UF Law grad kicks the nuts off of Big Tobacco

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by UFLAW81, Jul 21, 2014.

  1. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,197
    Likes Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +724
    I agree there are scenarios where liability can be laid on the company. But unless the design of the cigarette caused the butt to burn into a flame and hurt the smoker...I see no defect to sue over. There are plenty of vices that are addictive. And hurting yourself via one of those vices is not grounds for compensation imo.
  2. demosthenes
    Offline

    demosthenes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,477
    Likes Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Ratings Received:
    +1,244
    You have your answer and you know it. However, the answer to your question is as important as knowing what a victim had for breakfast in a murder trial. I guess Ford could rest easy with the Pinto since they didn't do anything illegal either.

    As for the amount of punitive damages, you can rest easy knowing the punitive damages WILL be DRASTICALLY reduced.
  3. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,919
    Likes Received:
    644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,339
    Another aspect, is that not everyone is addicted to natural tobacco, who uses it. Some can use it - or not - without effect. In fact, some can use manufactured tobacco - addictive chemicals and all - and stop using it at will. Others, however, cannot.

    It is hard to ferret out those who would have not been addicted from those who were, when the maker of the tobacco is adding addictive chemicals to try to get everybody who uses the product addicted.
  4. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,823
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +850
    If the company went out of their way to make their product more addictive and they kept it a secret, seems pretty clear to me that the company exposed itself to massive liability. If it wasn't any big deal, then why did they go through such lengths to keep their customers from finding out about it?
  5. philobeddoe
    Offline

    philobeddoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    7,031
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +617
  6. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,197
    Likes Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +724
    No doubt. Our civil judgements that our legal system produces is much like what our medical billing system looks like at times...

    Outrageous numbers that are reduced to reasonable ones.

    That said I am not sure I see any reason in this case for any civil liability. We are not talking about a defective product. The product executed its purpose. The user probably received the stress relief and enjoyment of smoking but they were not able to control their desire to the point they harmed themselves.

    I use to drink 4 cokes a day and still love coke. But I now drink one or two a week. It was hard to get down to that and the craving comes back sometimes when I have one to keep going. That is where self determination and personal decisions come in. I know I will not keep my weight down if I chug 4 cokes a day. So I fight the temptation.

    As mentioned. You can stop smoking if you are willing!
  7. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,197
    Likes Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +724
    That is a fair question. I don't know why. Our legal friends who work in corporate law probably could provide some insight into why.

    My guess is because a lawyer was able to set precedent that somehow a company should be liable for a person lacking self control?
  8. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,173
    Likes Received:
    620
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,451
    Because if you let evidence that you knowingly set out to make a product more dangerous get out, you're setting yourself up for major liability problems.

    And that's not just cigarettes, take any other inherently dangerous product and the same principle applies. Everyone knows that there are inherent risks to skydiving, but if I do something that I know makes my particular skydiving establishment more risky for the sake of profit, then hide from everyone that I'm doing it, I'm going to expose myself to liability - partly because while by knowingly participating in a dangerous activity you're assuming the risk, you can't knowingly assume a risk that you didn't know existed to start with.

    The fact that something is inherently dangerous on its own and you assumed the risks of doing it doesn't mean that you also voluntarily assumed the additional risk that comes from the manufacturer secretly making it even more dangerous - you couldn't have because you didn't know you were even taking that additional secret risk.
  9. UFLAW81
    Offline

    UFLAW81 All Glory to Zarathustra VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2009
    Messages:
    4,194
    Likes Received:
    919
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Trampa
    Ratings Received:
    +3,738
    These cases are abound with proof that the victims tried to quit smoking but could not.
    Unknown to them, the drug they were trying to kick was enhanced with toxins to make it more difficult to stop.
    Then, when asked if this were true, the tobacco people lied under oath, they knew what they were doing and why.
    If they had come clean, then I doubt there would have been any punitive damages.
    But then again, I suppose many of you are hateful of lawyers and juries because you have once too often been caught in a lie.
  10. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,197
    Likes Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +724
    Nope. Just want people to accept responsibility for their actions...

    That is what this is about imo. I have no doubt some would struggle to quit. But that is on them.

    Shoot I am sure some know the consequences and end up with disease from them but would not change a thing because the cigarette was a stress relaxer for them...
  11. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,197
    Likes Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +724
    Are we going to start awarding $23 billion to the estate of the alcoholic (addicted to alcohol) who dies of liver disease?
  12. demosthenes
    Offline

    demosthenes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,477
    Likes Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Ratings Received:
    +1,244
    I don't know. Did Jack Daniels or Johnnie Walker intentionally add chemicals to make their whiskey more addictive and then lie about it?
    • Boring Boring x 2
  13. beanfield
    Offline

    beanfield Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    895
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +232
    count on it....
  14. lacuna
    Offline

    lacuna Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    9,073
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Gainesville
    Ratings Received:
    +842
    Your denigrative supposition comes across as spiteful and projects smug contempt for those who disagree with you, Law81. Was that your intent?
  15. demosthenes
    Offline

    demosthenes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,477
    Likes Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Ratings Received:
    +1,244
    I'm going to assume that was a typo.

    I think I could take posts from any thread on this board and say the same thing about the poster whether they be Republican, Democrat, Doctor, Lawyer, Engineer, unemployed, or Martian. Damn those Martians.
  16. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,289
    I think most people have no objection to the Tobacco companies being sued. But awarding one "victim" $23 billion, while awarding hundreds of thousands of other victims nothing is absurd. Especially considering the fact that he started smoking after 1965 and ignored all the warnings. I wouldn't award more than $1 million to the widow. That would give 22,999 other people a chance to sue Big Tobacco and get their million.

    Obviously, the lawyers asked for $23 billion so that when the judge decided the final amount, he would have to think down from $23 billion, and not down from $2.3 million, or some other more reasonable number. If the judge knocks the award down 90%, the legal firm can still walk away with a billion dollars. If I were the judge, I would take it right down to a million dollars, and tell those self-important lawyers they need to work harder for their money. (Actually, I would have found them in contempt of court for asking for such an unreasonable amount, but that's probably one reason I'm not a judge.)
    • Useful Useful x 1
  17. squigator
    Offline

    squigator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,464
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +248
    Aren't the distillation & fermentation processes an intentional introduction of a chemical?
  18. demosthenes
    Offline

    demosthenes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,477
    Likes Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Ratings Received:
    +1,244
    Actually, I believe the lawyer did not ask for $23 billion or anything close to that, the jury did that of their own accord. There would be no point for a plaintiff to request that much as it will be reduced in a proportionate amount relative to the damages.

    I don't disagree with spreading the punitive damages but there's no guarantee enough claimants will come forward to curtail the defendant's actions, and punitive damages in class action suits are difficult.
  19. demosthenes
    Offline

    demosthenes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,477
    Likes Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Ratings Received:
    +1,244
    That's a stretch. Alcohol is the product. It's not an added chemical to induce addiction, covered up, and then lied about.
  20. texigator
    Online

    texigator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,016
    Likes Received:
    156
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Criminole, Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +498

    Don't make me get my pimp hand out, biatch.

    I don't care about the context of the quote in Henry VI, it is the RESULT that would benefit the world. Lawyers are the problem with Congress today, lawyers are the problem with State Government today, lawyers are one of the main problems with the cost of health insurance today, etc, etc, etc.

    Get over yourself. I'll compare IQs with you any day. Your classic lawyer arrogance is showing and it's laughable.

Share This Page