Three-pack-a-day smoker's widow awarded $12m (1 Viewer)

[wrxsti]

A Florida court has ordered US tobacco giant Philip Morris to pay $US8 million ($12.5 million) to the widow of a lung cancer victim on Wednesday, in a case that could set a precedent for 8000 similar trials in the state.

The jury rejected Elaine Hess's demand for $US130 million compensation, arguing that her husband Stuart Hess was partly responsible for his death since he smoked three packs of Benson & Hedges a day before he died in 1997, aged 55.

But after nine hours of deliberations the jury ordered the cigarette maker to pay $US2 million in compensatory damages to Mrs Hess, $US1 million to her son David and $US5 million in punitive damages.

Three-pack-a-day smoker's widow awarded $12m - SMH


Only in America.

 

[Kwayera]

Here we go!

If only Alan Shore was real

 

[spence]

A Florida court has ordered US tobacco giant Philip Morris to pay $US8 million ($12.5 million) to the widow of a lung cancer victim on Wednesday, in a case that could set a precedent for 8000 similar trials in the state.

The jury rejected Elaine Hess's demand for $US130 million compensation, arguing that her husband Stuart Hess was partly responsible for his death since he smoked three packs of Benson & Hedges a day before he died in 1997, aged 55.

But after nine hours of deliberations the jury ordered the cigarette maker to pay $US2 million in compensatory damages to Mrs Hess, $US1 million to her son David and $US5 million in punitive damages.

Three-pack-a-day smoker's widow awarded $12m - SMH


Only in America.

Three packs a day and he's only "partly" responsible?

 

[mrcalkin]

i cant believe he got 12mill, retarded jury!

 

[withoutaface]

I'd be interested to see the basis for the Judgment, whether it was based around inadequate disclosure of the health effects by the cigarette companies or their lack of attempts to ameliorate these.

I can see manufacturers of low-tar/nicotine cigarettes being in particular trouble though because when those came out they were advertising them as a healthier alternative.

 

[townie]

I suspect that the jury awarded damages because of the way tobacco companies have been demonised as evil, and it was more of a punishment than on any legal basis.

A smoker is completley responsible for their own death in this day and age, you know the dangers, and if you continue to smoke, fine, go ahead, but take responsibility for it.

 

[withoutaface]

I suspect that the jury awarded damages because of the way tobacco companies have been demonised as evil, and it was more of a punishment than on any legal basis.

A smoker is completley responsible for their own death in this day and age, you know the dangers, and if you continue to smoke, fine, go ahead, but take responsibility for it.

Keep in mind that this guy potentially started smoking in the 50s, though, when there was still widespread denial from the tobacco industry about the health risks.

Hess attorney Gary Paige said evidence overwhelmingly showed that Philip Morris and other companies for decades used deceptive advertisement, attacked health studies about smoking risks and raised doubts about links to cancer to continue selling their products they long knew were deadly.

"There's no question that they showed a reckless disregard for human life. They did not care," Paige said. "It was all in the name of profits, greed and lack of consideration for another human being."

The Hess case was the first to go to trial since the Florida Supreme Court in 2006 voided a $145 billion class-action jury award in the highest punitive damage award in U.S. history.

The court said each smoker's case had to be decided on its own merits, but let stand that jury's findings that tobacco companies knowingly sold dangerous products and hid risks from the public.

Jury Orders Philip Morris To Pay $8M To Widow - cbs4.com

I think the legal argument would be that person starts smoking, relying on (negligent at least, deceptive at worst) advice from the manufacturer that their product is not dangerous. No matter what happens or is said by them after this point, they are still liable for damages because the product is addictive and the manufacturer is aware of this.

 

[u-borat]

Does this set a precedent for other cases? Or do you think it'll be a one off?

 

[katie tully]

Does this set a precedent for other cases? Or do you think it'll be a one off?

Only sets a precedence if other cases have similar facts.

As WAF said, it's entirely plausible that this guy started smoking, and was addicted to cigarettes well before the companies had to disclose the truth about the health effects. They bare some negligence, because the companies knew for years that smoking caused ill health, but they weren't obligated to disclose this until the late 70s?? I think??

 

[ChockoRepublic]

Does this set a precedent for other cases? Or do you think it'll be a one off?

precedent i would think.

 

[Will Shakespear]

fuck i hope this encourages more lawsuits against tobacco companies

which i hope leads to loss of profits for said companies

which i hope leads to increased cigarette prices to compensate

which i hope leads to more strain and hardship on the mostly-poor people who smoke

 

[withoutaface]

Does this set a precedent for other cases? Or do you think it'll be a one off?

If the cigarette companies can be found guilty of tortious conduct in this case I don't see why not in others.

 

[Empyrean444]

Lol - this is in the same class of stupidity as obese people sueing fast food companies for making them fat. I wish this country had as much common sense as the US...

Edit: actually it depends: if he got addicted after knowledge of the dangers of smoking became known, but before the companies/government started acknowledging it, then I think there is a case for his widow. If this is not so, then this really is cretinous.

 

[katie tully]

Lol - this is in the same class of stupidity as obese people sueing fast food companies for making them fat. I wish this country had as much common sense as the US...

Edit: actually it depends: if he got addicted after knowledge of the dangers of smoking became known, but before the companies/government started acknowledging it, then I think there is a case for his widow. If this is not so, then this really is cretinous.

Thanks for the insight!

 

[whatashotbyseve]

John Grisham has his next novel to pen.

Why don't governments just make cigarette smoking illegal? Yes, tax revenue would drop, but so would health-related costs associated with smoking. It wouldn't stop everyone, as those who have a want have a means, but it would curb it considerably.

 

[Omium]

John Grisham has his next novel to pen.

Why don't governments just make cigarette smoking illegal? Yes, tax revenue would drop, but so would health-related costs associated with smoking. It wouldn't stop everyone, as those who have a want have a means, but it would curb it considerably.

Think of the black market that would create, This would result in more revenue for crime syndicates, Thus an increase in crime.

 

[SylviaB]

Here we go!

If only Alan Shore was real

Rep'd.

 

[coopert]

This is so fucked.

People have known of the dangers of smoking since the 70's, if they continue to smoke then fine that is their choice; but it is also their responsibility.

And smoking THREE packets a day!? Wtf. Some people are so stupid they deserve to die. Natural selection in my opinion

 

[dood09]

John Grisham has his next novel to pen.

Why don't governments just make cigarette smoking illegal? Yes, tax revenue would drop, but so would health-related costs associated with smoking. It wouldn't stop everyone, as those who have a want have a means, but it would curb it considerably.

the runaway jury?

 

[Uncle]

John Grisham has his next novel to pen.

Why don't governments just make cigarette smoking illegal? Yes, tax revenue would drop, but so would health-related costs associated with smoking. It wouldn't stop everyone, as those who have a want have a means, but it would curb it considerably.

Ah, smoking.

Yairs, the bane of one's health and others.

Why should tobacco smoking not be illegal?

Then who knows what strain of tobacco one may grow in their backyard or may even resort to smoking marijuana, or even, tea leaves!

OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO!