Big Tobacco ordered to pay $23 billion to widow of smoker

[Borgholio]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/19/us/florid ... o-verdict/

(CNN) -- A Florida jury awarded a widow $23.6 billion in punitive damages in her lawsuit against tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, her lawyer said.

Cynthia Robinson claimed that smoking killed her husband, Michael Johnson, in 1996. She argued R.J. Reynolds was negligent in not informing him that nicotine is addictive and smoking can cause lung cancer. Johnson started smoking when he was 13 and died of lung cancer when he was 36.

The jury award Friday evening is "courageous," said Robinson's lawyer, Christopher Chestnut.

"If anyone saw the documents that this jury saw, I believe that person would have awarded a similar or greater verdict amount," he said.

The Escambia County trial took four weeks and the jury deliberated for 15 hours, according to the Pensacola News Journal. The verdict included more than $16 million in compensatory damages, the newspaper said.

Chestnut said five of the six jurors who heard the case were 45 or younger, which meant he had to show hem how the tobacco industry presented its product before the public awareness campaigns on tobacco risks and dangers in the 1990s, he said.

In a statement, J. Jeffery Raborn, vice president and assistant general counsel for R. J. Reynolds, said, "The damages awarded in this case are grossly excessive and impermissible under state and constitutional law.

"This verdict goes far beyond the realm of reasonableness and fairness and is completely inconsistent with the evidence presented," said Raborn. "We plan to file post-trial motions with the trial court promptly and are confident that the court will follow the law and not allow this runaway verdict to stand."

Robinson's case was once part of a class-action lawsuit in which a jury had awarded $145 billion in damages, but in 2006 the Florida Supreme Court overturned that verdict. In its ruling, however, the state's high court opened the door for individual lawsuits against tobacco companies.

Robinson filed her lawsuit in 2008.

Wow...just...wow

Now I know the tobacco company will try to weasel their way out of paying that much, but this only opens the door to even more people suing and getting money out of them. This is NOT going to be a good thing for Big Tobacco.

[Mr Bean]

It will be shrunk down because I'm sorry but twenty three billion is nuts not to mention this twenty years since the big tobbacco lawsuits of the 1990s which all got shrunk down from billions to millions. Jury wants to award 12 million? Fine, jury wants to award 40 million? I'm not seeing it unless you actively fucked him over as in the CEO of the company laughed manically as fucked him over. 100 million? Come on now your being silly even if CEO Von Evil pushed grandma off the cliff in her wheelchair.

And punitive damages in the billions? I'm sorry the B word is reserved when you fuck over an entire town. Even if CEO Von Evil was poring cancer directly into his veins I'd not support a billion dollars for one case.

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah.

It would be very much appropriate to hit the tobacco firms with billions in punitive damages for a class action lawsuit. But as a suit on behalf of one woman... Well, you honestly cannot say that she deserves to be one of the richest humans on the Earth because her husband died of tobacco-caused cancer. If nothing else, what makes this particular woman deserving of that kind of compensation, when millions of other widows and widowers have suffered the same harm?

[Steve]

I think the massive reward was more the jury making a statement than "we think this woman should get all this money".

[Eternal_Freedom]

The artcile mentions the $23 billion as "punitive damages" and later says it includes "over $26 million" in compensatory damages. Whats the difference?

[TimothyC]

The artcile mentions the $23 billion as "punitive damages" and later says it includes "over $26 million" in compensatory damages. Whats the difference?

Compensatory damages are monies to be paid for the damage done [in this case the loss of a life]. Punitive Damages are monies to be paid so that the entity [in this case the company that produced the tobacco] is punished for their actions so they are less likely to do this again.

[Iroscato]

Honestly, I want this to pass just to see the explosive, multi-layered shitstorm that would undoubtedly follow in the aftermath.

[Darth Tanner]

Honestly, I want this to pass just to see the explosive, multi-layered shitstorm that would undoubtedly follow in the aftermath.

Bankruptcy of company A and replacement with company B? Or do you mean the years of legal deadlock from appeals.

[Borgholio]

I think he means the fallout that is caused by tobacco companies having to pay damages that will actually hurt them in the pocketbook. A few million they can easily swallow. Once you get into the billion range, they will quickly have to rethink the idea of selling deathsticks.

[Kingmaker]

Neat. Can I sue breweries for failing to inform one of my deceased relatives that their products contained a potent neurotoxin and cause liver damage?

