-

Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

Jury awards ex-smoker $28 billion


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
62 replies to this topic

#1 of 63 MickeS

MickeS

    Producer

  • 5,065 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 24 2000

Posted October 04 2002 - 08:30 AM

Yes, that's 28,000 million dollars.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/817143.asp

Of course it'll be appealed, and probably reduced substantially. But who knows, she might get it.

/Mike
/Mike

#2 of 63 FredHD

FredHD

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 177 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 08 2000

Posted October 04 2002 - 08:50 AM

Good, suck 'em dry.
"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
Albert Einstein, physicist, Nobel Prize 1921

#3 of 63 MickeS

MickeS

    Producer

  • 5,065 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 24 2000

Posted October 04 2002 - 08:59 AM

All I know is, if I was in the tobacco business I'd get a little worried about the future. Posted Image
/Mike

#4 of 63 Brian Perry

Brian Perry

    Screenwriter

  • 2,815 posts
  • Join Date: May 06 1999

Posted October 04 2002 - 09:07 AM

No wonder my Phillip Morris stock got hammered today.

On the one hand, Phillip Morris looks like an unbelievably good stock to own. Its P/E ratio is 9 and its dividend yield is 7%.

On the other hand, if you get enough juries to hand out verdicts such as the one today, it could get ugly.

#5 of 63 Shawn C

Shawn C

    Screenwriter

  • 1,434 posts
  • Join Date: May 15 2001

Posted October 04 2002 - 09:23 AM

I love the conflicting statements between the tobacco companies and their own lawyers:

Company: "Cigarettes aren't dangerous!" (Or something like that)

Lawyer after verdict: "This jury should have focused on what the plaintiff knew about the health risks of smoking, and whether anything the company ever said or did improperly influenced her decision to smoke or not to quit,"

#6 of 63 Ron-P

Ron-P

    Producer

  • 6,283 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 25 2000
  • Real Name:Ron

Posted October 04 2002 - 09:25 AM

Frivolous BS, she should get nothing. I don't care what cigarette smokers put in their ads. Anyone with any common sense knows that smoking is bad.

She made all the choices to get cancer, no one forced her to smoke.


Peace Out~Posted Image
You have all the weapons you need...Now fight!


#7 of 63 Bruce Hedtke

Bruce Hedtke

    Screenwriter

  • 2,249 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 1999

Posted October 04 2002 - 09:27 AM

Summed up my feelings perfectly Ron. I am not a fan of cigarette companies at all, but you really gotta be lacking common sense if after your first three cigarettes, you aren't convinced they are bad for you.

Bruce
The Mads are calling

#8 of 63 BrettB

BrettB

    Producer

  • 3,024 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2001

Posted October 04 2002 - 09:34 AM

Insanity

#9 of 63 MikeAlletto

MikeAlletto

    Screenwriter

  • 2,371 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 11 2000

Posted October 04 2002 - 09:41 AM

Yup Ron, thats exactly what I think also. What about all us non-smokers who have to put up with the trash and second hand smoke that the smokers are producing? Can I sue them?

Quote:
Testimony during the trial showed that Ms. Bullock was aware of the health risks of smoking and was warned repeatedly of those risks by her doctors over four decades, and her daughter also urged her to quit. Her response: ’I am an adult, this is my business.

That whole jury should have been tossed out when they read the verdict.

Quote:
Before Friday, the biggest verdict won by an individual against a tobacco company was $3 billion, awarded in June 2001. Philip Morris was ordered to pay the amount to Richard Boeken, a former heroin addict with cancer who died in January. The verdict was later reduced by a judge to $100 million.

A heroin addict with cancer who died got $100 million! You gotta be kidding me. Oh no, it couldn't have been the heroin (an illegal drug) that he was addicted to that contributed to him dieing...it must have been the tobacco (a legal drug)...unbelievable.
Michael Alletto

#10 of 63 Scooter

Scooter

    Screenwriter

  • 1,510 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 03 1998
  • Real Name:Scooter
  • LocationDFW Area Texas

Posted October 04 2002 - 11:16 AM

Ron..the more I read what you post here....the more I wish you lived closer! Common sense prevails!!!!!

#11 of 63 Maurice McCone

Maurice McCone

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 147 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 22 2001

Posted October 04 2002 - 11:27 AM

I am totally against smoking, I have never smoked myself. But I do not support these ridiculous court cases.

There can surely be no-one who is unaware of the dangers of smoking?

