Absurd amount of compensation

Dimple said:
Many years ago, even when I was a young boy in the early 60s, cigarettes were being advertised as being good for you. Every time I went to the Doctors he would be puffing away on a cigarette. I can remember having my appendix out in 1972 and all the white coats were standing around my bed smoking or had a pipe in their mouths. People didn't know the dangers back then.
Click to expand...

Wow. As I said above, could this be the end of the big tobacco companies if a number of people follow suit and sue for the same reason?
 
[TW]Sponge;26633467 said:
In that case there will be millions of people in America attempting to sue the tobacco companies for the exact same reason, and will most probably be successful?

I hope they do to be honest, (I'm an ex-smoker) but I still don't understand why they have been awarded that much in compensation. If say 10 people follow suit and do the same thing, that would almost bankrupt these companies.
Click to expand...

No more than have already been suing. This is not the first case. It's been open doors since the suite case, when ever that was mid 00's? You still have to satisfy those two points and off course be able to fund the case.
 
[TW]Sponge;26633493 said:
Wow. As I said above, could this be the end of the big tobacco companies if a number of people follow suit and sue for the same reason?
Click to expand...

But as soon as the dangers were known people could have stopped but chose not to.
 
What surprises me is how there are any tobacco companies in existentence. The precedent has been set long ago, a victim go lung cancer just needs proof of addiction to cigarettes. They should be wiped off the face of the planet.

But I guess I shouldn't be surprised, you only win these cases if you can afford better lawyers than the tobacco companies. Which rules out 99.99% of the victims.
 
D.P. said:
What surprises me is how there are any tobacco companies in existentence. The precedent has been set long ago, a victim go lung cancer just needs proof of addiction to cigarettes. They should be wiped off the face of the planet.
Click to expand...

As it took so long to start the bowl rolling and not every one gets lung cancer or other issues that can easily be related to smoking, member modern smokers can't do this. As they know the risks.
 
Dimple said:
But as soon as the dangers were known people could have stopped but chose not to.
Click to expand...

The person in the article died in 1996, were there not health warnings regarding cigarettes even then, or even years before then? I'm a bit naive to the whole thing (being 25) so just trying to understand.

The person in the article could have stopped, but blamed the 'addiction' on the fact that he didn't/couldn't stop, and that was one of the factors in the case?
 
Glaucus said:
Whys it a joke? Tobacco companies knowingly lied for decades.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They knew for a very long time what their products did to people and they did their best to ruin or stifle whistle-blowers and independent researchers. I wonder how many of the big tobacco top men smoked themselves.

They are, or were, crooked as can be - big money and big corporations are mostly alike: anything for the profits. And I mean anything.
 
[TW]Sponge;26633544 said:
The person in the article died in 1996, were there not health warnings regarding cigarettes even then, or even years before then?
Click to expand...

There may not have been warnings on cigarette packets but the dangers were well known in the 80s.
 
Edrof said:
.... so who the Hell cares?
Click to expand...


Considering that most people in this country who have a managed pension fund are very likely to have part of that investment fund in tobacco companies, I would say a lot of people should care.

If you are stupid enough to smoke then you live (or not as the case may be) with the consequences. Smoking is a choice. You can't bash the companies, else you should also start bashing alcoholic drink companies, soft drink companies, chocolate companies, fast food chains, ready meal makers, crisp makers, biscuit makers etc etc.....
 
Related in a way.

I listen to a lot of oldtime radio shows, 40's/50's stuff. The adverts and sponsorship of these shows were incredible by the cigarette industry.

You hear it today and wow at the fact they were pushing them as a healthy option, and handing out for free to hospitals and service personal.

In the time and the day, you were caught up in that... not good.
 
Dimple said:
There may not have been warnings on cigarette packets but the dangers were well known in the 80s.
Click to expand...

Then how the hell can somebody sue the company when that person knew about the risks involved and could have stopped?

Fair enough if that person died in the 60's or 70's when the risks were not known, but 1996? Give me a break.

This whole thing is absurd.
 
Does that mean people can't sue for asbestos as they doe decades after infection.

Doesn't matter when he died, what matters is when he started and the fact it's addictive.
 
Glaucus said:
Does that mean people can't sue for asbestos as they doe decades after infection.

Doesn't matter when he died, what matters is when he started and the fact it's addictive.
Click to expand...

How does that even come close to being the same thing? As soon as the dangers of asbestos were known, it was stopped completely and people were warned/told to stay away from it, and it was stopped from all manufacture. People then didn't go around sniffing asbestos for the lolz.

What I'm saying is, the dangers of smoking became apparent in the 80's, yet people still smoked no matter what, and still do.
 
Glaucus said:
So you denying that it's addictive are you?
Click to expand...

Not atall. I was a smoker.

The person in the article knew about the dangers, yet still continued to smoke. Regardless of whether the dangers/addictiveness were apparent when the chap started, when he knew the true facts, he could have stopped like many millions of people do now.
 
Glaucus said:
It's sensible. Not point fining a company 1million, when they wouldn't even notice it. It is UK who has it wrong. Punitive charges in such case are needed. It will be lowered,p to a point that will hurt the company but not make them go bust.

And no it won't set a precedent as that happened years ago. all smokers family have to prove, is that they were addicted and their death/illness was caused by smoking. as tobacco companies have already been found guilty of lying and misinformation.
Click to expand...

I agree punitive damages should be allowed in the UK.

However there seems to be no case here, a man bought a product which is legally allowed to be sold and officially regulated, knowingly it can cause fatal illness, and then got an illness which may or may not have been caused by his use of that product. It's a completely lack of personal responsibility to then sue on his behalf. If someone dies of obesity should they be able to sue McDonalds and KFC?

robfosters said:
No, because alcohol in moderation is neither addictive or harmful.
Click to expand...

Smoking occasionally isn't harmful either. Both are addictive regardless of how much you have, they are substances that are re-inforcing and encourage the individual to take more.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom