RJ Reynolds told to pay wife of cancer victim $23.6bn

[4me2]

RJ Reynolds told to pay wife of cancer victim $23.6bn



Ms Robinson argued that RJ Reynolds was negligent in informing consumers of the dangers of consuming tobacco.





A US court has ordered the country's second largest cigarette company to pay $23.6 billion (£13.8bn) to the wife of a smoker who died of lung cancer.

RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company was hit with the punitive fine in addition to $16.8m (£9.8m) in compensatory damages.
Cynthia Robinson took action against the firm in 2008, seeking compensation for her husband's death in 1996.
A company official said the verdict was ``grossly excessive and impermissible under state and constitutional law.''
During the four-week trial, lawyers for Ms Robinson argued that RJ Reynolds was negligent in informing consumers of the dangers of consuming tobacco.
This negligence, the lawyers said, led to her husband Michael Johnson Sr contracting lung cancer from smoking after becoming "addicted" and failing multiple attempts to quit.

'A message for tobacco firms'

"RJ Reynolds took a calculated risk by manufacturing cigarettes and selling them to consumers without properly informing them of the hazards," Ms Robinson's lawyer Willie Gary said.
"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," he added.
RJ Reynolds plans to appeal against the court's decision, vice president and assistant general counsel Jeffery Raborn said in a statement.
"This verdict goes far beyond the realm of reasonableness and fairness, and is completely inconsistent with the evidence presented," he 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 punitive damages awarded to Ms Robinson were said to be the largest of any individual case stemming from a class action lawsuit filed in Florida.
Several similar cases have resulted in smaller payouts after the state's highest court ruled that smokers and their families only had to prove addiction and that smoking caused their illness.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28389273

[Realist]

So with respects would I then claim against Ford etc for not informing me of the risk of driving where it could kill me or have killed others...... I don't think so.

We all have a choice in life to do what ever we wish and its up to us all to decide out lives.

Crazy payout.

[B.I.G.]

So with respects would I then claim against Ford etc for not informing me of the risk of driving where it could kill me or have killed others...... I don't think so.

We all have a choice in life to do what ever we wish and its up to us all to decide out lives.

Crazy payout.

I think it would be more akin to milk being addictive and once you were addicted they told you it could kill you in which case you could sue the dairy. Using driving as an example is like using skydiving as an example it's pretty obvious that it could kill you anyway.

[Jokah]

Unless you've been living under a rock for the last 50 years it's pretty obvious smoking can kill you.

[Zippeyrude]

well actually many years ago it was sold with curing properties

[B.I.G.]

Unless you've been living under a rock for the last 50 years it's pretty obvious smoking can kill you.

I agree nobody who smokes nowadays should be able to claim ignorance. I've only just read up that this fella was only 36 when he died so he was well inside the range when all the warnings started coming about. I had a picture in my mind of him being a really old fella.

In a way I kind of think fuck the tobacco firms they are quite content to sell cigarettes (and the governments quite prepared to let them sell them) even though they are quite aware they are poisoning people with an addictive drug regardless as to whether or not it's a persons choice to take the gamble of smoking.

It all comes down to lining rich peoples pockets at the end of the day or cigarettes would have been outlawed years ago and if they had weaned people off them once they knew the health implications or just said if people who already smoke want to carry on then they can but they should have made tobacco inaccessible to new smokers then we would have very few smokers nowadays and eventually there would be no smokers left.

The reason they never is purely financial they thought "fuck people" back then so now in return fuck them and the billions they've made.

[{{909}}]

its not really a case of the tobacco companies being happy to sell a dangerous product, no business man is going to cut his own throat and end 1000s of workers jobs becasue he feels he has some moral obligation to stop selling a damaging (but legal) product. The blame should lie directly on the consumer unless there are some extremely unusual conditions.

As a non smoker, I don't really think smoking should be outlawed, sure it has health issues but so does many of the foods we eat and the activities we chose to take part in. We should have a choice but as the bitch who won the lawsuit probably said a million times, we should be able to make a decision based on fact.

[ViSaGe]

What happens over the pond usually happens over here a few years later, so kick back, light up those capstan no tips and start getting lung cancer, die..... then Ker.Ching!

hang on, not thought this through........Get your other half to light up those capstan no tips...........


Ring ring....."Hello, is that 'No Win, No Fee' "

seriously though WTF, worlds going/gone MENTAL !!!!

[g_wizkid]

If one person wins this it will open the doors for many more claims and pretty soon all
everybody will be claiming and wining billions. If they pay up I'm pretty sure all tobacco companies will be bankrupt in no time.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD