Absurd amount of compensation

Guest2 · 20 Jul 2014 at 16:08

Some of the comments in here remind me of the South Park episode 'Butt Out' in which Rob Reiner features. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butt_Out

Reiner yells at a sawmill worker for smoking in a bar, and tells him he should relax by spending time in an expensive vacation house like Reiner does. Anderson described it as a "classic sequence"

People know what they are doing to themselves when they smoke and it is their option to.

I'd love for a McDonalds (or any other fast food industry) worker to Sue them for getting Acne from the all the grease

Smoking, IMO is no worse for you than junk food

Merlin5 · 20 Jul 2014 at 20:30

Be right back, just going to sue Tesco as none of their ice cream packaging warns me that consumption could make me fat...

Xordium · 20 Jul 2014 at 20:32

Merlin5 said:
Be right back, just going to sue Tesco as none of their ice cream packaging warns me that consumption could make me fat...

That would be a good plan except it does.

Which is not the issue here it is something known to be detrimental to health and then that knowledge being hidden so people took risks they may not have otherwise.

Glaucus · 20 Jul 2014 at 20:36

Energize said:
I
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. e.

No he didn't, he started before such warnings and at a time the companies were lying, combined with the addictive properties there very much is a case, as proved time and again in American courts. This yet again isn't the first court case.

Merlin5 · 20 Jul 2014 at 20:38

Xordium said:
That would be a good plan except it does.

Which is not the issue here it is something known to be detrimental to health and then that knowledge being hidden so people took risks they may not have otherwise.

My point though is that even in the 1990s, you'd surely have to be living under a rock not to know that smoking causes cancer. It's hardly knowledge not known about in the 20th century.

Xordium · 20 Jul 2014 at 20:41

Merlin5 said:
My point though is that even in the 1990s, you'd surely have to be living under a rock not to know that smoking causes cancer. It's hardly knowledge not known about in the 20th century.

He died in the mid 90s so he would have started smoking in the 70s I guess without knowing the exact details. So it is plausible that at that time the knowledge would have been held back.

Westyfield2 · 20 Jul 2014 at 20:43

This is absurd. Lol america.

FoxEye · 20 Jul 2014 at 20:48

As a non smoker, I find this lawsuit + compensation completely bonkers.

In the 1950s people didn't know about the inherent problems that smoking brings. Today everybody knows. Some people choose to disregard the warnings.

I suspect that even if the tobacco companies hired people to stand in kiosks and tell buyers how they're slowly killing themselves, many would continue regardless.

Rroff · 20 Jul 2014 at 20:50

Glaucus said:
No he didn't, he started before such warnings and at a time the companies were lying, combined with the addictive properties there very much is a case, as proved time and again in American courts. This yet again isn't the first court case.

[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? 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?

Yup the crux of it (ignoring proving the cancer was caused by the company) is as the quote here:

"RJ Reynolds took a calculated risk by manufacturing cigarettes and selling them to consumers without properly informing them of the hazards," Ms Robinson's lawyer Willie Gary said.

If they'd had "Warning: This product will kill you" or something on it there wouldn't be a case.

Malevolence · 20 Jul 2014 at 20:53

If it were me, and knowing damn well it's going to be contested and tied up in the courts for years, I'd ask them to settle for $2.5 Billion and be done with it.

phill1978 · 20 Jul 2014 at 20:53

its just paper, and a belife system that everyone has to be in together for it to work. its meaningless. they can print more. the numbers become meaningless as everything moves to digital currencies and computers calculate the figures.

the world will keep on turning and people will still smoke.

chaparral · 20 Jul 2014 at 20:56

Malevolence said:
If it were me, and knowing damn well it's going to be contested and tied up in the courts for years, I'd ask them to settle for $2.5 Billion and be done with it.

Think I may accept to settle for 1 billion and 10,000 free packets of cigarettes if they ask me very very kindly.....

86JR · 20 Jul 2014 at 20:58

How does one even spend $30bn?

phill1978 · 20 Jul 2014 at 21:03

86JR said:
How does one even spend $30bn?

Some sort of exotic Nvidia card and a G-Sync monitor would probably do about half

Energize · 20 Jul 2014 at 21:11

Glaucus said:
No he didn't, he started before such warnings and at a time the companies were lying, combined with the addictive properties there very much is a case, as proved time and again in American courts. This yet again isn't the first court case.

He was smoking for decades after the warnings. Research shows the risk of lung cancer drops to that of a normal person after abstinence. Research in the 1940's showed that smoking was associated with lung cancer. If you choose to ignore the scientific research and government warnings you can't blame anyone else other than yourself when you get a smoking related illness.

Theophany · 20 Jul 2014 at 21:52

[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? 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?

Readers Digest first published a series of articles in 1952 bringing the link between smoking and lung cancer to the public's wider attention, not to mention decades following of the Surgeon General warning exactly the same. Cigarette companies had no such responsibility to do so because it was not legislated - providers of products and services have only a moral responsibility to inform consumers of the dangers unless they are legislated. I can't understand how RJ Reynolds can realistically be sued on grounds of morality.

Whatever the hell is next, suing Coca Cola for not slapping a warning on every can telling us all that too much sugar can rot our teeth, lead to diabetes and contribute to obesity in sedentary lifestyles?

The guy was wilfully ignorant of information that has been widely available for decades long before he died. If there is any justice in the world, this ruling will be overturned.

Xordium · 20 Jul 2014 at 21:59

In fairness Theophany Reader's Digest were publishing series of articles about The Philadelphia Project too.

Theophany · 20 Jul 2014 at 22:07

Xordium said:
In fairness Theophany Reader's Digest were publishing series of articles about The Philadelphia Project too.

Medical studies as far back as the 1930s had already begun to make the link between lung cancer and smoking, it's not as if their articles didn't have scientific merit. More to the point, the articles published in Readers Digest are regarded as the flashpoint at which the public really began to pay attention to the dangers of smoking, so I'm not really sure as to what your point it?

Xordium · 20 Jul 2014 at 22:09

Theophany said:
Medical studies as far back as the 1930s had already begun to make the link between lung cancer and smoking, it's not as if their articles didn't have scientific merit.

And are you aware of the current content of medical studies and their relevance to your future health? Or do you take advice from popular sources.

Glaucus · 20 Jul 2014 at 22:10

Energize said:
He was smoking for decades after the warnings. Research shows the risk of lung cancer drops to that of a normal person after abstinence. Research in the 1940's showed that smoking was associated with lung cancer. If you choose to ignore the scientific research and government warnings you can't blame anyone else other than yourself when you get a smoking related illness.

Addiction, he wanted to stop and tried several times.