Ignorant or greedy?

Duke

Duke

Duke

Man of Honour
Joined
29 Jun 2003
Posts
34,627
Location
Wiltshire
The US Supreme Court has thrown out a ruling that tobacco firm Philip Morris must pay $79.5m (£40.7m) in punitive damages after the death of a smoker.
..
The case was brought by Mayola Williams, whose husband Jesse died of lung cancer in 1997 after smoking for 40 years.
..
She had claimed that the jury decision was right because it had punished Philip Morris for a "massive market-directed fraud" over many years - misleading people into thinking cigarettes were not dangerous or addictive.

Ms Williams had argued that her husband had believed tobacco companies when they said the product was safe.
Click to expand...
Of course it's not nice that he had cancer, but I can't understand if she is just plain ignorant or just greedy? One small step back for the compensation culture, though :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6379767.stm
 
Duke said:
Of course it's not nice that he had cancer, but I can't understand if she is just plain ignorant or just greedy? One small step back for the compensation culture, though :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6379767.stm
Click to expand...

Great - a victory for common sense and people actually having to take responsibility for their own actions.

"OMG I burned my finger while lighting a match... SUE THE GITS!!!"
"WTH I'm fat after eating 26 McDonalds a day for 10 years... SUE SUE SUE!"
 
I'm happy to see they tobacco company doesn't have to pay out such an insane amount of money.

I realise these companies make billions from us smokers but we all know smoking can possibly cause cancer.

This bloke dying is a bad thing but on the other side of it, i think he done well to smoke for 40 years before catching cancer.
 
He wouldn't have known how dangerous smoking is before he started though.

Punitive damages are to punish the company hence the size of the sum, not to directly compensate the victim for their loss.

Jokester
 
Yeah im thinking that its fair that she sue's them. TBH if the government/mobile phone companies told us mobile phones were totally safe to increase profits and i used mine lots then 20 years later it turns out that it causes fatal brain tumours, i'd want compensation either for me or even more if a family member had died.
 
Did we know smoking causes cancer in 1957? Not entirely sure... If not then that would explain him not knowing but then becoming addicted.

Not that I'm condoning such a thing. I hate the whole "compensation culture" deal.
 
St0rmer66 said:
Did we know smoking causes cancer in 1957? Not entirely sure... If not then that would explain him not knowing but then becoming addicted.

Not that I'm condoning such a thing. I hate the whole "compensation culture" deal.
Click to expand...

It was certainly viewed as a positive habit during the earlier decades of the century, not sure about 1950's though.
 
Suing the
tobacco​
company for lung cancer for a choice you made as an adult is just daft and taking a fat chance on trying to get the big bucks. Like suing
Mcdonalds​
because you eat 5 of their burgers a day and got fat!

Some people just cannot accept responsibility for the choice they make in life - you choose to smoke - you choose to "possibly" get cancer among other things...

I would have to go with greed as the description of those that sue.
 
juju said:
you choose to smoke - you choose to "possibly" get cancer among other things...
Click to expand...

But this wasn't known when he started smoking!

The whole point of the case was that the tobacco companies actively lied and buried evidence that smoking was bad for you for decades.

Jokester
 
Jokester said:
But this wasn't known when he started smoking!

The whole point of the case was that the tobacco companies actively lied and buried evidence that smoking was bad for you for decades.

Jokester
Click to expand...


He knew later in life before he got cancer though. If he was that worried then he should have quit, if he didn't then it's still his fault.
 
badgermonkey said:
He knew later in life before he got cancer though. If he was that worried then he should have quit, if he didn't then it's still his fault.
Click to expand...


You do realise that smoking is addictive and that just stopping isnt as easy is some make it out to be.
 
Stiff_Cookie said:
You do realise that smoking is addictive and that just stopping isnt as easy is some make it out to be.
Click to expand...

I think imminent life and death scenarios tend to override most people's lack of willpower, personally :/
 
Amp34 said:
They should have kept the ruling but changed it so 99% of the money went to a cancer charity. :)
Click to expand...

I agree with this. She doesn't need £40m, but it would have helped other people in her husbands situation in the future if the money was given to research. I don't believe punative damages should ever go to the claimant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom