Let's discuss

[bullygirl979]

Widow is awarded 23 billion after her 36 year old husband dies of lung cancer from smoking. Widow claims tobacco company didn't adequately warn that cigarettes are addictive and can kill you. 


www.cnn.com/2014/07/19/us/florida-tobacco-verdict/

Should she have been awarded the money? Or is are people trying to get away from accepting consequences for their actions? 

[Muddled]

I have been told, though I am not certain what is correct, that this was actually a class action suit and she will not be getting all the money. I imagine the company will appeal the decision anyhow.

[turtle1120]

I think it's ridiculous. Everyone knows smoking is bad for you and people need to take responsibility for their own bad decisions.

[bullygirl979]

Muddled, they are appealing it. I find this settlement interesting because maybe they didn't have warning labels 35 years ago, I feel like they were pretty prevelant 25 years ago.

[motzie]

I thought it was a class action suit that a judge broke up to single plaintiffs? Maybe I read that wrong.

She will never see that money. It will be wayyyyy reduced on appeal. While I think the tobacco industry is shady and terrible, i don't know how someone can say at 36 they didn't know it would kill you. You are a dumbass if you don't know that.

[bullygirl979]

Jul 21, 2014 13:51:13 GMT -5 motzie said:

I thought it was a class action suit that a judge broke up to single plaintiffs? Maybe I read that wrong.

She will never see that money. It will be wayyyyy reduced on appeal. While I think the tobacco industry is shady and terrible, i don't know how someone can say at 36 they didn't know it would kill you. You are a dumbass if you don't know that.

This is where I'm at as well. Granted, he died almost 10 years ago and started smoking at age 13 when I doubt warning labels were big. But in the 1990's and on, they were big on smoking cessation and the dangers of cigarettes. 

[margarita]

Everyone knows that smoking is bad for you. How could you not have known that, even back then?
I feel for her, but no, I'm not seeing why she should be rewarded that amount of money.

[gault]

Projecting sadness and irrational anger onto a legal battle that is stupid and obtuse.

[captainmel]

Bad news ladies. Actions have consequences.

She should not get a dime of that money.

[Deleted]

This seems ridiculous. I can sort of see it back in the day when doctors were promoting smoking ( I think I saw that on MadMen). But come on!

[motzie]

If the argument were different, I would feel differently. I just don't see how you can say you didn't know. At the same time, fuck the cigarette companies and I hope the settlement hurts, whatever it ends up being.

[Muddled]

Jul 21, 2014 13:46:34 GMT -5 bullygirl979 said:

Muddled, they are appealing it. I find this settlement interesting because maybe they didn't have warning labels 35 years ago, I feel like they were pretty prevelant 25 years ago.

I agree. The knowledge was out there. The award was so large, not because anyone thinks one person deserves it, but because the jury must feel that the award needs to be high enough that the plaintiff feels it. The argument must have been sound.


***This is my opinion.

***She must have a damn good lawyer.

[Deleted]

I thnink she can win another lawsuit. Sue the school her DH went to because they obviously didn't teach him to read. Those cigarette packs have a warning right on them!

[turtle1120]

Maybe he should also sue his doctor? You know, since obviously at some point in his life he went to the doctor and they always ask whether or not you smoke. He must of told his doctor yes, and obviously his doctor never told him it was bad for him either

[esdreturns]

My H is 37 and started smoking really early, I want to say like 15ish. Luckily he's been smoke free for about 4 years now but he absolutely knew when he started that it was very bad for you. That information was out there at that point.