Smoker's widow awarded millions
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7898323.stm

A US jury has ordered tobacco giant Philip Morris to pay $8m (£5.6m) to the widow of a lifelong smoker who died of lung disease.

The jury in Florida decided in favour of Elaine Hess, whose husband Stuart died of lung cancer in 1997 at age 55. He had smoked for 40 years.

The ruling could blaze a legal trail for 8,000 similar cases in Florida.

Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris, called the case "profoundly flawed" and said it would appeal.

The court ordered Philip Morris to pay $3m in compensatory damages and $5m in punitive damages, although Mrs Hess had sought $130m (£91m).

Legal precedent

Alex Alvarez, an lawyers for Mrs Hess, said he felt vindicated by the award.

"She's a 110lb (50kg) elementary school teacher and she went up against Philip Morris, one of the most powerful companies in the world, and won," Mr Alvarez told Reuters news agency.

This is retarded. Shes gonna get destroyed during appeals, I hope she found an attorney to work pro-bono because otherwise she will be poor when this case is over. It is not Phillip-Morris' fault that her husband chose to smoke cigarettes for 40 years. I hate when people fail to take responsibility for their own actions- that sense of entitlement is the root of everything that is wrong in America today.

The fact that what Phillip Morris did was wrong is not alleviated by the fact that they did it to a lot of people or that it could put them out of business. These cigarette manufacturers intentionally targeted kids and teenagers. They put harmful and addictive chemicals into their product. Why do you think responsibility should be a one-way street?

I have to side with PhiGam on this...

What did Phillip Morris do wrong?

That's like saying that it's wrong making alcoholic products and people die because someone uses their products.

Moreso with smoking, they tell you upfront on the product that it's bad for you.

You have to make that choice if you want to do it.

Nonsense.

Nicotine is addictive but not to the point where personal responsibility is removed.

Remember, the concrete evidence of smoking being really bad for you didn't really start coming out until the 80's. This man had smoked since he was 15 and was likely not aware of the health risks associated with smoking.

Once he started, he was probably addicted by those addictive, harmful chemicals put into cigarettes.

I think it's a different case if you have a smoker who started up in the late 80's/90's or beyond.

It shouldn't but what happens after people know about the intentional harmful substances and targeting?

Not to mention the fact that certain alcohol and tobacco products (that are potentially stronger than others) are disproportionately marketed in certain communities. If these companies are going to pay up, there needs to be a class action suit.

Back in the day they didn't warn you. EVERYONE used to smoke back then.

And, as a smoker who has recently lost an uncle to lung cancer, I think this lawsuit is stupid. Yes it's hard to quit once you get addicted, but like DS said, are people gona start suing alcohol companies because their relative/friend died of alcohol poisoning or alcoholism contributed to their death?

Not quite, I don't think. First, they only put on the product that it's bad for you because they are required by law to do so.

Second, if the evidence here shows what I assume it did (I can only assume without reading the whole record), PM did more than make a tobacco product -- they added addictive chemicals to their cigarettes while denying that they were doing so. They set out to make their product more addictive than it already was, and they did so knowing the health implications of making cigarettes more addictive than they already are. And if the evidence here was similar to what I've seen in some other cases, they added the addictive chemicals while marketing their cigerattes as healthier or less addictive than other cigarettes.

I'm all for people taking personal responsibility for their actions. In my book, that applies to smokers and to cigarette companies alike.Nobody can sue unless they have standing to do so -- that's almost always just going to be a spouse, parent or child of the deceased.

And no, I don't think you'll see similar suits against alcohol companies unless someone comes up with evidence that the alcohol companies have taken positive action to make their products more addictive. Even then, any successful lawsuit would, I think, have to be limited to an outcome that was a reasonably foreseable consequence of the company's actions.

