Tobacco Company ordered to pay Cynthia Robinson $25 billion in damages after husband

[poledriver]

Tobacco Company ordered to pay Cynthia Robinson $25 billion in damages after husband dies of lung cancer

A CIGARETTE giant in the US has vowed to fight a jury verdict ordering the company to pay $25.5 billion in punitive damages to Cynthia Robinson, the widow of a longtime smoker who died of lung cancer.
Yesterday, a Florida jury ordered tobacco company RJ Reynolds to pay the sum, in addition to more than $17 million in compensation to the estate of Michael Johnson Sr, after 15 hours of deliberations. It’s the largest verdict for a plaintiff in state history and sends a strong message to Big Tobacco that could open the floodgates for further claims.
During the four-week trial lawyers for Cynthia Robinson argued RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company was negligent in informing consumers of the dangers of consuming tobacco and thus led to her late husband Johnson contracting lung cancer from smoking cigarettes. They said Johnson had become “addicted” to cigarettes and failed multiple attempts to quit smoking.
“RJ Reynolds took a calculated risk by manufacturing cigarettes and selling them to consumers without properly informing them of the hazards,” Robinson’s lawyer Willie Gary said in a statement. “As a result of their negligence, my client’s husband suffered from lung cancer and eventually lost his life.”

“We hope that this verdict will send a message to RJ Reynolds and other big tobacco companies that will force them to stop putting the lives of innocent people in jeopardy.”
The tobacco company has hit back at the verdict, with RJ Reynolds vice president and assistant general counsel J Jeffery Raborn saying it was “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,” Mr Raborn said.
“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.”
The case is one of thousands filed in Florida after the state Supreme Court in 2006 threw out a $154 billion class action verdict. That ruling also said smokers and their families need only prove addiction and that smoking caused their illnesses or deaths.
Last year, Florida’s highest court re-approved that decision, which made it easier for sick smokers or their survivors to pursue lawsuits against tobacco companies without having to prove to the court again that Big Tobacco knowingly sold dangerous products and hid the hazards of cigarette smoking.

Robinson individually sued Reynolds in 2008 on behalf of her late husband, Michael Johnson Sr, who died in 1996. Her attorneys said the punitive damages are the largest of any individual case stemming from the original class action lawsuit.
The verdict came the same week that Reynolds American Inc, which owns R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, announced it was purchasing Lorillard Tobacco Co, the country’s No. 3 cigarette maker, in a $26 billion deal. That would create a tobacco company second only in the U.S. to Marlboro maker Altria Group Inc, which owns Philip Morris USA Inc and is based in Richmond, Virginia.
The deal is expected to close in the first half of 2015 and likely will face regulatory scrutiny.
Anti-smoking advocates hailed the verdict as a reminder of what they called the tobacco industry’s history of marketing to children and hiding the truth about their products.
“Wall Street analysts like to say the industry’s liability risk is manageable. What this verdict shows is the tobacco industry’s risk is far greater than Wall Street analysts would lead investors believe,” said Vince Willmore, spokesman for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/busi...s-of-lung-cancer/story-fnda1bsz-1226995889539

 

[neversickanymore]

26 billion Wow. Thats a grip of green.

 

[slimvictor]

How much is the value of a human life?
Pretty hard to measure.

 

[_DankOpiAmp_]

Anyone who agrees with this ruling needs immediate neuroleptic treatment until the brain damage is sufficient to cause tardive dyskinesia. I am not exactly in favour of smoking but this ruling is retarded and will obviously be reduced to a minuscule fraction of this amount. Some random douchebag's life is not worth billions, holy fuck!

 

[drug_mentor]

I agree this is excessive as fuck, you can't put a figure on a human life I suppose, but if you had to it would be a lot less than 25 billion dollars.

What is the sense in awarding this woman several times more money than she could ever spend in her lifetime? It would make more sense to take most of that money towards finding a cure for lung cancer or compensating a hell of a lot more families who have had a member die from smoking related illness.

