Canada: Judge awards billions to Quebec smokers

[webfact]

Judge awards billions to Quebec smokers

MONTREAL (AP) — A judge has awarded more than $15 billion Canadian (US$12 billion) to Quebec smokers in a case that pitted them against three giant tobacco companies. The case is believed to be the biggest class-action lawsuit ever seen in Canada.

Superior Court Justice Brian Riordan said in his decision released late Monday that by choosing not to inform health authorities or the public directly of what they knew, the companies chose profits over the health of their customers.

The judgment calls on the companies to issue initial compensation of more than $1 billion Canadian (US$800 million) in the next 60 days, regardless of whether they elect to appeal. The judge will decide at a later date how to distribute those funds.

JTI-Macdonald, Imperial Tobacco and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges said they will appeal.

The Quebec case marked the first time tobacco companies had gone to trial in a civil lawsuit in Canada and involved two separate groups of plaintiffs: some of whom became seriously ill from smoking and others who said they couldn't quit.

Riordan denounced the firms' actions.

"The companies earned billions of dollars at the expense of the lungs, the throats and the general well-being of their customers," he wrote. "If the companies are allowed to walk away unscathed now, what would be the message to other industries that today or tomorrow find themselves in a similar moral conflict?"

More than 1 million Quebecers were represented and argued the companies were liable because they knew they were putting out a harmful product and hid the health effects of tobacco.

Lise Blais, who lost her husband Jean-Yves Blais in 2012 to lung cancer, said she waited for a ruling for 17 years. Her husband had tried to quit five or six times in 14 years but couldn't.

The industry argued people knew about the risks of smoking and that the products were sold legally and with federal government approval and strict regulation.

"These cases are far from over," RBH spokeswoman Anne Edwards said in a statement. "We will vigorously appeal this lower court's judgment."

JTI-Macdonald said Canadians have been well aware of the health risks since the 1950s and health warnings have been on packages for more than 40 years.

The three firms will split the payout according to responsibility set out by the court — 67 percent will fall to Imperial Tobacco, 20 percent to Rothmans, Benson & Hedges, and 13 percent to JTI-Macdonald.

"These three companies lied to their customers for 50 years and hurt their right to life," Andre Lesperance, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, said Monday. "It's a great victory for victims as well as for society in general."

The trial stemmed from two cases that were originally filed separately in 1998 before being certified and consolidated in 2005. The case began sitting in 2012.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-06-02

[Thaddeus]

I see a hole in the pavement, next to it is a sign with hole written on it, next to that is a sign that says stepping on this hole may be a hazard to your health, but I step on it anyway.

Who do I sue?

[uty6543]

I think you should sue your teacher for failing to teach you how to comprehend written English.

If this verdict is allowed to stand cigarette companies are going to go out of business and there will be a thriving black market for tobacco products. Next could be the alcohol companies. They don't even warn me that there is any danger of getting drunk and falling over (which is a health hazard) from consuming there products.

WARNING: This post contains some sarcasm.

[scorecard]

I think you should sue your teacher for failing to teach you how to comprehend written English.

If this verdict is allowed to stand cigarette companies are going to go out of business and there will be a thriving black market for tobacco products. Next could be the alcohol companies. They don't even warn me that there is any danger of getting drunk and falling over (which is a health hazard) from consuming there products.

WARNING: This post contains some sarcasm.

I recall a doctor speaking about deaths from being subjected to second hand smoke continuously as young children.

Not valid to say 'the children should have moved away'.

[RIJoe]

I spent my honeymoon in Quebec years ago - we both smoked. Can I get some of that money?

[Credo]

It all depends on what you were smoking.

[maidee]

next they hopefully can sue every fastfood & every procuder of food that puts harmfull chemicals / colorants / in their items

[Chicog]

next they hopefully can sue every fastfood & every procuder of food that puts harmfull chemicals / colorants / in their items

And so they should if the company did it *knowing* it was harmful.

I don't believe in using scientific discoveries retroactively, but the tobacco companies lied for years.

[Berkshire]

The merit of the case aside, who really benefits from a lawsuit like this? The smoker? The families? Non-smokers? The gov? None of the above--it's the lawyers who make out big. And I mean big. Huge. But hey, the tobacco companies have deep pockets, so who cares.....

[Benmart]

next they hopefully can sue every fastfood & every procuder of food that puts harmfull chemicals / colorants / in their items

And so they should if the company did it *knowing* it was harmful.

I don't believe in using scientific discoveries retroactively, but the tobacco companies lied for years.

Nex to follow?

