RJ Reynolds told to pay wife of cancer victim $23.6bn

[Lite Beer]

RJ Reynolds told to pay wife of cancer victim $23.6bn

A US court has ordered the country's second largest cigarette company to pay $23.6 billion (£13.8bn) to the wife of a smoker who died of lung cancer.

RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company was hit with the punitive fine in addition to $16.8m (£9.8m) in compensatory damages.

Cynthia Robinson took action against the firm in 2008, seeking compensation for her husband's death in 1996.

An official at the company said the court's verdict was "far beyond the realm of reasonableness and fairness".

During the four-week trial, lawyers for Ms Robinson argued that RJ Reynolds was negligent in informing consumers of the dangers of consuming tobacco.

This negligence, the lawyers said, led to her husband Michael Johnson Sr contracting lung cancer from smoking after becoming "addicted" and failing multiple attempts to quit.

Read More: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28389273

-- BBC 2014-07-19

[GentlemanJim]

It is a fairly ridiculous award.

[Kerryd]

<deleted> decides that compensatory damages should be 16.8 million ?!?!?!? Holy Crap ! If I earned my current salary for 40 years I wouldn't make a quarter of that ! Sheesh, maybe I should wait a few more years and then sue them over dad's lung cancer death (do I have to wait 12 years after his death to sue, or is that just how long it took her to find a lawyer willing to take her case ?).

Dad probably never earned a million total in his whole life, so in death I should be able to claim what, 50 mil in compensatory damages ? Litigious Lottery Ticket here I come !!

I like to how the governments that tested, regulated and taxed the h3ll out of tobacco for generations gets away scott free in all of these lawsuits.

Hmmm, I smoked and was addicted for 35 years, but I guess because I don't have cancer and am still alive, I can't sue. Pity. I could probably use that money to enjoy the rest of my smoke-free life.

[Chang_paarp]

I'm guessing the tobacco company will be appealing the decision. However a precedent has been made and there will others following using a similar prosecution.

[impulse]

Ridiculous judgment like this, and then we wonder why US businesses ship the jobs overseas, and multinationals aren't clamoring to set up operations utilizing (arguably) one of the most productive labor forces in the world...

Edited July 20, 2014 by impulse

[GentlemanJim]

Ridiculous judgment like this, and then we wonder why US businesses ship the jobs overseas, and multinationals aren't clamoring to set up operations utilizing (arguably) one of the most productive labor forces in the world...

Correct.

I have been offered loads of business in the US and will not take it. The mentality of litigation for almost literally anything is the ultimate deterrent for most non-US businesses. Still it keeps foreign competition at bay eh!

$23.6 Billion !!! It would be interesting to see the owners of the company capitulate, pay the money and then close down the entire operation with the subsequent loss of 10 000 jobs and the appropriate revenue to the country in taxes each year. The owners will still have a couple of billion left over to do them the rest of their lives.

Edited July 20, 2014 by GentlemanJim

[Credo]

The cigarette companies were involved in several things that are the basis for these judgments:

1. They covered up information that showed a link between lung cancer and cigarette smoking.

2. They actively increased the amount of nicotine to increase the rates of addiction.

There efforts were deliberate. Even more so than the average drug dealer who has little knowledge of the real impact of what they are doing.

But you do not need to worry. This will go through the courts and the company will pay nothing or very little.

By the way, I don't smoke much now, but I enjoy smoking. I know the risks, they have been explained to me in detail by a doctor. My lungs are fine, but the heart hasn't fared quite as well.

Would I sue the cigarette company. No. I know the risks. I can quit (but occasionally relapse).

So if you don't want to get sued. Don't be dishonest and have good insurance.

[snarkles]

America. Home of nonsense litigation.

[impulse]

The cigarette companies were involved in several things that are the basis for these judgments:

1. They covered up information that showed a link between lung cancer and cigarette smoking.

2. They actively increased the amount of nicotine to increase the rates of addiction.

So if you don't want to get sued. Don't be dishonest and have good insurance.

I agree they should be taken out of business for their deception and for producing a product that is known to cause death if used as intended. And I hope that the high ranking liars in the companies go to prison- because corporations cannot lie. But their people can and will as long as they get only the upside bonuses- and the shareholders and lower ranking layoff fodder are stuck with the downside of their behavior.

But the $23.6 billion judgment could force them into bankruptcy, and then what about the millions of other cancer victims who should be compensated?

This sounds like a case where plaintiffs attorneys scoured court records to find out which backwater county had jurors most likely to award ridiculous sums, then sued in that venue.

Hopefully, the lady will get the compensation she deserves and there will be some left for the rest of the victims...