What a farce.

[Borgholio]

Neat. Can I sue breweries for failing to inform one of my deceased relatives that their products contained a potent neurotoxin and cause liver damage?

What a farce.

Nicotine is several times more addictive than alcohol and much harder to quit. Health hazards also are many times greater than from drinking. It's so bad that it has been compared to heroin in some studies. I think that it's apples and oranges to compare smoking to drinking.

[Iroscato]

I think he means the fallout that is caused by tobacco companies having to pay damages that will actually hurt them in the pocketbook. A few million they can easily swallow. Once you get into the billion range, they will quickly have to rethink the idea of selling deathsticks.

Pretty much this. I know it's most likely not gonna happen but it would be highly interesting to see the consequences.

[Borgholio]

Pretty much this. I know it's most likely not gonna happen but it would be highly interesting to see the consequences.

I think it would be interesting to discuss what exactly those consequences would be.

Let's assume that these billion dollar verdicts are upheld and Big Tobacco finds itself quickly going into the red. What would most likely happen? Some tobacco companies are subsidiaries of larger food companies such as Phillip Morris. How many of their other divisions are "carried" by tobacco profit and would suffer if tobacco no longer was sold? How many companies would switch to other cash crops or simply fold? How would this impact the economy and jobs, especially at the bottom of the ladder with the tobacco farmers themselves? Would small "niche" tobacco companies remain to sell premium products such as pipe tobacco or cigars, making you sign a legal release in order to protect themselves?

On the flip side, it goes without saying that if the cigarette companies go under, close to half a million lives would be saved every year, medical insurance premiums may go down since they will eventually no longer have to treat smoking-related diseases, and service levels in hospitals and ERs may increase since they will have fewer smoking-related patients to deal with. I think that these benefits alone would more than outweigh any potential economic pitfalls.

Thoughts?

[Iroscato]

If we follow this chain of thought...wouldn't the black market explode if the big companies went down? Tobacco addiction is damn potent, people aren't gonna simply stop if their primary source suddenly goes down the pan. I envision something akin to Prohibition-era America, at least temporarily.

[Borgholio]

I suppose it's possible, yeah. But again it IS possible to quit...it's just hard. I think that if it gets to the point where you have to pay $20 per pack, you'd want to call it quits.

[Iroscato]

There would be a reduction, no doubt. But plenty others would seek other ways to get their fix, hang the cost.

[Kingmaker]

Neat. Can I sue breweries for failing to inform one of my deceased relatives that their products contained a potent neurotoxin and cause liver damage?

What a farce.

Nicotine is several times more addictive than alcohol and much harder to quit. Health hazards also are many times greater than from drinking. It's so bad that it has been compared to heroin in some studies.

So what? Alcohol is still an addictive and highly dangerous substance over the long term and consuming it in significant quantities makes you a danger to others as well. More importantly, there are millions of people who were never informed by alcohol producers that that their product was toxic and addictive and might ruin their lives or even cause early deaths. Why are they any less entitled to compensatory damages than smokers*?

I think that it's apples and oranges to compare smoking to drinking.

What if both the apple and the orange were poisonous and the sellers were fully aware that they were selling poisonous fruit? The only reason alcohol evades the sort of criticism other drugs get is because it's been culturally grandfathered in.

On the flip side, it goes without saying that if the cigarette companies go under, close to half a million lives would be saved every year

I know, right? Like how no one smokes marijuana because it is illegal. If cigarette companies go under, tobacco farmers aren't going to throw their hands up in the air and start growing carrots, nor are smokers going to stop smoking. They'll just develop alternative distribution infrastructure. I mean, shit, cigarette smuggling is already a big deal thanks to vice taxes.

*In case you missed it, I don't actually think drinkers and/or their family are entitled to damages any more than smokers are.

[Lost Soal]

I think he means the fallout that is caused by tobacco companies having to pay damages that will actually hurt them in the pocketbook. A few million they can easily swallow. Once you get into the billion range, they will quickly have to rethink the idea of selling deathsticks.

Won't happen, the crux of the argument is that the Tobacco companies kept the addiction and health hazards secret even though they themselves knew it, now every pack has a massive warning and its been common knowledge over a decade that their protected from modern claims. Literally the defence is now buyer beware and it will work, same as why no one has successfully sued Macdonalds for making them fat (waiting for someone to through a successful cas in my face now)

[Borgholio]

Alcohol is still an addictive and highly dangerous substance over the long term and consuming it in significant quantities makes you a danger to others as well.