I don't see how anyone could defend this ruling, even if you are the most staunch believer that tobacco companies should compensate the shit out of the loved ones of dead smokers, it has to be acknowledged that at a value of 25 billion dollars per victim there is no way possible that the tobacco companies could pay close to the amount of families affected by smoking deaths, and most would get nothing as a result.

 

[Nicholai]

23 billion and something, in non-aussie, US currency...just noting this, as it's an american based story. No idea why that made me twitch :D

 

[slimvictor]

Some random douchebag's life is not worth billions, holy fuck!

He may be a "random douchebag" to you (but see below) but to his wife he was her husband, whom she loved, and who loved her.
To his parents he was their only child.

Interestingly, I doubt that he offended you, Opiamp, in any way, but you called him a "douchebag" anyway. Of course, the weak hide behind the safety of the internet and call people all kinds of rude names in order to try to pretend to themselves that they are strong. But I suspect that this is not what (or at least not all that) you are doing here.
Because there is this: If you want to limit or put a low estimate on the value of human life, just disconnect from the humanity. Call the victim the name of a dirty object, and especially one that is involved with taboo areas such as genitals.
This is exactly the kind of thing that governments do to brainwash their citizens before and during a war.
Make your opponents into sub-humans, dirty things, lower than "us", and we can either kill them or name a lower price for the value of their life without morality entering into the question, or without really entertaining the question of the value of human life at all.

It would make more sense to take most of that money towards finding a cure for lung cancer or compensating a hell of a lot more families

I agree with this

 

[bit_pattern]

Anyone who agrees with this ruling needs immediate neuroleptic treatment until the brain damage is sufficient to cause tardive dyskinesia. I am not exactly in favour of smoking but this ruling is retarded and will obviously be reduced to a minuscule fraction of this amount. Some random douchebag's life is not worth billions, holy fuck!

The ruling isn't putting a value on an individual life - its a punitive ruling against the lies and deceptions that resulted in untold deaths.

The value the ruling placed on the deceased individual in terms of compensatory damages is $17 million.

FWIW this will be overturned in a higher court - same thing happened in California when a jury awarded a multi-billion dollar punitive damages ruling.

 

[bit_pattern]

and most would get nothing as a result.

The victims family were originally involved in a class action - Reynolds successfully appealed the original decision and the courts ruled individuals could file a civil suit. This is a result off the industry fighting any such equitable rulings that benefit all the victims.

 

[_DankOpiAmp_]

He may be a "random douchebag" to you (but see below) but to his wife he was her husband, whom she loved, and who loved her.
To his parents he was their only child.

Interestingly, I doubt that he offended you, Opiamp, in any way, but you called him a "douchebag" anyway. Of course, the weak hide behind the safety of the internet and call people all kinds of rude names in order to try to pretend to themselves that they are strong. But I suspect that this is not what (or at least not all that) you are doing here.
Because there is this: If you want to limit or put a low estimate on the value of human life, just disconnect from the humanity. Call the victim the name of a dirty object, and especially one that is involved with taboo areas such as genitals.
This is exactly the kind of thing that governments do to brainwash their citizens before and during a war.
Make your opponents into sub-humans, dirty things, lower than "us", and we can either kill them or name a lower price for the value of their life without morality entering into the question, or without really entertaining the question of the value of human life at all.

I agree with this

Are you so pathetic that you have to crudely and sanctimoniously psychoanalyze someone over the internet whenever they phrase something in a way that makes you uncomfortable so that you can delude yourself into believing you are morally and intellectually superior to them? I want to know if you spew this kind of self-indulgent pseudo-intellectualism on people in real life, since you seem to think you are such a "stronger" person than me from your computer.

If I wanted to dehumanize I would have done a much better job of it. This one person is random, he does not represent humanity. That was the point.