I like that idea that non smokers who know this lady should sue her for her secondary smoke polluting their environment.

I have also heard that there is a case going thru the courts of a man suing MacDonalds for making him overwieght, there has to be a way of stopping these cases, we have them over in Britain now as well.

You can just see the fuss this guy would have made if MacDonalds had refused to serve him a Big Mac, as he was obese !

I wish people would take some responsibility for their own behaviour.

#12 of 63 Bruce Hedtke

Bruce Hedtke

    Screenwriter

  • 2,249 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 1999

Posted October 04 2002 - 11:29 AM

Quote:
I wish people would take some responsibility for their own behaviour.


Replace the word "some" with "all" and it would be an even better statement. As it is, it is at the heart of truth. Easier to blame the temptation and those who provide it than to own up to your own responsibilities.

Bruce
The Mads are calling

#13 of 63 Don Black

Don Black

    Screenwriter

  • 1,485 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 1998

Posted October 04 2002 - 11:32 AM

I agree that this is complete BS. I can understand the states suing the tobacco companies to recover Medicare/etc. costs. That seems reasonable and makes sense. But these individual lawsuits are just plain silly...

#14 of 63 Rob Longmore

Rob Longmore

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 59 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 19 2001

Posted October 04 2002 - 12:12 PM

I feel that everyone who sues someone, over something THEY have control over, should be locked up FOR LIFE!! she made the choice to smoke! and now by sueing, she has admited she no longer wants responsablility for her own life, and if YOUR not responsable for your life, then you should not have one!

SHE decided to smoke! NO one forced her! SHE knew the risks! she paid the price of HER decision! no one should be responsable except her! what a fu#ked up world we live in!
'They scream a lot', "Whats so funny about chopping someones toes off?" 'You know, the way they just.. drop off'

#15 of 63 CarlS

CarlS

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 83 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 15 2000

Posted October 04 2002 - 12:17 PM

Monster verdicts like this never stand up to appeal.

#16 of 63 Cam S

Cam S

    Screenwriter

  • 1,524 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 11 2002

Posted October 04 2002 - 12:46 PM

Quote:
Frivolous BS, she should get nothing. I don't care what cigarette smokers put in their ads. Anyone with any common sense knows that smoking is bad.


Dam rights Ron!!!!
MOOOOOO

#17 of 63 Bill_Weinreich

Bill_Weinreich

    Second Unit

  • 320 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 25 2000

Posted October 04 2002 - 12:47 PM

Posted Image

Pretty much how I fell when I hear about these DA lawsuits. Did't the Constitution give us a right to a speedy trial? Next to impossible with all this BS crap tying up the system!

Again:Posted Image

Bill
"Surely you can't be serious."
"I am serious, and don't call me Shirley."

#18 of 63 BrianB

BrianB

    Producer

  • 5,211 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 29 2000

Posted October 04 2002 - 01:18 PM

Quote:
I have also heard that there is a case going thru the courts of a man suing MacDonalds for making him overwieght, there has to be a way of stopping these cases,

There is. It's called due process. If the case is completely trivial & has no sense behind it, it will get thrown out.

The appeal process is a wonderful thing Posted Image
high resolution ipod featuring dlp hd programming is the best, almost as good as playstation 2 with wega windows media on a super cd! ps2 and tivo do dolby tv with broadband hdtv!

#19 of 63 Holadem

Holadem

    Lead Actor

  • 8,972 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 04 2000

Posted October 04 2002 - 01:53 PM

Question is though, what are the chances of gathering twelve persons of such remarkably high stupidity, and have them all agree first to guilt, and second to such an ungdly amount of money?

How the hell does that happen and so often?

--
Holadem

#20 of 63 Brian Harnish

Brian Harnish

    Screenwriter

  • 1,224 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 15 2000

Posted October 04 2002 - 02:10 PM

Holadem -- It's called "bribery."

Oh COME ON, they're saying that the smoking companies didn't say anything? On EVERY PACK OF CIGARETTES there is SOMETHING called: The Surgeon General's Warning against cigarrette smoking. This is frivolous BS. Surely the jury couldn't be so stupid as to overlook something like that?

When are we finally going to get a decent judge that will laugh these frivolous lawsuits out of court? It's called taking responsibility. I can see that as a civilization, we have a long way to go before we (as a whole) will ever start accepting responsibility for our actions.


Back to Archived Threads 2001-2004



Forum Nav Content I Follow