PDA

View Full Version : Jury Says RJ Reynolds Has To Pay $23 Billion



Ah Pook
07-20-2014, 15:33
I don't smoke. Can't stand the smell. Had family die from smoking related diseases.

That said, this is ridiculous. No one shoved the cigs in his mouth. The family can not claim that he didn't know they were bad for him. I'm sure it will be repealed by another court. The judge obviously has an agenda.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/19/us-usa-tobacco-award-idUSKBN0FO0ZM20140719

Florida jury awards $23 billion punitive damages against RJ Reynolds

(Reuters) - A Florida jury has awarded the widow of a chain smoker who died of lung cancer punitive damages of more than $23 billion in her lawsuit against the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, the nation's second-biggest cigarette maker.
The judgment, returned on Friday night, was the largest in Florida history in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by a single plaintiff, according to Ryan Julison, a spokesman for the woman's lawyer, Chris Chestnut.
Cynthia Robinson of Florida Panhandle city of Pensacola sued the cigarette maker in 2008 over the death of her husband, Michael Johnson.
Johnson, a hotel shuttle bus driver who died of lung cancer in 1996 at age 36, smoked one to three packs a day for more 20 years, starting at age 13, Chestnut said.
"He couldn't quit. He was smoking the day he died," the lawyer told Reuters on Saturday.
After a four-week trial and 11 hours of jury deliberations, the jury returned a verdict granting the widow $7.3 million and the couple's son $9.6 million in compensatory damages.
The same jury deliberated for another seven hours before deciding to award Robinson the additional sum of $23.6 billion in punitive damages, according to the verdict forms.
Lawyers for the tobacco company, a unit of Reynolds American Inc [RAI.N] whose brands include Camel cigarettes, could not immediately be reached for comment.
But J. Jeffery Raborn, vice president and assistant general counsel for R.J. Reynolds, said in a statement quoted by the New York Times that the company planned to challenge "this runaway verdict." Such industry appeals are often successful.
Chestnut countered, "This wasn't a runaway jury, it was a courageous one."
Robinson's lawsuit originally was part of a large class-action litigation known as the "Engle case," filed in 1994 against tobacco companies.
A jury in that case returned a verdict in 2000 in favor of the plaintiffs awarding $145 billion in punitive damages, which at the time was the largest such judgment in U.S. history.
That award, however, was tossed out in 2006 by the Florida Supreme Court, which decertified the class, agreeing with a lower court that the group was too disparate and each smoker smoked for different reasons.
But the court said the plaintiffs could file lawsuits individually. Robinson was one of them.
The Florida high court also let stand the jury's findings that cigarettes are defective, dangerous and cause disease, and that Big Tobacco was negligent, meaning those issues did not have to be re-litigated in future lawsuits.

flan7211
07-20-2014, 15:39
Wait until glock or colt has to pay someday. Scary precedent.

Irving
07-20-2014, 15:53
The jury decided that cigarettes are defective? I'd sure like to see the reasoning behind that.

Great-Kazoo
07-20-2014, 16:42
Wait until glock or colt has to pay someday. Scary precedent.

For now they are protected against lawsuits. Get a different SC judge on the bench, i have an idea which way they would rule.

MrPrena
07-20-2014, 17:20
I thought MSA basically settle this long time ago, but I guess msa is not a civil case.

There is no price in any life, but $26 BIL???????? I would not even pay $2.6mil for this case.

vossman
07-20-2014, 17:37
Shenanigans!

HoneyBadger
07-20-2014, 17:51
Shenanigans!
Hey Farva, what's the name of that restaurant you like? You know, the one with all the goofy shit on the walls?

TFOGGER
07-20-2014, 18:20
It's in the state's interest to see this verdict upheld. In most cases, the state gets a 50% cust of punitive damages off the top, and the remainder is taxable. Compensatory damages are generally not taxable.

Ridge
07-20-2014, 18:26
Florida, nuff said

mtnrider
07-20-2014, 19:40
Florida, nuff said

Cause nothing like that would ever happen in liberal Colorado.. [facepalm]

Ridge
07-20-2014, 19:53
Cause nothing like that would ever happen in liberal Colorado.. [facepalm]

If Colorado is so liberal, then maybe not. Florida isn't exactly known for it's Democrat voting record...

Gman
07-20-2014, 21:11
Hey Farva, what's the name of that restaurant you like? You know, the one with all the goofy shit on the walls?

http://youtu.be/MFZG8KQJni8

sniper7
07-20-2014, 21:15
Wow, that is asinine

ray1970
07-21-2014, 05:28
Sweet. If I ever crash my motorcycle maybe I can get billions from Harley Davidson. I am unaware of any danger associated with riding a motorcycle.

