Former Smoker Wins $28 Billion

TIME TO MAKE $$$

Registered
Forum Member
Jul 24, 2001
11,493
0
0
49
TORONTO, CANADA
LOS ANGELES (AP) - A jury awarded a record-shattering $28 billion in punitive damages Friday to a former smoker who sued Philip Morris Inc. for fraud and negligence.


The Superior Court jury awarded the amount to Betty Bullock, 64, who started smoking when she was 17 and was diagnosed last year with lung cancer that has since spread to her liver.

Last month, the jury ordered the tobacco company to pay Bullock $750,000 in economic damages and $100,000 for pain and suffering.

Before Friday's verdict, 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. However, the verdict was later reduced by a judge to $100 million.

During Bullock's trial, Philip Morris did not try to defend its past. Instead, the company turned the spotlight on Bullock and her decision to smoke. The strategy was a major shift from previous defense efforts.

"If she had stopped smoking, even in the 1980s, she would not have lung cancer today," Peter Bleakley, an attorney representing Philip Morris, told the jury.

Bullock's lawyer, Michael Piuze, argued that Philip Morris concealed the dangers of cigarettes with a widespread disinformation campaign that began in the 1950s. He told jurors it was "the largest fraud scheme ever perpetrated by corporations anywhere."

Piuze used photographs of Bullock, cigarette ads from her teenage years and internal tobacco industry documents to lay out his contention that Philip Morris concealed the dangers of cigarettes.

The case has drawn added interest because it follows an Aug. 5 state Supreme Court ruling that grants cigarette makers a new window of immunity. The decision said most statements and acts by the tobacco companies between 1988 and 1998 cannot be used as evidence against them because of a law, now repealed, shielding them from liability.

Some analysts think the ruling will give cigarette makers ammunition to overturn three recent plaintiff awards in California ? including the Boeken verdict, which was also won by Piuze.



So how many roses will she get by tomorrow night?



:rolleyes:
 

TIME TO MAKE $$$

Registered
Forum Member
Jul 24, 2001
11,493
0
0
49
TORONTO, CANADA
Phillip morris stock dropped 9% today.


I don't know the facts of this case, but I think the result is absurd. First off, nobody deserves $28 billion. Secondly, the $28 billion, although a large portion of their revenue (if what's posted above is accurate) will not deter the tobacco industry.

Third. People should only be compensated for the time that they didn't know that smoking caused illness. We have a choice to smoke. Anyone who has continued to smoke during the past 15 years has no one to blame but themselves (man, I'm going to take some heat for that one). Consequently, unless the person stopped smoking as soon as they found out that it was harmful to them, they don't have much of a complaint. If someone quits smoking the instant that they find out that it's harmful, then they can sue for the time they didn't know and were being harmed. If, however, someone continues to smoke after they should know the health risks, then they can't really say that if they had known about them before, they would have stopped.

Just my opinion. It's good that the industry was punished, but it won't stop them. Also, the cash shouldn't go to one person. (if that's what happened.) just my thoughts in general
 

theGibber1

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 27, 2001
8,615
63
0
Dallas TX
!

!

the dumb bitch needs to take responsibility for her own actions
!!!!

shes going to die and its her own damn fault..

have some self control and stop putting that shit into your lungs!


:thefinger
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,440
132
63
Bowling Green Ky
Buffetts with all you can eat will be next for contributing to obesity.

My concern: How do get 11 people or how ever many were on jury to agree on this even in California.

Stock market don't stand a chance with corporate theft and absurb litigation.

They say what goes around comes around,maybe these jurors will get theirs. I hope everyone of em has their insurance premiums and power bill double next year.;)
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
keep voting for the democrats who put these liberal judges int he courtrooms and who get $$ from trial lawyers who bring this about....

this stuff is BRINGING DOWN OUR COUNTRY!!! and is the #1 reason our economy is suffering as it is today.......BAD JUSTICE!!!

unfreaking believable......makes business, insurance, and any product your buy or produce unaffordable
 

yyz

Under .500
Forum Member
Mar 16, 2000
42,005
1,612
113
On the course!
Big tobacco companies have been selling lies to people for years. Yes, everyone should know by now the dangers of smoking, but for years, these fukers lied through their teeth about the dangers of this shit. I don't feel sorry for Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, or any other company out there.
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
actually, we HAVEN"T known the dangers of smoking for years.....only recently have we been able to show how cancer causes cancer......before that, any knowledge of the relatedness has been anecdotal.....

that is besides the point though.....drinking alcohol causes one to be drunk...should a victim of drunk driving, a cirrhotic liver, or heart damage be able to sue budweiser?

no one is responsible for their own actions anymore....
 

He Hate Me

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 21, 2001
483
0
0
Seal Beach,Ca
A Real simple solution to this, is to ban smoking, if these serial killers that chain smoke dont like it, well, they can move to canada or something, we dont need smokers in America, they are basically useless. I am so glad I live in California where these scumbags are put in there place.


This is why Europe and Asia sucks, because 2 out of the people smoke. They should have given the lady 3 trillion instead of billion.
 