What is this mystical war you are so paranoid about? What the hell are you even saying? You need to grow some thicker skin if you are so sensitive to the use of a single word. I am getting sick of your thinly veiled personal attacks buddy. You are grotesquely hypocritical.

Has it ever occurred to you that the gradual acceptance of the progressive policing of people's speech, political correctness and a nanny state mentality will eventually lead to totalitarian governments that will rape every last freedom you hold so dear?

If society does not put a relative value on human life due to a naive, unrealistic, liberal-fantasy mentality than it leads to waste, debt and ineffective policies. Once these policies become impossible to maintain there is a backlash against them, which involves a massive devaluing of human life and history continues to repeat itself.

 

['medicine cabinet']

Completely excessive. I agree you can't put a price on someone's life but come on...25 billion??

 

[slimvictor]

pathetic
crudely
sanctimoniously
delude yourself
you spew
self-indulgent pseudo-intellectualism
so paranoid
grow some thicker skin
grotesquely hypocritical

I am getting sick of your thinly veiled personal attacks buddy.

Mine wasn't an attack, veiled or not. It was a discussion.
Yours, however, is clearly an attack.
I would ask you to stop immediately. In fact, I demand that you do so.
I will also quote myself, hoping to clarify things in case you or anyone missed it the first time:

the weak hide behind the safety of the internet and call people all kinds of rude names in order to try to pretend to themselves that they are strong.

 

[neversickanymore]

A persons life is what they value it at.. people need to take responsibility for their decisions and actions and not be blaming and suing companies that provide products they happily ingested for decades.

If we receive compensation for all the pleasurable activities that we pay for, which eventually send us off five or so years early.. we will be sitting in the basement drinking filtered tap water, sacred of our very shadows... and we still die.. an awful death sometimes.

Personally I don't want to pay more for my early death because this idiot couldn't figure out that smoking is unhealthy... though I don't smoke anymore.. just chew.

 

[_DankOpiAmp_]

Mine wasn't an attack, veiled or not. It was a discussion.
Yours, however, is clearly an attack.
I would ask you to stop immediately. In fact, I demand that you do so.
I will also quote myself, hoping to clarify things in case you or anyone missed it the first time:

What I said was the truth, whether or not you are going to childishly pretend I am simply trying to be offensive. You keep referring to me indirectly in your posts so that you can later claim that you were just having a discussion. You failed to answer the questions I posed to you in my post, instead repeating yourself with ironic condescension. I ask you again: Do you spew this kind of self indulgent pseudo-intellectualism on people I real life? A "strong" person wouldn't project their own weakness behind a screen onto people over the internet simply because of another's choice of a single word.

I am describing the manor in which you are communicating with me in this forum, this is absolutely not an attack on you. Would you like me to go through each if the accurate and specific terms I used and why I used them? Or would you feel threatened by that?

You even tried to pretend my figurative use of the word "spew" was an attack....

You are trying to play the victim to avoid the fact that I was correct in describing your personal (and hypocritical) attacks on me. I repeat, I was not attacking you, stop brushing off my criticism of you while you "delude" yourself into thinking you have some moral high ground so you act as if your personal attacks on me are mere discussion.

You absolutely are being hypocritical, that is not an insult, it has meaning, use a dictionary. Your pretentious psychoanalysis of me also qualifies as pseudo-intellectual self-indulgence for the reasons I described in my early post. I know you believe anything you assume about another person is ultimate wisdom so that probably hurt your frail ego. You were attacking me by attempting to describe my psyche in an insulting way. Those are not attacks bubba, I am telling you what you are doing specifically because in your mind you believe you are giving me a diagnosis.

This is sad coming from a moderator.... You criticize me personally, than pretend me calling you out on it is a personal attack.

This really isn't going anywhere so I will probably stop now, hopefully another moderator will talk so sense into you before you bash your head against your computer and ban me in a narcissistic rage.