On a serious note, even if this were to hold up, they would just pass the cost of the suit on to their customers.

osok-308
07-21-2014, 05:56
What is the world coming to?[facepalm]

I've had family members die because they chose to smoke. It was a poor choice on their side. When will we be held accountable for our own actions?

Bailey Guns
07-21-2014, 07:20
Florida isn't exactly known for it's Democrat voting record...

ReallY? Obama carried FL in 08 and 12. The Bush/Gore race was so close it had to be decided by the supreme court. Registered democrats outnumber republicans by almost 1/2 million people as of 2014. Bill Nelson has been a democrat US Senator from FL since 2001. There are 10 democrat US representatives. The FL senate includes 14 democrats, the FL house has 45 democrats.

So while it's true the state legislature has republican majorities, to say FL isn't known for voting democrat is quite a stretch.

And this jury award is total nonsense. I'm almost 54 years old. I've been hearing about how cigarettes will cause cancer and kill you if you smoke them since I can remember...at least the since the late 60s. For anyone to say they didn't know cigarettes can be dangerous is a lie, in my opinion. They may have believed it wouldn't happen to them, but there is no way in the world they couldn't at least know of the risks. This is demonization of the tobacco industry by government and lawyers, plain and simple. I don't think the tobacco industry is innocent by any means...but it's pretty hard to pin the blame solely on the industry when people who smoke have been told over and over by that very industry for decades that it's dangerous.

speedysst
07-21-2014, 07:49
Smoking dope is healthy though.

Dave_L
07-21-2014, 10:42
Everyone's a victim.

Ah Pook
07-21-2014, 10:52
Everyone's a victim.
Everyone wants a payday.

Aloha_Shooter
07-21-2014, 11:37
This brings up another pet peeve. Beyond juror stupidity, we have bred utter idiocy in our law schools so we are now plagued with a multitude of judges and lawyers. Some of the recent rulings to support crap that is clearly outside the bounds of the federal government under Article II, the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Tenth Amendment or briefs and rulings playing word games that would make the Red Queen blush in order to push a social or political agenda rather than make good law .... aaaaaarrrrrrrgh.

Circuits
07-21-2014, 12:04
Drawn from the jury pool that gave us Rachel "That's real retarded" Jeantel.

Look children! Everybody point and laugh!

MarkCO
07-21-2014, 13:15
While I do not agree with the verdict, I would not be so bold as to try and assert what a 13 year old knew, or did not know, in 1973 about the risks of smoking. What is more interesting, from a legal perspective, is how did the plaintiff prove that she was unaware of the potentially shorter life of a chain smoker. Did she enter into marriage knowing that his smoking had the potential to shorten his life? If yes, she assumed a risk with knowledge!

A product can be "deemed" inherently dangerous or defective if the risks are known, but not conveyed to the end user appropriately. Every culture on the planet uses knives, so the "common man" has been taught by their parents that some care is needed with them. Does that transfer to cigarettes in 1973? While the "warnings" issue has gotten overdone due to attorneys, jury instructions usually account for the common man experience. Only thing that I would want to read in this case is the actual jury instructions.

Lots of legal issues, but there is also no denying that anyone who pays a life insurance premium is incurring some costs of other poor health decisions. This one has the trifecta of the doom of America...Government benefit, Insurance, Attorneys...

gos
07-21-2014, 14:17
While I do not agree with the verdict, I would not be so bold as to try and assert what a 13 year old knew, or did not know, in 1973 about the risks of smoking. What is more interesting, from a legal perspective, is how did the plaintiff prove that she was unaware of the potentially shorter life of a chain smoker. Did she enter into marriage knowing that his smoking had the potential to shorten his life? If yes, she assumed a risk with knowledge!

A product can be "deemed" inherently dangerous or defective if the risks are known, but not conveyed to the end user appropriately. Every culture on the planet uses knives, so the "common man" has been taught by their parents that some care is needed with them. Does that transfer to cigarettes in 1973? While the "warnings" issue has gotten overdone due to attorneys, jury instructions usually account for the common man experience. Only thing that I would want to read in this case is the actual jury instructions.

Lots of legal issues, but there is also no denying that anyone who pays a life insurance premium is incurring some costs of other poor health decisions. This one has the trifecta of the doom of America...Government benefit, Insurance, Attorneys...

The first surgeon general's warning announcing that smoking is a cause of cancer in men came out in 1964.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/Data_statistics/sgr/history/index.htm

I, too, am curious about the jury instructions.