Posted on 07/19/2014 11:24:15 PM PDT by Innovative
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.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
I used to smoke also. Of course I had no idea it was bad for my health. I need compensation.
I’m 63 and have know about the dangers of smoking since at least the time I was in high school. Mr. Robinson was an adult who had free will and decided to smoke cigarettes. No one is responsible for the consequences except him, and now he’d dead.
I cannot image were the numbers of $7.3 million and $9.6 million in “actual” damages could have come from.
The bottom line here is that RJR will successfully appeal and have punitive damages redlined to pocket change.
I love FL. Just pick your location carefully. Enjoy!
are you an idiot?
Well, I read the German study that quantified the chemicals.
Think about it. It makes sense. It’s putting that stuff into vapor form. And e-smokers breathe it out just like smoke. Which means bystanders are inhaling second hand e-vapors. Are they safe? Don’t know. I don’t know what’s in the e-vapors. I doubt most e-smokers know or care.
Nobody has studied what happens when you inhale these chemicals long term. So nobody should assume that they are safe.
Then you say nobody knows if it's safe.
If nobody knows if it's safe then how can they know it's not safe, and why would you repeat it if you already knew they can't possibly know that?
Just trying to understand your thought process. You cite a cigarette smoking story as the reason that drugs should be illegal because they hurt more than just the user. Seems logical that you would want cigarettes to be illegal too.
If you don’t know it’s safe, then there is risk and it’s not safe. You need to remove logic from your name.
I'll leave it right where it is, while pointing out that "There is a risk that it's not safe." is not the same as "It's not safe."
Fear mongers trying to convince people it's the government's job to provide us with a risk-free utopia is part of the reason we're in the shape we are now.
i am just pointing out that in a cig story they discuss how cigs hurt others. and for everyone that takes the assinine libertarian view on legalizing anything b/c it “doesn’t hurt others” is incredibly naive at best, and at worst, a total liar. nobody lives in a vacuum. they affect others that care about them with personal damaging/destructive behavior. it’s not only themselves they are hurting. “hurt” is bigger than just personal physical hurt.
the point was destroying the libertarian view of its okay’if it doesn’t hurt anyone else, view. towards legalizing addictive drugs, in particular.
don’t read in what is not written, that is you assuming and projecting.
A lot of times it’s people who are obnoxious. For example: People who don’t care that other people are having to breathe their smoke or their e-vapors that results in excess regulation.
Besides, reread the thread.
Jonty claimed that e-cigs were perfectly harmless. That’s the context where I quoted the FDA saying it’s not.
Fear mongers trying to convince us that all safety regulations are government overreach are usually the people impinging on other’s rights to clean air.
Can you show me an instance of someone actually saying that all safety regulations are government overreach?
Not assuming or projecting, just wondering if you were intellectually consistent on the subject. Hence the question: should cigarettes be illegal?
You implied it with your fear mongering statement.
They call that "Appeals to authority."
Yes they do. In this case, I'm quoting an authority, the FDA, to combat the frivolous claim that e-cigs are "perfectly harmless". And I've also referred to the German study that said they release a cocktail of chemicals into the air. That's also an appeal to authority in the form of a scientific study.
My appeal to authority beats your Alinsky tactic of labeling your opposition as "fearmongering" hands down.
Yes they do. In this case, I'm quoting an authority, the FDA, to combat the frivolous claim that e-cigs are "perfectly harmless". And I've also referred to the German study that said they release a cocktail of chemicals into the air. That's also an appeal to authority in the form of a scientific study.
My appeal to authority beats your Alinsky tactic of labeling your opposition as "fearmongering" hands down.
According to who?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.