 

[spacejunk]

^ banning you seems pretty sensible to me.

Likewise the ruling; fuck Big Tobacco. The family should be commended for taking the fight to The Man.

 

[drug_mentor]

It is all well and good to be anti big tobacco but there has to be some common sense here, if one woman is awarded 25 billion dollars there is no way big tobacco can come close to compensating all its victims. There is probably no way they could achieve that any way, but they could come a hell of a lot closer to it if a more sensible figure was put on this.

I am no great fan of big tobacco but I do personally believe there has to be some level of personal responsibility for people who smoke their whole lives and end up dying from it. 25 billion dollars is a ridiculously excessive figure, surely this womans husband owed her a lot more than any tobacco company did, if he made the choice to give up smoking then she wouldn't of gone through the anguish of his illness and death either. I am not saying some level of compensation is not due, but it is easy to place all the blame on a company and forget that it takes two to tango when it comes to this issue, nobody can force you to smoke. I say this as somebody who smokes tobacco as well.

 

[spacejunk]

<snip>
Read the BLUA.



Back on topic - DM, you mention personal responsibility - and while I agree with you, the context of tobacco in the early-mid 20th century was that people were told it was safe when tobacco corporations knew full well that it wasnt/isn't:

“RJ Reynolds took a calculated risk by manufacturing cigarettes and selling them to consumers without properly informing them of the hazards,” Robinson’s lawyer Willie Gary said in a statement. “As a result of their negligence, my client’s husband suffered from lung cancer and eventually lost his life.”

The efforts of the tobacco industry to hide the scientific proof they had, conclusively linking cigarette smoking to a range of deadly illnesses wasnt uncovered until the 1990s iirc.

So...until the bubble burst, the lies kept flowing, $ billions kept rolling in, and it was business as usual;

Having watched loved ones die of lung cancer gives me little sympathy for the industry, but plenty for people who didnt know better.
Until the mid-twentieth century, all sorts of fallacies abounded regarding the 'health benefits' of cigarettes.
As far as responsibility goes - you cannot make an informed decision when you are being lied to.
Also, a lot of smoking habits were a result of cigarettes being rationed in the world wars - an insidious social failing - engineered by tobacco corporations and their various schemes to get people hooked on their product.

 

[bit_pattern]

It is all well and good to be anti big tobacco but there has to be some common sense here, if one woman is awarded 25 billion dollars there is no way big tobacco can come close to compensating all its victims. There is probably no way they could achieve that any way, but they could come a hell of a lot closer to it if a more sensible figure was put on this.

Yes but the courts ruled against the original class action that would have achieved exactly that, so it was left to individual plaintiffs to carry on with individual civil suits.

I'll say it again - this ruling wasn't made to compensate the death of an individual. It was a punitive ruling for the years of lies and deception. And it will likely get overturned by a higher court, the jury decided on the figure, not the court.

 

[_DankOpiAmp_]

<snip>

Your are obviously biased against me for not being a cultural Marxist vegetarian, so your opinion is meaningless. Moderators are not supposed to personally attack people because they do not agree with their choice of words. In this thread, which is the only one I am referring to, I am bullying no one. I referred to a dead person that none of us knows as a random douchebag. This was massively over analyzed by Slimvictor in a manor that was meant to be offensive and attack me personally.

------

Companies pretend dangerous products are safe all the time, perhaps not to the same deceptive extreme but still. The ruling is just a political feel-good jab at the tobacco industry because the guy died so young. The jury must have no concept of reality or the value of money.

 

[bit_pattern]

people need to take responsibility for their decisions and actions and not be blaming and suing companies that provide products they happily ingested for decades.

That's easy for someone who grew up in an age where the dangers of smoking were commonplace and accepted. The point of the punitive damages - again, this was not compensation - was that the individual became addicted at a time when the tobacco companies were aware of the dangers but the public generally were not because the tobacco companies went to extraordinary lengths to cover up the dangers.