Posted on 02/02/2006 10:22:55 AM PST by SmithL
Salem, Ore. (AP) --
The Oregon Supreme Court upheld on Thursday a $79.5 million punitive damages award to the family of an Oregon smoker who died of lung cancer, saying the amount isn't excessive given the "reprehensible" conduct of tobacco giant Philip Morris in marketing cigarettes.
The decision upholds a lower court ruling and responds to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that asked Oregon courts to consider whether the award in the lawsuit against Philip Morris, a unit of Altria Group Inc., was excessive.
The state Supreme Court said it was not excessive, given "such extreme and outrageous circumstances."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I'm hoping my kids will sue Frito Lay for their potato chips - they entice me with commercials, it isn't my fault.
Yes, and we're off and running.
Lawsuit claims iPods cause hearing loss
Feb. 1, 2006
A Louisiana man claims in a lawsuit that Apple's IPod music player can cause hearing loss in people who use it. The devices can produce sounds of more than 115 decibels, a volume that can damage the hearing of a person exposed to the sound for more than 28 seconds per day, according to the complaint.
The IPod players are "inherently defective in design and are not sufficiently adorned with adequate warnings regarding the likelihood of hearing loss," according to the complaint, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., on behalf of John Patterson.
Since the lawyers will get 50%, I guess they will have to pay some of their money to the judges too, right after the man's family kicks in thier 10% to make up the difference.
And what do you suppose all those unemployed lawyers are going to do then?
Their, curses, curses, ....
People choose whether to smoke or not. The Attack Lawyers inflict their poison on all of society.
Forcing the Attack Lawyers out of business would be a good thing.
Whatever they want to, I suppose. It's a free country.
Unfortunately for you, the answer is most assuredly "yes".
If it is so addictive why aren't people suing the producers of all products that containe nicotine? Answer, because it is not addictive.
You smoker haters totally crack me up. You all claim that nicotine is the most addictive substance known to man, yet push for nicotine replacements to get people to quit smoking - all of which have higher nicotine content than cigarettes. Where is the outrage against the pharmaceutical companies about their nicotine delivery devices? There is none because those behind the bogus crapola about nicotine addiction are being paid to promote the propaganda.
I think I'll peruse my seed catalogs a bit further and order some more tomato, pepper, eggplant and other nightshade family member seeds.........gotta keep feeding everyone all that addictive nicotine........
I made no claim that nicotine was the most addictive substance in the world. But it is addictive, right?
It is not against the law to sell and addictive product. The question I was answering was whether or not the PM had done anything to force people to use their products. The addictive property of nicotine forces people to use the products.
And I wasn't going to bring up the dreaded term "nicotine delivery device", but as long as we're talking about cigarettes as if they are a drug delivery device, do you think they would be approved by the FDA as safe and effective if they were regulated as such?
I gotta motor. I'll catch up with y'all later. Just don't want you to think I was chased away...
NO.........
BTW, there are many cigarettes on the market that contain absolutely no nicotine, as well as others that contain no tobacco either. And I am not talking about marijuana, but legal products. I've found several of the non tobacco, thus non-nicotine, containing cigarettes to be rather pleasant. And in Delaware, which has a statewide ban, they are perfectly legal to smoke in the corner tavern or anywhere else, because the law is very specific and clearly states "tobacco" and nothing else.
"Lawyers are going to sue the tobacco industry out of business.
This is a good thing."
Prohibition without legislation is a good thing? What other legislation would you like to see come from the bench?
"It is the tobacco companies that have relied on government interference to stay in business all these years. If the government role was eliminated, the tobacco industry would have been sued out of existance long ago."
Much like the enviros have done to NASA and some of the suppliers to the shuttle program? Much like the courts have done to companies that ever had any connection with asbestos. Glad to see you support actions that result in the death of Americans.
Now, if you sue PM out of existence, how much do you think your macncheese will cost?
"I agree. Leave them alone. Eliminate any government interference, warnings or protections. The lawyers would have the carcass stripped to the bone by week's end. The only way the tobacco industry has lasted this long is by hiding behind the government's skirts for the past thirty years."
If your theory is correct then the breweries and distilleries are in trouble next.
"Under state law, 60 percent of punitive damages in such cases go to the state, which in turn uses the money to support crime victims assistance programs."
This is a good thing.
Until they decide that penalizing your innocent pleasure would be "a good thing".
If the government role was eliminated, tobacco users would be even more forced to accept responsibility for choosing to use the product.
Sorry, your dog doesn't hunt...
I'm back!
Gabz: If you are going to maintain that nicotine is not addictive, after all the documentary evidence and personal experience that demonstrates that it is, it will be very difficult to have a rational conversation.
As far as non-tobacco cigarettes are concerned, if they pose no health risk, I don't imagine anybody will get around to suing them. Of course, if they get terribly popular, there will probably be another round of studies (all BS, I will concede) that shows that the second hand smoke is harmful to others, and there will be another round of restrictive legislation. I suspect that if the non-tobacco cigarettes are non-addictive, they will have many of the same ill effects as tobacco cigarettes. The thing that kills cigarette smokers is that they are forced by their addiction to use the harmful product several times a day, day after day, for years and years. The cumulative effect is what kills them. Non-addictive, non-tobacco cigarettes will probably have a much more casual usage pattern.
CSM: I do not promote legislative prohibition. But neither do I promote government protection. Let the tobacco companies bear the burden of the damage they have caused, and nature will take it's course.
As far as asbestos is concerned, much of the over-the-top response was caused by legislation. But the removal from the market was inevitable once companies started getting socked with damages for all the dead insulators and production workers. My former boss lost her entire family to asbestosis and lung disease, because her father worked in a shipyard in Oakland, CA in the '40s, and brought the material home on his clothes. In high doses, it was pretty deadly stuff.
The connection to NASA and the shuttle is pretty specious. None other than Richard Feynman, one of the greatest minds of our times, concluded that the removal of asbestos had nothing to do with the sealant failure on Challenger's Solid Rocket Booster, but they rather failed because the rubber O-rings were too cold. As for Challenger, the insulation was substituted to eliminate VOCs, not asbestos.
As for McDonalds Mac-n-Cheese, when McDonalds starts doping their food with an addictive substance and selling people twenty Big Macs a day for years at a time, I think they will probably be sued successfully. And shouldn't they be?
Libertarian in Exile: The government should get out of the warning business. Let the companies try to devise a warning that will be sufficiently dire to discourage people from abusing their product. For tobacco, no such warning is possible.
The difference between tobacco and alcohol is one of degree. But at some point, the activity moves from being actionable to not being actionable. I suspect that that point falls some point between tobacco and alcohol (or tobacco and fast food, for that matter).
Elkfersupper: I agree. The putative damage laws should not direct money to the state, because this creates a perverse incentive. I really would prefer it to go to the plaintiff or be fed into a furnace to heat the courthouse. That amount of money has a corruptive effect, so your point is valid.
Okie01: The lawyers decide nothing. The trial determined that the tobacco companies were liable. Is there any reason tobacco companies should be shielded from responsibility for the damage they have caused?
EEE: The government has two roles. The legislative/regulatory role has been propping up the tobacco industry for years, and will continue to do so now that the tobacco companies are supplying them with that sweet, sweet tax money, which is more addictive to governments than nicotine is to smokers. The other role is through the courts, which are going to find the tobacco companies liable and hold them accountable for the damage they have caused.
I support the elimination of the former role, not the latter. In the former, the government is looking after it's own interests. In the latter, the government is acting as a facilitator to help the individual look after his interests.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.