Skinar

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 17, 2000
592
0
0
Kentucky
While we're at it, let's ban beer, wine, anything containing alcohol because of the costs of drunk driving and dysfunctional families caused by alcohol abuse, let's ban automobiles because of the pollution that they cause, let's ban cell phones because they cause brain cancer, let's ban fast foods because they make people fat, let's ban overhead power lines because they cause cancer also, let's ban pesticides (yep, cancer), let's ban all firearms since guns kill people, let's ban sports games because of the damage to the self esteem of the losers, let's ban attractive people (they damage the self-esteem of the beauty-challenged), let's ban intelligent people (that self-esteem thing again), let's paint everyone the same color (some kind of taupe would be nice I think) and give everyone the same grades and pay regardless of the work they perform so that no one feels 'left behind'.

:moon:

In this way everyone would truly end up being equal, a California Dream.
 

nhl8810

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 12, 2000
423
0
0
55
NJ
he hate me

he hate me

you are an a**hole!!!! To make a statement that people are useless because they smoke is ridiculaous. While I agree that it is not good for you it doesnt change the person that you are. I am glad that you are in Cal. also because it puts you about as far away from me as possible:thefinger . Get a f u c k i n clue d i c k head
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
Skinar said:
While we're at it, let's ban beer, wine, anything containing alcohol because of the costs of drunk driving and dysfunctional families caused by alcohol abuse, let's ban automobiles because of the pollution that they cause, let's ban cell phones because they cause brain cancer, let's ban fast foods because they make people fat, let's ban overhead power lines because they cause cancer also, let's ban pesticides (yep, cancer), let's ban all firearms since guns kill people, let's ban sports games because of the damage to the self esteem of the losers, let's ban attractive people (they damage the self-esteem of the beauty-challenged), let's ban intelligent people (that self-esteem thing again), let's paint everyone the same color (some kind of taupe would be nice I think) and give everyone the same grades and pay regardless of the work they perform so that no one feels 'left behind'.

:moon:

In this way everyone would truly end up being equal, a California Dream.

Gray Davis and all you brilliant Californians are well on your way in most of these areas.....lol.....what a joke of a state
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,440
132
63
Bowling Green Ky
He Hate Me
Coming from CA you might be better off working on solution to aids instead of tobacco since you are 2nd only to Africa in cases /capita

It may be hard for you to believe but East of you the folks still find sucking on a cig the lesser of 2 evils ;)
 

yyz

Under .500
Forum Member
Mar 16, 2000
42,005
1,612
113
On the course!
Freeze,

These companies have known how deadly cigs were since the 50's (The point at which filters were added to cigs to "lessen" the danger of them.) If you want to call that "recent", be my guest.

Big tobacco has more "twists and plots" than the CIA.
 

ozball

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 6, 2000
484
0
0
60
Alberta, Canada
Gotta agree with yyz,

it's the sheer arrogance of the big tobacco companies over the years that leads me to shed no tears for them. they have had internal research that realised even before the medical community the links between smoking and disease, yet have attempted to suppress the info to maximize sales, and are now doing so to the third world.

Who can forget the CEO's all under oath in front of Congress stating one after another "I do not believe smoking is addictive". This despite later release of documents showing that their companies were tinkering with the exact dose of nicotine to maximise addiction. This industryhas felt untouchable over the years, and even though this settlement seems high, it is extremely difficult to feel any sympathy for the bastards

ozball
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
no no no....that is a myth.....all evidence was anecdotal back then.....we haven't even had methods to research links between cause and effects of tobacco and chemicals in cigarettes until the late 70's and 80's......since then, we have found out lots......

trust me on this one....i have learned a lot the past few years on research, its history, and how technology has helped our understanding of science immensely the last couple decades.....

sure suspicions have been around forever, but direct scientific linkage is very hard to prove....sure cigarette companies knew that the use of cigarettes resulted in an increase in certain diseases.....but so did fast food......and other things.....there were way too many counfounding variables to do a study with good results back then without molecular methods.......

i will tell you right now: eating unhealthy foods is about as bad for your health as is smoking....may be even worse -- it definitely is for some people...I CAN PROVE THIS..does that mean we should be able to sue McDonalds for advertising a bunch of healthy, happy people at their restaurants?????

answer me that question before you think you decide that tobacco companies should be deemed responsible for marketing their cigarettes.....
 

yyz

Under .500
Forum Member
Mar 16, 2000
42,005
1,612
113
On the course!
I know one thing:

If I'm sitting next to you at McDannald's, eatting a sallad, I'm not ingesting the shit you're eatting.

By law, these resteraunts must post product information on their counters. It is no secret that they go out of their way to make the writing small, and speak in 'legal-ease'. Still, it is another issue.
 

ozball

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 6, 2000
484
0
0
60
Alberta, Canada
Dr Freeze,

it is indeed in the late 70's and 80's that the tobacco industry knew that their products were almost certainly harmful. If an car manufacturer discovers a fault that puts 1 in 1000 of its customers at risk, there is an instant recall and PR blitz, due to concern for its customers and concern for lawsuits. On the other hand, when the evidence was mounting on the link between smoking and cancer, COPD, heart disease and stroke, the tobacco companies actively tried to suppress this information. that is why they are successfully being sued. I believe if they listened to their own research and came out with the information in a timely fashion, then these suits would indeed fail, and the "personal responsibility" argument would win the day.

Also it troubles me that as a future physician you seem to be downplaying the health risks of tobacco. Granted, poor diet and sedentary lifestyle are indeed unhealthy, but to say that smoking is like eating junk food only serves to reassure your smoking patients that maybe they shouldn't make any effort to quit...

Guys like he hate me really don't help the health debate either. Extremism is always distracting from the discussion of the real issues

cheers

ozball
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top