Alcoholic drink manufacturers

Sugary drink manufacturers

Salted snack manufacturers

Carpet and fabric manufacturers.

Laminated wood product manufacturers

An on and on....

There may be deception about about the safety of such items and more.

It's a slippery slope when the law suits begin and lawyers are more than ready to jump into the trough of monetary awards.

[car720]

I see a hole in the pavement, next to it is a sign with hole written on it, next to that is a sign that says stepping on this hole may be a hazard to your health, but I step on it anyway.

Who do I sue?

The ones who profited most from the hole being there, and I don't mean the ones who dug the hole and then put up the signs.

[IAMHERE]

I see a hole in the pavement, next to it is a sign with hole written on it, next to that is a sign that says stepping on this hole may be a hazard to your health, but I step on it anyway.

Who do I sue?

Sign makers along with Sign designers.

[car720]

I think you should sue your teacher for failing to teach you how to comprehend written English.

If this verdict is allowed to stand cigarette companies are going to go out of business and there will be a thriving black market for tobacco products. Next could be the alcohol companies. They don't even warn me that there is any danger of getting drunk and falling over (which is a health hazard) from consuming there products.

WARNING: This post contains some sarcasm.

Again. We look in the wrong direction.

60% roughly of sales price of tobacco, alchohol and fuel goes to government.

Then they use smoke and mirrors to blame everyone else.

I say hang the judge.

[Credo]

The merit of the case aside, who really benefits from a lawsuit like this? The smoker? The families? Non-smokers? The gov? None of the above--it's the lawyers who make out big. And I mean big. Huge. But hey, the tobacco companies have deep pockets, so who cares.....

It's interesting. I was just talking to a colleague who is from Quebec and he was talking about how bad the economy of Quebec is. He knew nothing about this settlement, and our discussion was coincidental, but perhaps this is a way to help fill the gov't coffers a little.

[JetsetBkk]

I spent my honeymoon in Quebec years ago - we both smoked. Can I get some of that money?

I don't smoke any more, but can I move to Canada, start smoking again and get some of that money?

[English 1]

I spent my honeymoon in Quebec years ago - we both smoked. Can I get some of that money?

I don't smoke any more, but can I move to Canada, start smoking again and get some of that money?

That's a very stupid comment about a very serious subject.

[English 1]

You will never get a sensible comment from Smokers.

They are like Ostrich and don't want to know.

A question I put and you can to Smokers is....

If you came out with a spot on your Face every time you lit a Cancer stick would you Smoke?

100% they all say they would not!

So. it's out of sight and out of mind until they are in a Hospice waiting to die at about 60 years.

Losing about 25 years of life and inflicting grief on their family.

[anon467367354]

I see a hole in the pavement, next to it is a sign with hole written on it, next to that is a sign that says stepping on this hole may be a hazard to your health, but I step on it anyway.

Who do I sue?

is stepping into the hole deceptively designed to be addictive? Stepping in the hole may not cause any problems the first year, or even in 10 years.

However, maybe after 30 years of continuously stepping in the hole, it may cause problems. You wouldn't want your kids habitually stepping in the hole would you?

That's just not cool, and women should definitely not be stepping in the hole. but if you start and can't stop because it was meant to be addictive, sue the whole industry.

[aussiandrew]

Now you watch these powerful tobacco companies tight it up in the Appeals Court for years.

[Bibvon]

I think you should sue your teacher for failing to teach you how to comprehend written English.

If this verdict is allowed to stand cigarette companies are going to go out of business and there will be a thriving black market for tobacco products. Next could be the alcohol companies. They don't even warn me that there is any danger of getting drunk and falling over (which is a health hazard) from consuming there products.

WARNING: This post contains some sarcasm.

Again. We look in the wrong direction.

60% roughly of sales price of tobacco, alchohol and fuel goes to government.

Then they use smoke and mirrors to blame everyone else.

I say hang the judge.

So true - in Canada tobacco is heavily taxed so the government has a strong incentive to not ban it outright as they did with another carcinogen, asbestos. So, they slap some nasty pictures on the pack and jack the price up through taxes, ostensibly to discourage people from smoking, while generating huge revenue from it. Like legalised gambling it becomes an unofficial tax on the poor. I say let the lawyers have their money - they're at least doing what the federal government won't.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Bibvon

[alfalfa19]

excellent.

[Jonmarleesco]

'More than 1 million Quebecers were represented and argued the companies were liable because they knew they were putting out a harmful product and hid the health effects of tobacco.' And after 50 plus years of medical evidence that exposed the health effects of tobacco, should the tobacco companies really be responsible for the the selective ignorance of those smokers? The ones they should be compensating are those whom the same selectively ignorant band of smokers compel to suffer their second-hand exhaust fumes.