Look at the list of chemicals they put in cigarettes is very long. Phillip Morris' cigarettes are actually SAFER than the additive free cigarettes because tobacco alone is very bad for you. The level of nicotine (THE addictive substance in cigarettes to my knowledge) and carbon monoxide is higher when you take out the 600 additives they put in. Most of the additives are meant to make the second hand smoke smell better.
The fact that cigarette advertisements are pretty much illegal now bothers me- not as a smoker but as a capitalist and an American. I'm not sure that their advertisements targeted children- whenever I see an uproar about their ads targeting kids its usually bullshit.

Nicotine is naturally occuring in tobacco leaves- its the plants natural pesticide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZvHiiWFbBU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfmWWZ9uSE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KgSp...eature=related

(that campaign is just the first thing that came to mind, it's by no means unique)

But the companies don't stop there.

The Flintstones was marketed towards adults back then- it aired in a primetime slot (8:30pm on a Friday) on ABC. Don't believe all of the propaganda painting cigarette companies as pure evil- they produce a product that people want and create a lot of jobs.

Follow me here:
Cigarettes are addictive
Nicotine is addictive
Nicotine is in all cigarettes
People quit smoking with nicotine patches, gum, and lozenges
Therefore, nicotine is the addictive ingredient in cigarettes

:confused: So?

So therefore cigarettes are addictive without additives and Altria is not at fault

Eh...I already said the court ruling is wrong.

But go ahead and fight your battle. :)

This isn't a defense to tortuous conduct.

Everyone in this thread is missing the boat, actually - the 'real' issue at play from the tobacco manufacturer is that there is a strong paper trail suggesting that the tobacco companies a.) knew about the harmful effects of their products as early as the 1940s and b.) systematically sought to hide this information from the American public, through misdirection, sponsoring illegitimate research, and flat-out lying (including to Congress).

This is really the source of their liability - not additives or anything, at least in this round of litigation.

For reasons both obvious and not, it's probably best to do your own research on the legitimacy of these claims - but there is a ton of evidence out there.

There have been campaigns since the late 1800s to stop the sale of tobacco. Lung diseased was known to be caused by smoking as early as the 1920s. Anti-smoking campaigns didn't become remarkably successful until the 1980s when there were finally decades of scientific research to back up the claims and sufficient funding to make a splash.

But, claims that people didn't know smoking was harmful early in the 20th century are completely unfounded. It just depended on which sources people listened to...the advertising of tobacco companies or the warnings for the medical community.

I don't think we missed this.

The point that some of us are making is that personal responsibility is not removed from the equation since substance use and abuse do not always warrant a lawsuit. Moreover, if we are going to make the tobacco companies take half of the blame, the government should be stepping in and/or there should be multiple victims named in these lawsuits. That would really drive the message home.

Your logic is faulty. Nothing you have said in your first 4 lines (before your therefore) establishes as fact your conclusion. Yes, nicotine is addictive. Yes, nicotine is in all cigarettes. Those two true statements do not support your conclusion that "nicotine is the addictive ingredient in cigarettes." They would support the conclusion that "nicotine is an addictive ingredient in cigarettes," but they do not exclude the possibility of other addictive ingredients.

(And I might be disagreeing with KSig RC a little, although I could certainly stand to be corrected. My understanding of the current spate of litigation is that it focuses both on the tobacco companies' knowledge and alleged policy of concealment and misinformation and on the companies' alleged manufacture of products that were in fact more addictive due to additives. Like I say, though, I stand to be corrected.)

That's what it was in Florida (where this case came from) to begin with. But the appellate courts said the determinations had to be made on a case-by-case basis.

yeah...next I want to see warning labels on guns.

Yikes. I just had a pre-law philosophy flashback. I need to calm my nerves.

Thank you. I would like to know their criteria for determining company liability.

For instance, if one of the "victims" was a smoker, drinker, spousal abuser AND didn't wear a seat belt, that person may be dismissed as having low self-control and risk-seeking behavior such that tobacco was the least of his/her problems.

And that ton of evidence, I think, tends to play on both sides of the fence.

Question: Do you think that there is a personal bias there as to which side people tend to take to this issue?

You more or less can see what side I am on, and sadly, if my parents die from smoking (thankfully they have cut back) you won't see me rushing forward to sue because they did something that caused them to die prematurely.

