]

[ QUOTE ]
most tobacco lawsuits are about getting sick from smoking, rather they are in regard to misleading advertising that low tar or light cigs are not bad for you, or that they didnt reveal that they are addictive, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you meant 'aren't' about getting sick. In any case, these are just passing the blame off, you are suing because cigarettes made you sick and you want someone to be accountable. However, you knew what you were getting into, regardless of the cigs being 'lights' or 'low tar'.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
most tobacco lawsuits are about getting sick from smoking, rather they are in regard to misleading advertising that low tar or light cigs are not bad for you, or that they didnt reveal that they are addictive, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the pretext. Especially for class-action sorts of suits. But it's absurd.

Our nation may be extremely ignorant, but they still gobble up the media. Everyone "knows" that cigarettes are bad. And each pack has a warning right on it. There's really no excuse.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
most tobacco lawsuits are about getting sick from smoking, rather they are in regard to misleading advertising that low tar or light cigs are not bad for you, or that they didnt reveal that they are addictive, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the pretext. Especially for class-action sorts of suits. But it's absurd.

Our nation may be extremely ignorant, but they still gobble up the media. Everyone "knows" that cigarettes are bad. And each pack has a warning right on it. There's really no excuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're really way off on this one. All these suits involve people who started smoking well before there were warnings on packs, widespread talk of addiction, etc. The argument is PRECISELY that a reasonable person would have been mislead by the actions of the manufacturer into believing that the product was safe, when the manufacturer knew it wasn't.

It's no different than a car dealership selling a car with a bomb in it. Under our legal system, doing this is a tort, and is punishable in civil court. (ok, it's a little different....:) )

The objections you make about 'common knowledge this is bad' are fair, but part of the court case, for the jury to decide. The plaintiffs have to demonstrate that something wrong was done by the companies. With both this and the coffee case, everyone acts like companies can do whatever they want, and we all have to protect ourselves from them but can't punish them when they do things wrong.

That said, I do have issues with the tort system, particularly in punitive damages.

[Jiggymike]

[ QUOTE ]
[

You're really way off on this one. All these suits involve people who started smoking well before there were warnings on packs, widespread talk of addiction, etc. The argument is PRECISELY that a reasonable person would have been mislead by the actions of the manufacturer into believing that the product was safe, when the manufacturer knew it wasn't.

It's no different than a car dealership selling a car with a bomb in it. Under our legal system, doing this is a tort, and is punishable in civil court. (ok, it's a little different....:) )

The objections you make about 'common knowledge this is bad' are fair, but part of the court case, for the jury to decide. The plaintiffs have to make a sob story in order to convince a jury of bumpkins that companies are evil (which they are) and people are ignorant, innocent sheep (which they are but this is NOT an excuse) . With both this and the coffee case, everyone acts like companies can do whatever they want, and we all have to protect ourselves from them but can't punish them when they do things wrong.

That said, I do have issues with the tort system, particularly in punitive damages.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bold is a little trick from BBV, we call it FYP.

I understand what you're saying but it's still just a way of getting around the issue. People smoked, the cigarettes made them ill, now they are suing. The advertising stuff is just so they'll have a case but what they really want is money because tobacco companies made them sick/caused someone close to them to die. I'm only 24 but I think the knowledge that cigarettes leads to health problems has been around longer than I've been alive.

[arahant]

Yes, well...this is a problem, and it's not just in class action suits against cig. companies. Criminal defendants try and play on people's emotions, too. The tort system has resulted in some terrible outcomes in the past, like the bankrupting of dow/corning with bs science and sob stories, but we still need a mechanism to allow people to be compensated for the misdeeds of others.

If you get on a tobacco jury, you'll have the chance to evaluate the evidence yourself. But somebody has to do it, right? I just don't understand why people somehow feel that tobacco cases are unique, and we shouldn't even allow anyone to look at the evidence.

IMO, a huge fix to the system would be to have punitive damages paid to someone other than the victim (NGO's, government). I've never understood why the victim is the recipient of the punitive portion of an award, which is the part that is usually monstrously large.

[TimWillTell]

It is important for the well-being of the people that the big companies, tobacco, but even more so pharmacy, do not get away with paying doctors and laboratories to produce false information in order to have the people continue using their products, thinking it does no harm, when in reality it does.

When I started smoking, early seventies, there where all sorts of reports of doctors and laboratories stating that smoking did not cause long-cancer.
Many years later it was revealed that these doctors and laboratories were payed by the big tobacco companies to produce fake proof.

