Posted on 09/20/2002 9:42:17 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
In an unprecedented move, a federal district court judge has certified a nationwide, punitive-damage class-action suit against the tobacco industry.
The case, known as Simon II, consolidates all the tobacco-related litigation before U.S. District Court Judge Jack Weinstein to include the punitive-damages claims of all types of plaintiffs, including individual smokers, labor unions and health insurers. The certification was issued late Thursday.
Under a new law, the case will automatically be appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. It will likely be months before that court will make a decision.
The case is named after lead plaintiff Ellis Simon, who has lung cancer. The plaintiffs allege the tobacco industry's use of deceptive marketing practices caused smokers' sicknesses and addictions. With the class certification, Simon II will represent anyone in the United States who has smoked, whether they became ill or not, since 1920.
Defendants in the case are Philip Morris Cos.; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc.; Lorillard Tobacco, a unit of Loews Corp.; Brown & Williamson, a unit of British American Tobacco PLC; and Liggett Group, a unit of Vector Group Ltd.
Tobacco stocks were trading lower on the news. At midday, shares of Dow component Philip Morris were off 4.1 percent at $42.86, while shares of Carolina Group, the stock that tracks Lorillard's performance, shed 5.5 percent to trade at $20.70.
In a written statement, Philip Morris said it will ask the appellate court to reject the class certification of the case and dismiss the claims.
One mother at our local homeschhool group has a "learning disabled" son. She collects dissability for a "nervous" problem, too. She collects for her "disabled" son. The kid if just fine. The kids is really smart, and I'm amazed at how well he does his math. He's a normal boy, but she keeps comming up with things she finds wrong with him. "He has an anger problem", so now we're paying for him to go to the local school "for help."
This is the stuff that urks me. Tobacco illness costs are nothing compared to the money we taxpayers are dishing out to anyone who says "ouch. Fix my boo boo. When can I expect my check?"
That doesn't appear to be the issue dude... Compare all those hefty folks trying to sue Mickey D's because "the french fries made 'em fat"...
The issue is, some damn ambulance chaser showed up on their doorstep and said "Pssst hey you, you wanna make some cash???"
Most, I would hope, except for the left wing leeches. If the litigation goes through, they'll be the ones who will end up paying more for their cigaretts to pay the .35 cents each awarded to the plantifs, and the kazillion dollars awarded to the trial lawyers (that will end up at the DNC).
I still think people should start growing their own if they want it. Burly tobacco seeds are often found in seed catalogs. Let it go to seed, and plant again next year. The best defence is a good offence. It's your property, it's legal, so screw them. Just say "no" to socialism.
If the nation chose to do that, what could they say? What could liberals do? Who would pay for social programs then?
The liberals - 0
Tobacco smokers - 1
What I'd like to know is how the liberal politicians would survive without that tobacco tax comming in. There's big money in that there plant!
Even if the companies shut down for only a month, the feds would be hurting for that elusive tax dollar.
Sure. Seeds are cheap, cheap, cheap. Plant it like spinich. Save seeds for the following year. You'd only have to buy them once.
You are not factoring in costs like labor, land etc. If I were smoking the cost of growing it myself would be very expensive assuming the climate here in NE would give me a good year round source.
If i were big tobacco, I would pack up and leave the country, of course had big tobacco fought back in the first place, I doubt if this would be happening, they set themselves up to be screwed, blued and tattooed.
It ought to be possible, lawyers and judges in todays society, are way more dangerous than tobacco.
If I can find out how I will.
I'm not so stupid that I want someone else to take reponsibility for MY decisions.
Notice, I didn't call her a friend.
I think they should only be able to sue the person who put that first cigarette into their mouth. That's what started the addiction. Sue the hell out of that person. Why, if it weren't for that person, they wouldn't be ill today. Wait a minute, sick smokers would have to sue themselves! Who'd a thunk it?
You really think you know it all, don't you.
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.