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.

[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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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).

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.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I'm not sure that it does, although, not having seen any studies on it, I can only speak from my personal experience.

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.

[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.

[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).

[texas*princess]

Wow this is pretty ridiculous.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by texas*princess

Wow this is pretty ridiculous.

In what way?

[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?

[AnchorAlum]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

Sorry, but this old lady is calling bullshit on the no concrete evidence until the 80's.

The Surgeon General came out in 1964 with the sad evidence. Freakin' Nineteen Sixty Four. So, what, did the Government then take the next twenty years off?
My parents were both smokers - until 1965. It took them that long, but they quit. When I was a kid. Their struggles to quit made a lifelong impression on all four of their children. We don't smoke and neither do any of our children.

So, do you believe that the other team always tells you what they have up their sleeve? It's their responsibility to tell you everything?

GTFOOH!

[Army Wife'79]

I can vouch for AnchorAlum above. I distinctly remember the warning in 1964 b/c a HUGE deal was made about it. I was a bratty youngster at the time and proceeded to go up to my Grandpa and uncles and tell them cigarettes would kill them with cancer and they needed to stop immediately. (they prob. wanted to smack me since they were long time smokers). As an historical note, the word "cancer" was hardly ever spoken out loud. Very few people died of it (or so we thought) and people whispered the word and stayed away thinking it may be contagious. In the late '60's they were called "cancer sticks" even by smokers. The box with the surgeon general's warning was on each pack by the mid '60's. These people should not get a dime in settlement. It was a personal choice.