Edited July 20, 2014 by impulse

[clockman]

Lawyers get the most!

[Chicog]

Ridiculous judgment like this, and then we wonder why US businesses ship the jobs overseas, and multinationals aren't clamoring to set up operations utilizing (arguably) one of the most productive labor forces in the world...

Correct.

I have been offered loads of business in the US and will not take it. The mentality of litigation for almost literally anything is the ultimate deterrent for most non-US businesses. Still it keeps foreign competition at bay eh!

$23.6 Billion !!! It would be interesting to see the owners of the company capitulate, pay the money and then close down the entire operation with the subsequent loss of 10 000 jobs and the appropriate revenue to the country in taxes each year. The owners will still have a couple of billion left over to do them the rest of their lives.

Not that I have a dog in this fight, but they are punitive damages.

A quick look at RJ Reynolds profits from tobacco over the years should show that they still come out in front.

[Prbkk]

I hope someone goes after the fast food and sugar merchants of disease and premature death. After tobacco they are the next most culpable.

[NeverSure]

Compensatory damages go to things like future earnings, but they also can include things like the wife's loss of her husband (loss of consortium.)

Punitive damages serve as a public notice to all who are watching to never do such a thing. They are meant to punish enough to set an example to all.

This would be a jury award subject to review buy the judge and the appeals court. I have no doubt that it will be lowered considerably. If corporations don't want this to happen to them they should give full disclosure at the beginning or suffer the consequences.

[Thai at Heart]

Aren't these types of judgement always changed on appeal. Its just a judgement that someone is guilty, but isn't it the case that no judgement like this can close the company because of the size of the judgement.

[Thai at Heart]

The cigarette companies were involved in several things that are the basis for these judgments:

1. They covered up information that showed a link between lung cancer and cigarette smoking.

2. They actively increased the amount of nicotine to increase the rates of addiction.

There efforts were deliberate. Even more so than the average drug dealer who has little knowledge of the real impact of what they are doing.

But you do not need to worry. This will go through the courts and the company will pay nothing or very little.

By the way, I don't smoke much now, but I enjoy smoking. I know the risks, they have been explained to me in detail by a doctor. My lungs are fine, but the heart hasn't fared quite as well.

Would I sue the cigarette company. No. I know the risks. I can quit (but occasionally relapse).

So if you don't want to get sued. Don't be dishonest and have good insurance.

Ironically, the surgeon general by claiming that low tar and nicotine was desirable had the odd result of lighter and lighter cigarettes coming to market.

Of course what the companies knew was that if you smoked on cigarette at 10 mg of nicotine, that equated to 8 cigratees at 1mg.

The companies had no incentive whatsoever to make stronger cigarettes. They loved the sale of lights and ultra lights.

[A1Str8]

Her husband, may the Lord rest his ignorant ass in peace was a grown man. So like everyone else he must have been aware of the fact that smoking kills. He did it nonetheless.

It was not because of the company's negligence that he got cancer but because of his own disregard for his health. The man died in '96 then she sued the company almost ten years later.

I believe if the wifey needs money, she should go get a job instead of trying to blame things on others. It doesn't help and is ridiculous.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[transam]

All of us smokers know the risks and so do our wives. Anyone who says they didn't know the risks is a liar. Life is full of risks one way or another, some we can prevent, some we cannot.

What do we do, if we get cancer do we go out and try and blame someone for it, sue them. My grandpa died a wee bit early probably due to being exposed to gas in the trenches, do I go out and sue the Germans......

[klauskunkel]

Corporations who target minors, addict them to their product, poison them slowly and finally kill them deserve to be punished imo. Too bad it doesn't happen more often. Usually these companies are untouchable. I am surprised at a lot of your reactions. A Tobacco Company Does Not Contribute Anything Constructive To Society. It is a parasite. Punishing them is a rare pleasure.

[Suradit69]

I'm guessing the tobacco company will be appealing the decision. However a precedent has been made and there will others following using a similar prosecution.

A jury awarding an exorbitant amount of money in this case is hardly a precedent-setting event.

Today in 2002: California jury awards $28 billion in damages against Philip Morris

- See more at: http://blog.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/legal-research/today-2002-california-jury-awards-28-billion-damages-philip-morris/#sthash.ayQbeL5p.dpuf

The U.S. Supreme Court even weighed in on the issue of punitive damages against tobacco companies in 2007’s Philip Morris USA v. Williams, which ruled that punitive damages to punish defendant for harming nonparties of the case amounted to a government taking without due process, and was thus unconstitutional.

The sheer amount of tobacco litigation case law developed in this short period of time greatly overshadows the amount of case law generated at any time previous, with even state attorneys general getting involved in suing tobacco giants.

