Smoker's widow awarded millions

[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.

[PM_Mama00]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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

Silly boy. GUNS don't kill people.......

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

Silly boy. GUNS don't kill people.......

Warning label on people? Can you imagine the outrage and indignity?