I quit smoking a couple of years later when it was clear that the companies had lied and that smoking did indeed cause long-cancer.

If I would get long-cancer and doctors would tell me that it was probably from the smoking I did in the seventies, I would definitely sue.
I regard those people behind these misleadings of the smokers as murderers.
If I lost in court I would have no problem in my dieing hour to slice the throat of one of these bastards

Double cheers!

[DCopper04]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[

You're really way off on this one. All these suits involve people who started smoking well before there were warnings on packs, widespread talk of addiction, etc. The argument is PRECISELY that a reasonable person would have been mislead by the actions of the manufacturer into believing that the product was safe, when the manufacturer knew it wasn't.

It's no different than a car dealership selling a car with a bomb in it. Under our legal system, doing this is a tort, and is punishable in civil court. (ok, it's a little different....:) )

The objections you make about 'common knowledge this is bad' are fair, but part of the court case, for the jury to decide. The plaintiffs have to make a sob story in order to convince a jury of bumpkins that companies are evil (which they are) and people are ignorant, innocent sheep (which they are but this is NOT an excuse) . With both this and the coffee case, everyone acts like companies can do whatever they want, and we all have to protect ourselves from them but can't punish them when they do things wrong.

That said, I do have issues with the tort system, particularly in punitive damages.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bold is a little trick from BBV, we call it FYP.

I understand what you're saying but it's still just a way of getting around the issue. People smoked, the cigarettes made them ill, now they are suing. The advertising stuff is just so they'll have a case but what they really want is money because tobacco companies made them sick/caused someone close to them to die. I'm only 24 but I think the knowledge that cigarettes leads to health problems has been around longer than I've been alive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arahant is right.

I have an uncle who could tell you a lot about this. When he graduated high school in the 50s, he immediately went and got a job with Philip Morris, cause his dad worked there also. He told me that his dad wouldn't let him smoke, because they knew that smoking was bad for you (this was in the 50s!) Tobacco companies have known for over 50 years that smoking is damaging to your health, yet it has only been in the last 10-15 that they have admitted it.

[Jiggymike]

[ QUOTE ]


Arahant is right.

I have an uncle who could tell you a lot about this. When he graduated high school in the 50s, he immediately went and got a job with Philip Morris, cause his dad worked there also. He told me that his dad wouldn't let him smoke, because they knew that smoking was bad for you (this was in the 50s!) Tobacco companies have known for over 50 years that smoking is damaging to your health, yet it has only been in the last 10-15 that they have admitted it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't find any good articles but this one (http://www.reason.com/news/show/35745.html) claims that warnings have been on cigarettes since 1966. I'm sure people who have been smoking for less than 40 years are sueing tobacco companies just as often as people who only smoked for 15-20 years and possibly less. I agree that people who were intentionally deceived by companies and doctors in the past have a case but they are probably only responsible for some of the lawsuits, not all.

[DCopper04]

The companies getting sued are probably not the ones who have had warning labels since 1966.

[djoyce003]

Of course the lawsuit is about getting money. It's how you keep score.

Prior to the current warning requirements, cigarette companies used to actually say that they were GOOD for you, and memos have been found detailing ways to make them even more addictive than they already are. They oughta get bitchslapped for some of the stuff they did in the past.

Certainly anyone that starts smoking now knows the risks. My grandmother that started smoking in 1917 though, had no idea what the risks were when she started, she was told they made her healthier.

Anyone that is harmed from second-hand smoke oughta be able to hammer them as well IMO. The problem is proving that.

[almostbusto]

all long as the companies don't lie about their product (which they currently do not do) then there is no justification for vilifying the companies. basically if they aren't fraudlent then they are just providing a service. some say its a disservice, but those people don't matter because they aren't part of the transaction.

these companies shouldn't be solely responsible for bringing symmetry of information to the market either.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
If you get on a tobacco jury, you'll have the chance to evaluate the evidence yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fat chance of that ever happening... The jury selection process is set up to ensure that science types and critical thinkers never serve.

[testaaja]

I think that making a case of tobacco related deaths/diseases is RIDICULOUS. People know what they get when they smoke. I love smoking, I know it's harmful for me and that's the reason I only smoke a few times a week. If I happen to caugh some awful disease because of my smoking habits I would only blame myself. Btw I just don't understand how US court system works. Sueing companies because your coffee was too hot, LOL.