[fred Kubasa]

What a load of crap, ( Krap ? ). As obesity has now been named Number 1 health problem then I suppose

the global legion of fatties will be getting billions more from Mac, Burger King, etc. The judge should have

recognized the smokers as the main problem not the makers. Smokes/burgers & guns don't kill people, people

and people's habits kill people

[JetsetBkk]

I spent my honeymoon in Quebec years ago - we both smoked. Can I get some of that money?

I don't smoke any more, but can I move to Canada, start smoking again and get some of that money?

That's a very stupid comment about a very serious subject.

And that is a very stupid comment from someone with no sense of humour.

[cookee68]

So what next, all the company that produce beer, which gives you liver problems and more, I think this will be over ruled by a higher court,

[spud67]

'More than 1 million Quebecers were represented and argued the companies were liable because they knew they were putting out a harmful product and hid the health effects of tobacco.' And after 50 plus years of medical evidence that exposed the health effects of tobacco, should the tobacco companies really be responsible for the the selective ignorance of those smokers? The ones they should be compensating are those whom the same selectively ignorant band of smokers compel to suffer their second-hand exhaust fumes.

I don't disagree with the assessment that smokers assume much of the responsibility but as a former smoker in Canada I was witness to the last 30 years of government effort to reduce smoking. And every time the government tried to expand warnings on cigarette packs, remove cigarettes from the sight of children or prevent sales to children, the industry in Canada loudly complained that nothing - nothing - linked smoking to cancer or other health problems. Up until now, the tobacco industry has outright lied about it's products here. While smokers will pay with their lives, shouldn't those who lied pay also? The industry spokesman saying that smokers knew what they signed up for - at the end of this trial - is rich given the lies they have spewed for decades.

You want to sell a dangerous product? No problem, but you have to tell everyone everything first.

[Bibvon]

So what next, all the company that produce beer, which gives you liver problems and more, I think this will be over ruled by a higher court,

I hear what you're saying but I the people who would be recipients of this $50 billion are from the era where the dangers of smoking were suppressed heavily to consumers.

The tobacco lobby did a very good (bad..?) job of convincing people that smoking wasn't bad for you. This settlement is for the people from that era who were outright lied to and for whom big time health problems ensued as a result of those lies. That would probably be people in their 50's, 60's 70's now.

Someone who takes up smoking (or drinking beer) today, with all of the knowledge we have about its dangers is SOL in terms of ever being compensated as this older group of people have been.

But the tobacco industry is also very good at defending itself from lawsuits so you're right - it probably will get overturned.

[Thaddeus]

I see a hole in the pavement, next to it is a sign with hole written on it, next to that is a sign that says stepping on this hole may be a hazard to your health, but I step on it anyway.

Who do I sue?

is stepping into the hole deceptively designed to be addictive? Stepping in the hole may not cause any problems the first year, or even in 10 years.

However, maybe after 30 years of continuously stepping in the hole, it may cause problems. You wouldn't want your kids habitually stepping in the hole would you?

That's just not cool, and women should definitely not be stepping in the hole. but if you start and can't stop because it was meant to be addictive, sue the whole industry.

I think you over-thought that one.

It was just a simple analogy of how desire can defeat warnings.

Some people enjoy bondage, that isn't designed to be deceptively addictive... people are strange though, and there is a tendency in all humans, to blame anyone but themselves when it all goes wrong.

[Thaddeus]

So what next, all the company that produce beer, which gives you liver problems and more, I think this will be over ruled by a higher court,

I hear what you're saying but I the people who would be recipients of this $50 billion are from the era where the dangers of smoking were suppressed heavily to consumers.

The tobacco lobby did a very good (bad..?) job of convincing people that smoking wasn't bad for you. This settlement is for the people from that era who were outright lied to and for whom big time health problems ensued as a result of those lies. That would probably be people in their 50's, 60's 70's now.

And these same people spent 30, 40, 50 years in blissful ignorance did they?

[gemguy]

I see a hole in the pavement, next to it is a sign with hole written on it, next to that is a sign that says stepping on this hole may be a hazard to your health, but I step on it anyway.

Who do I sue?

Have to agree in principle as people who make bad choices many times per day, over and over again for 20 to 40 years, can not blame others.

Furthermore people can quit tobacco, as many do ...but it is not easy.

Meantime the tobacco companies should also be held accountable for the huge part they play in making millions of people sick and tens of thousands of people dead.

Cheers