I agree completely...I'm not saying that alcohol is harmless. My point is that tobacco is much much worse and thus is a bigger target than alcohol.

same as why no one has successfully sued Macdonalds for making them fat

Reason is that fast food is not addictive. It does not contain chemicals that give you a physical dependency, nor does it give you a half dozen different kinds of cancers, nor is it a second hand danger to people around you.

The only reason alcohol evades the sort of criticism other drugs get is because it's been culturally grandfathered in.

Or could it be that alcohol "only" causes 1/6 the number of deaths each year compared to tobacco products and thus isn't as big of a danger?

I know, right? Like how no one smokes marijuana because it is illegal. If cigarette companies go under, tobacco farmers aren't going to throw their hands up in the air and start growing carrots, nor are smokers going to stop smoking. They'll just develop alternative distribution infrastructure. I mean, shit, cigarette smuggling is already a big deal thanks to vice taxes.

It depends on how well they will be able to market overseas. If they are able to sell their crop to countries where they won't get sued, then the largest producers might be able to survive, but I doubt it will be as lucrative as it is right now so some of them may just throw up their hands and grow something else.

Regarding the black market for cigarettes, I doubt that will have much of a problem. Cigarettes will not be illegal, they will just be unprofitable for large companies to sell due to the risk of lawsuits. Small companies may get by it with a legal waiver form, or aficionados can grow it themselves. Hell for the truly dedicated smokers they can probably form clubs where they grow, roll, and smoke their own tobacco without anybody worrying about a lawsuit. But even under those circumstances, the number of tobacco related deaths will go through the floor compared to what they are now.

[Phillip Hone]

Lawsuits are equally if not more dangerous to smaller companies, who have fewer legal resources and usually less room to lose sums of money.

And if you're saying they should be immune ... why? If nicotine is an evil poison, surely the size of the company selling it isn't all that important? Why should even a club be able to encourage the consumption of such a substance?

What you're talking about is basically extending the war on drugs onto cigarettes. Which would be a consistent move, but you'd be making a bad thing bigger.

[Borgholio]

No no, I'm not saying they SHOULD be immune. I'm saying a few inventive small cigar and pipe shops might find a legal loophole that allows them to continue to sell tobacco without fear of a lawsuit. In all honesty, there's nothing preventing a larger tobacco company from doing the same thing, but it would probably make more sense to go through that legal hassle if you're a small niche shop and not a major corporation.

[Phillip Hone]

I think if anyone's gonna get loophole, it's gonna be the companies with legal departments, not small time artisans.

I would welcome a world without tobacco though.

[Zeropoint]

We could make it illegal to SELL tobacco or tobacco products. Anyone who wanted to use it could, but they'd have to grow their own.

Or, we could have a program where once a week, we give whoever made the most money off of tobacco that week an injection of 100cc of nicotine.

[Phillip Hone]

We could make it illegal to SELL tobacco or tobacco products. Anyone who wanted to use it could, but they'd have to grow their own.

Or, we could have a program where once a week, we give whoever made the most money off of tobacco that week an injection of 100cc of nicotine.

People would find that impractical (esp for people in urban areas) = black market. It being legal to grow "for your own use" would just make the black market easier to hide.

[slebetman]

As a side note. Anyone else notice how the general attitude of smoking has changed?

When I started working way back in 2000, I was the only male employee who didn't smoke. At my last job I guess around 1/20 employees smoke. At my current job only one guy smoke.

I first noticed this when I found myself thinking how excessively people smoke in Mad Men then I realized that that's what it used to be when I started working.

Anti-smoking campaigns and laws sometimes feel much too inadequate to me and from the comments above I'm guessing that others feel the same. But when I look around me now it seems to be working. I no longer see young people smoke much.

A small caveat, I do have the luxury of living in a part of the world where alcohol prohibition actually works - no massive black market, no mafia bootleg operations. But that's mostly for religious reasons. And religion is deeply ingrained in society here. As such, religion may have something to do with the success of anti-smoking campaigns here since smoking, while is not prohibited, is frowned upon.

I'd just like to know what it's like in the rest of the world or even in my neck of the woods in different parts of society that I rarely interact with.