$28 Billion Smoker Award Could Be Cut

The Recorder via Law.com via Yahoo! News ^ | Monday October 7, 1:54 am Eastern Time | Dennis J. Opatrny

[Conagher]

Hopefully there's at least one competent judge who will overrule this jury full of nuts. Otherwise, I'm going to take up smoking!

[Anti-Bubba182]

TAKE BACK THE SENATE!

VOTE OUT THE DEMS!

DONATE TODAY!!!. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[Sally II]

I agree. I'm not a smoker, thank goodness. But everyone has had information about the health hazzards of smoking for a long time now. And people who become addicted to substances need to take responsibility for their weaknesses. I think that fat guy who tried to sue McDonald's for his weight demonstrated how rediculous such lawsuits are. What next? Would we let a man who killed someone while drinking and driving pass the blame on to the beer companies for selling their beer? Anyhow, I do appreciate the miracle of life, but NOBODY has lungs that are worth $28 billion.

[robertpaulsen]

"A judge would have no trouble knocking off a zero," said David Levine

That only takes it down to $2.8 billion. Try 3 zeros for starters. Then let the client keep the compensatory damages, but give all the punitive damages to the American Cancer Society.

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[cruiserman]

See what happens to all of the state budgets when the tobacco companies go out of business.

[FreeTally]

"A judge would have no trouble knocking off a zero," said David Levine,

One zero? Try about six or seven. How does one prove in court they were damaged in the amount of 28 billion dollars?

[Jabba the Nutt]

Let's see, what's the value of the tobacco industry. For sake of arugment, let's say it's $28 billion. So, to settle the lawsuit, Big Tobacco turns its ownership over to this plaintiff, Cancer Victim #1.

The next cancer victim lawsuit happens, now the Cancer Victim #1 has to pay lawyers to defend her ownership of Big Tobacco, predictably, she'll lose and turn over ownership to Cancer Victim #2.

Predictably, we'll have another lawsuit, Cancer Victim #3 will sue Cancer Victim #2, lose and turn over $28 billion to Cancer Victim #3.

This will continue until there is no more money for the lawyers, who will be $28 billion richer and it'll be annnounced that Justice has prevailed and no further need for lawsuits will exist.

[SheLion]

Hopefully there's at least one competent judge who will overrule this jury full of nuts. Otherwise, I'm going to take up smoking!

LOL!!!

[aruanan]

"A judge would have no trouble knocking off a zero," said David Levine, who teaches civil procedure and remedies at Hastings College of the Law. "I see no prospect at all that this $28 billion award is going to hold up."

Oh, yeah, like 2.8 billion is reasonable.

[Musket]

See what happens to all of the state budgets when the tobacco companies go out of business.

Not to mention all of the anncillary businesses. These people have no idea what they are doing. They hurt far more businesses than just the tobbacco companies. And there seems to be not a danmmed thing anybody can do about it. The warnings have been on the packs forever, that should be enough to clear the TC's but noooo. So mad I could spit........

[Great Dane]

If tobacco is dangerous enough to warrant such awards, can governments not be sued for allowing the product to be sold.

[Conagher]

Good luck trying to get standing in Federal court!

[Conagher]

Reasonable is in the eye of the beholder. It should speak volumes about the jurors and the lawyers that chose them. I doubt either group (especially the jury) had any concept of what one billion is, much less what 28 billion is.

All I know is that I'd love to be the attorney that won that case. Screw principles, cut me my damned check!

[RckyRaCoCo]

If tobacco is dangerous enough to warrant such awards, can governments not be sued for allowing the product to be sold.

Can hollywood be sued for advertising it in their movies\tv in the 40's, 50's, 60's......?

[Amerigomag]

Remember one thing kiddies. Taxes. The feds get another round of taxes out of this cash.

Not a tax man but I think they get over 30% of the lump sum up front and nearly 60% when the "winner" expires from lung cancer.

That's 90% to the feds. That's quite a reduction in the jury award wouldn't you say?

[Great Dane]

Good luck trying to get standing in Federal court!

Yeah, I know, it was just a thought, besides the government needs the money......... but they are hypocrites.

[Great Dane]

Can hollywood be sued for advertising it in their movies\tv in the 40's, 50's, 60's......?

Now there is another thought. :-}

[Conagher]

Let's see, compensatory damages are tax-exempt, but punitive damages are lumped in with income, so that would put him in the Bill Gates tax bracket. I don't have my tax table handy -- anyone know what the percentage is for someone who makes $28,000,000,000?

[Conagher]

In my limited experience, the court loves to use standing to deflect lawsuits away from itself. I'd imagine that's one they'd want to steer clear of. Besides, isn't that a discretionary issue? Whom would a prospective plaintiff sue?