Smoker's widow awarded millions

[KSig RC]

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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).

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

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.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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

What factors are you thinking may impact the bias?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

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).

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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.

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.

[Munchkin03]

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

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

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

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

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

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).

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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

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).

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

(to be a little bit obtuse).

haha...I always think of Shawshank Redemption when he read or hear this word.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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.

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.

[AGDee]

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.