The cost of smoking.... to RJ Reynolds

[Stan]

Quote:

A Florida jury awarded a widow $23 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.

Follow complete coverage of breaking news on CNN.com, CNN TV and CNN Mobile.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

the $23 billion punitive damages is excessive... I'm sure it will be challenged..

[Nan]

Has anyone read The Runaway Jury by John Gresham.....his work of fiction included this scenario from memory - it is years since I read the book.

[bonnie]

Quote:

A Florida jury awarded a widow $23 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.

Follow complete coverage of breaking news on CNN.com, CNN TV and CNN Mobile.

It isn't even reasonable to believe that this man didn't know that smoking caused lung cancer and was addictive. He made a conscious choice despite every pack he purchased had warnings about lung cancer

[Tom Wetmore]

Cigarettes, used exactly as intended will eventually kill you. The manufacture and sale of them should require strict liability for the result. Yes, today it is hard to believe that anyone smacking does not know they are inherently dangerous, addictive, etc. But at the point of targeted marketing to young people to get them hooked at a young age before they can fully understand that should not leave those without responsibility who make, and allow that to happen for an ihherently dangerous product.

But you are correct that this will likely be reduced substantially on appeal or in settlement. It does give the plaintiff great leverage for settlement.

[bonnie]

Cigarettes, used exactly as intended will eventually kill you. The manufacture and sale of them should require strict liability for the result. Yes, today it is hard to believe that anyone smacking does not know they are inherently dangerous, addictive, etc. But at the point of targeted marketing to young people to get them hooked at a young age before they can fully understand that should not leave those without responsibility who make, and allow that to happen for an ihherently dangerous product.

But you are correct that this will likely be reduced substantially on appeal or in settlement. It does give the plaintiff great leverage for settlement.

I don"t have any sympathy for the tobacco companies.Let them pay,but for someone to claim they didn't know is just flat out a lie.R.J. Reynolds was negligent in not informing him that nicotine is addictive and smoking can cause lung cancer. This is in every magazine you pick up,it is o n TV,it is also on every pack that is purchased.

By the time my boys were in their teens they knew and could have explained the risks to you.

It is just another case of blaming others for your own personal stupidity.

[Tom Wetmore]

He started at age 13. Few kids that age stop to think or fully comprehend long term consequences of anything they do, even if given accurate information. The tobacco companies know (their own research) the earlier someone starts the less likely they are to stop or be able to stop. They increase the nicotine level to secure their customer's addiction. Addictions formed during pre-adulthood are harder to kick. So they market in ways that attract and appeal to younger market. All very calculated and intentional.

And then there is the marketing overseas where the tighter US laws do not reach.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

if the person had gone to SDA grade schools, he would have been regularly deluged with those "Winner" pamphlets..

All the defendant might need to do is find a long ago playmate who gave him those pamphlets...

(I know, it's not that easy)

[bonnie]

He started at age 13. Few kids that age stop to think or fully comprehend long term consequences of anything they do, even if given accurate information. The tobacco companies know (their own research) the earlier someone starts the less likely they are to stop or be able to stop. They increase the nicotine level to secure their customer's addiction. Addictions formed during pre-adulthood are harder to kick. So they market in ways that attract and appeal to younger market. All very calculated and intentional.

And then there is the marketing overseas where the tighter US laws do not reach.

He broke the law if he purchased at age 13. As bad as the tobacco company is they are not responsible for that.Thousands do the same.My husband did as well and began smoking around the same age. He stole them from his dad.Knowing it was wrong, purchased them "illegally" from cigarette machines etc.

He knew it was unhealthy and wrong.

My husband quit in 1967.Yup,it was hard.But at least he took the responsibility for becoming addicted in the first place,knowing when he started that nicotine was addictive.

The tobacco company will survive a financial hit.The idiot that says he didn't know or was to young to take the warnings seriously might not

[Stan]

I purchased cigarettes when I was 13, it was not illegal as it is now.

[Stan]

Vending machines had no age restrictions.

[bonnie]

Vending machines had no age restrictions.

They did here.I don't recall the year but I know that the station where I purchased gas had a notice on the machine.

No one under the age of eighteen was "allowed" to purchase.

Underage teenagers used that because enforcement was a joke.

They could not purchase in stores freely. A lot of them would buy and claim they were sent by their parents. Then they had to bring a note from the parents and after that they could not purchase at all.

By 1973 when this man began smoking there were plenty of

warnings as to the dangers.

My husband had a few accidents because of underage drinking.

A couple of them should have been fatal. Should Anehauser-Busch

have been liable,or the of age friend that purchased it for him

or my husband,who well understood.you drink alcohol,get drunk you are impaired

[pierrepaul]

In classic English tort law, contributory negligence was an absolute defence and bar to recovery. Most jurisdictions have since overturned this principle by legislation and where contributory negligence exists, the court endeavors to apportion fault among all actors (including the injured plaintiff) and the damage is similarly apportioned.

I don't know Florida law in particular, but if such a case were to be tried in a jurisdiction with laws similar to what I outlined above, the court would likely hold that both the smoker and the tobacco company were at fault. If we hypothetically assume that the smoker was 70% at fault and the tobacco company 30% at fault, then the smoker/plaintiff could only recover 30% of his compensatory damages - but he still could recover.

Punitive damages are trickier since the purpose of the punitive damage is not to give a windfall to the plaintiff or the plaintiff's lawyers, but to provide (a) a disincentive for the defendant to continue its harmful conduct; and ( provide an incentive for private plaintiffs to prosecute such cases where, in the absence of such an award, fewer plaintiffs would bother.

Often these headline-grabbing awards are reduced by the trial judge or reduced on appeal.

[CoAspen]

I would suspect that was a "big pockets" jury!

Smoking and lung cancer connections have been around for so long, it is difficult to understand why it ever went to trial.