Quote:
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).
Quote:
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.
Threaded Mode