What factors are you thinking may impact the bias?

Smokers vs non smokers.


People who somehow have had family members affected by their smoking habit.

May even want to throw former smokers into that also.

For cases that go to jury trial, I could see where those other issues would come up in the jury discussions, especially if you're in an area where juries are reluctant to give high awards. I don't think, as a legal matter, that the risk-seeking behavior should be relevant in a liability determination, only on a damages issue (kind of similar to how risk factors are litigated in workers comp claims).

I'm not sure that it does, although, not having seen any studies on it, I can only speak from my personal experience. I'm the only person in my immediate family (not counting my wife) who never smoked, and both of my parents have been smokers for over 40 years. I've also lost loved ones due to lung-related ailments (lung cancer, emphysema, etc.).

There's a part of me that has issues with a lot of what was done by the tobacco companies, in terms of the issues KSigRC discussed (illegitimate research, falsifying testimony, things of that nature). At the same time, I'm not sure how I feel on the damages issue, and how it should play out in large damage awards. Honestly, even with my family history, I don't feel any sort of emotional attachment to the issue either way.

I wonder if children and spouses of smokers will come forward attributing their illnesses to secondhand smoke.

After all, in the case of children of smokers, they were/are helpless to make any major changes, especially if the parents smoke in the house or family car.

On this point...there's a part of me that wonders if my parents smoking had any affect on my health. Thus far I've gotten clean bills of health on my lungs and respiratory system, and my only major health problem (my heart) had nothing to do with second-hand smoke, but I still wonder.

I'm asthmatic, and I have really bad allergies to smoke. I'm almost certain that it can be attributed to (if not exacerbated by) my father's smoking.

I'm pretty sure that there will be some sort of class action related to children of smokers, especially for those kids who grew up in the 50s, before the secondhand smoke issue became well0known.

I had cancerous cells (luckily all benign) removed from my throat more than once, and my father died from lung cancer. The thought has crossed my mind more than once that there may be a connection.

They do come up in the liability phase if there are any "at-risk" behaviors that may have also contributed to the cause of death (lung cancer, COPD, etc.). As you might guess, this means it happens like always.


Oh, if I had to guess, I'd say there are certain populations that are predisposed to certain feelings on the topic. Kind of like everything else, I guess.

I'm a former smoker whose mother died of COPD (chronic bronchitis and emphysema) and I think these kinds of lawsuits are ridiculous. There was a time when doctors prescribed smoking to reduce stress. Almost all of my aunts and uncles (as well as my mom and dad) smoked as young adults and quit on their own accord. There are others who choose to continue to smoke. Although nicotine is an addiction, smoking is a choice. I think they go way too far with suing companies for people's choices. Companies are in business to make money and stay in business. It's up to the consumer to decide whether to use their products or not.

Additionally, it's almost impossible to prove that smoking alone was the factor that caused the disease. My mom's pulmonologist told her that her COPD was likely due to a combination of 4 factors. She had pneumonia twice before the age of 1 which likely caused lung damage early on. She slept in the top story of a bungalow where there was open asbestos insulation. She smoked for 22 years. She also had a genetic issue that caused an alpha-1 Antitripsin Deficiency. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/a...eficiency.html for an explanation of that. Her doctor repeatedly said that it was impossible to know which of these factors was the primary cause of her COPD but that it was likely that it was the presence of all 4.

You and I both should sue our parents and the tobacco companies.

Interestingly, you've just basically explained the background connection behind juror decision making and cognitive dissonance (to be a little bit obtuse).

Absolutely - I should have been more specific, in that I was referring to "risk factors" more generally, like in DrPhil's example, where she seemed to be talking about how a plaintiff's exposure to any risky behavior would go to liability (in a "question of law" sense rather than a "question of fact" sense).

Haha, glad to be of service. Probably a good idea I understand some of this since litigation will be my chosen field (although hopefully I'll be doing more appellate work).

Wow this is pretty ridiculous.

In what way?