Fairness doctrine: a Supreme Court decision tackling exorbitant jury awards is welcome news for insurers.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Fairness+doctrine%3A+a+Supreme+Court+decision+tackling+exorbitant+jury...-a0199600482

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2574&context=faculty_scholarship

Edited July 20, 2014 by Suradit69

[Ulysses G.]

All of us smokers know the risks and so do our wives. Anyone who says they didn't know the risks is a liar.

I have never been a smoker and do not like tobacco companies, but this is just plain old common sense.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[transam]

Corporations who target minors, addict them to their product, poison them slowly and finally kill them deserve to be punished imo. Too bad it doesn't happen more often. Usually these companies are untouchable. I am surprised at a lot of your reactions. A Tobacco Company Does Not Contribute Anything Constructive To Society. It is a parasite. Punishing them is a rare pleasure.

Do you drink beer, do you fly on airplanes, do you have barbies, do you take tablets for a headache, do you break the law when driving..........My list can go on......Just answer a few.....?

[Naam]

I hope someone goes after the fast food and sugar merchants of disease and premature death. After tobacco they are the next most culpable.

not to forget the sun that should be sued for causing skin cancer

[klauskunkel]

Corporations who target minors, addict them to their product, poison them slowly and finally kill them deserve to be punished imo. Too bad it doesn't happen more often. Usually these companies are untouchable. I am surprised at a lot of your reactions. A Tobacco Company Does Not Contribute Anything Constructive To Society. It is a parasite. Punishing them is a rare pleasure.

Do you drink beer, do you fly on airplanes, do you have barbies, do you take tablets for a headache, do you break the law when driving..........My list can go on......Just answer a few.....?

yes, yes, no, no, no...there i answered all of them. What is the purpose of your questions?

[transam]

Corporations who target minors, addict them to their product, poison them slowly and finally kill them deserve to be punished imo. Too bad it doesn't happen more often. Usually these companies are untouchable. I am surprised at a lot of your reactions. A Tobacco Company Does Not Contribute Anything Constructive To Society. It is a parasite. Punishing them is a rare pleasure.

Do you drink beer, do you fly on airplanes, do you have barbies, do you take tablets for a headache, do you break the law when driving..........My list can go on......Just answer a few.....?

yes, yes, no, no, no...there i answered all of them. What is the purpose of your questions?

Because your post is &lt;deleted&gt;....... You want to ban "chips"....."fizzy drinks", ANYTHING, god man, we all do stuff that ain't good....................

[wabothai]

Totally and utterly ridiculous.

Compensation all right, but this ?

[klauskunkel]

Corporations who target minors, addict them to their product, poison them slowly and finally kill them deserve to be punished imo. Too bad it doesn't happen more often. Usually these companies are untouchable. I am surprised at a lot of your reactions. A Tobacco Company Does Not Contribute Anything Constructive To Society. It is a parasite. Punishing them is a rare pleasure.

Do you drink beer, do you fly on airplanes, do you have barbies, do you take tablets for a headache, do you break the law when driving..........My list can go on......Just answer a few.....?

yes, yes, no, no, no...there i answered all of them. What is the purpose of your questions?

Because your post is <deleted>....... You want to ban "chips"....."fizzy drinks", ANYTHING, god man, we all do stuff that ain't good....................

You are putting words in mouth. I don't want to ban them, I want to see them PUNISHED. Punished for decades of lying, falsifying research, advertising to kids, addicting people, making them sick and killing them. That's what I want. That's all. I still want you to enjoy your cigarette, far away from me, I hope. Same cigarette you got addicted to when you were a teen...After all, now that you are an adult you must know what's good for you.

[Nuddy]

Must be a misprint, billions, should maybe millions.

No I checked it in other news...its Billions!

[transam]

@klaus...........

So what do you think about folk who join the military and die, they know the risks......Does everyone sue their country cos they didn't know they might die...?

[phantomfiddler]

Either the US Court is completely mad, or this guy was irreplaceable in the sack. Condolences to the widow, though I,ll bet if she were offered the choice of the money or her husband back and healthy ..... she would take the money

[klauskunkel]

@klaus...........

So what do you think about folk who join the military and die, they know the risks......Does everyone sue their country cos they didn't know they might die...?

Transam,

your argument is not logical. I explain my point for the third time (and then I give up): it is about punishment for lying to the consumer about the safety of their product, for falsifying research....

example: you buy paint. you ask the guy: is there lead in it. guy says: no. You ask the guy: is it dangerous for my health? guy says no. guy puts a label on the paint: this paint is good for you. You paint your house, you get sick, you die. turns out the guy lied. your widow wants to punish the guy.

(best i could come up with)