http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/20/scotus.tobacco/index.html
Discuss.
So you guys honestly think this was the wrong ruling? $89 million in punitive for a guy who smoked 3 packs a day for 40 years?
5-4 split…gee i wonder how that played out?
$50 says roberts, scalia, scalia jr., thomas, and kennedy
with breyer, souter, ginsberg, and stevens dissenting
least it’ll help my altria stock.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the opinion, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter joining.
Dissenting were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas.
:tup: to Bush’s two appointments.
wow, mixed court, I’m surprised. Like really surprised. Those are two unusual groups there. i’m disappointed in breyer and souter.
punitive damages are supposed to punish the defendant and discourage them from taking the wrongful actions.
The case found that philip morris was clearly in the wrong, regardless of your personal opinions of it. How is $800,000 supposed to discourage them from doing anything when you’re talking about a company that sells that much in an hour? I’ll let the other Joe field this one cause it’s his area, but :tdown:
A quote from the msnbc.com article:
Williams, according to his widow, never gave any credence to the surgeon general’s health warnings about smoking cigarettes because tobacco companies insisted they were safe. Only after falling sick did Williams tell his wife: “Those darn cigarette people finally did it. They were lying all the time.”
Shouldn’t common sense play in here. Has smoke and tobacco ever been proven healthy? Hammering my hands until it bleeds is not healthy, but if I do it, I’m not going to sue craftsman for not warning me not to do it. :banghead:
They didn’t really rule in favor of Philip Morris so much as against a group of people looking for a big payday.
As much as I think big tobacco is a fucked up and evil industry, I agree with this decision. The guy who died chose to smoke for 47 years, or at least chose to start and not quit.
Politics aside, this was an interesting point I read.
The decision doesn’t reach whether the punitive damages award is actually excessive. Rather, it remands in light of the Court’s clarified position that punitive damages, while permissible to punish “reprehensible” conduct, cannot “punish for harm caused [to]strangers” to the litigation. The Court thus draws a procedural rather than a substantive line, focusing on jury instructions, which may limit the reach of the BMW-Campbell-Williams cases over the long run.
I agree with camarojoe though. The only people who should have any right to sue are people who smoked when smoking was marketed as healthy. If they continued to smoke once it was common knowledge that smoking caused cancer, they shouldn’t be entitled to anything.
I don’t understand how someone can sue and expect to win for doing something that is bad for your heath and well being. It’s written right there on the fucking box what the effects can lead to.
[quote=“Marcus,post:11,topic:24830"”]
I don’t understand how someone can sue and expect to win for doing something that is bad for your heath and well being. It’s written right there on the fucking box what the effects can lead to.
[/quote]
because somebody sued to get them to put that on the box. if it was up to the cigarette companies, they’d say they had vitamin c in them and stuff.
[quote=“Marcus,post:11,topic:24830"”]
I don’t understand how someone can sue and expect to win for doing something that is bad for your heath and well being. It’s written right there on the fucking box what the effects can lead to.
[/quote]
yeah but i dont think 40 years ago that shit was written on the side of the box.
[quote=“JayS,post:4,topic:24830"”]
So you guys honestly think this was the wrong ruling? $89 million in punitive for a guy who smoked 3 packs a day for 40 years?
[/quote]
kind of shot himself in the foot, he deserves no money
[quote=“j_espo1,post:13,topic:24830"”]
yeah but i dont think 40 years ago that shit was written on the side of the box.
[/quote]
did they know there were problems with smoking back then? (not being a dick just actually curious)
the real question is, why is intelligence lacking in the highest judiciary positions in the country to the extent that any of them would reward for damages in situations like this?
i hate smoking and don’t understand the addiction. but too fucking bad if you do it. to quote a famous musician: use your head, don’t be a retard.
They knew 40 years ago that smoking was bad but, the sponsors of TV and radio were cigarette companies so it didn’t get the press it gets today.
The guy died of lung cancer in 1997.
They were putting the warnings ON THE PACKS in 1970, and probably before that (I believe 1966). I know 1970 though, because I found this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Newport-1970s-Complimentary-Cigarette-Pack_W0QQitemZ230091985624QQihZ013QQcategoryZ44QQcmdZViewItem
People are dumb. That is all.
OK, not quite.
-
If you are dumb enough to do something that you know is probably going to kill you, as has been illustrated THOUSANDS of times before in living color for you to watch, YOU ARE RETARDED.
-
If you are then dumb enough to then try and sue somebody else over your own fucking stupidity, you are so far beyond retarded that you should probably be put down anyway, for the sake of the rest of us.
[quote=“ILCisDEAD,post:14,topic:24830"”]
did they know there were problems with smoking back then? (not being a dick just actually curious)
[/quote]
i dont think so. i think it really wasnt generall knowledge until sometime in the late 70’s early 80’s. someone correct me if im wrong please.
[quote=“JayS,post:17,topic:24830"”]
The guy died of lung cancer in 1997.
They were putting the warnings ON THE PACKS in 1970, and probably before that (I believe 1966). I know 1970 though, because I found this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Newport-1970s-Complimentary-Cigarette-Pack_W0QQitemZ230091985624QQihZ013QQcategoryZ44QQcmdZViewItem
[/quote]
how do you know that is a real pack from the 70’s though?