POLL : Is $28 billion too large an award ...

[Jolie Rouge]

Is $28 billion too large an award in the Philip Morris cancer case?

Yes, it's way too high. 78%

No, tobacco causes cancer. 22%

[flute]

I don't understand the case so i can't say

[MistyWolf]

I am an ex-smoker and yes I do think it is too high of an award. We all know the risks of smoking and yet we still do it. It is the same as suing a fast food place for making us fat!

[chort1313]

I kind of agree with Misty, but I would have to know all the facts first.

[mesue]

No it is not too big an award, if anyone saw the movie The Insider Russell Crowe stars in it then you would be aware it is not enough.

[chort1313]

Originally posted by mesue
No it is not too big an award, if anyone saw the movie The Insider Russell Crowe stars in it then you would be aware it is not enough. Yep, and I still haven't seen it. Must watch it!!!!!

[moocher]

I haven't seen the movie, but I have read about the case. I'm a smoker-yes I know it's bad for me. My grandfather was a smoker-non-filter camels for 48 years-yes he died because he choose to smoke. My mom was a smoker-she died from IPF, A lung disease that is not caused by smoking-but smoking certainly doesn't help it-and no, she didn't quit. By the time we found out what was wrong, she had 9 months to live-at that point you really may as well do what you want to do. I have a syndrome that is not caused by smoking, but they believe that continuing to smoke can increase my pain levels. I limit what I smoke-sounds odd, but I smoke 1/2 a pack a day and have for 17 years.

All of those mentioned above made the choice to smoke on their own. Maybe my grandfather didn't know about the health risks when he started smoking-but eventually he did learn of them and made the choice to continue to smoke, as did the rest of us.

I'm begining to wonder why we even have laws anymore........it's quiet apparent that no one in this country is actually responsible for what they choose to do-no matter how old they are when they do it.

Rack it all up to "the devil made me do it"......hhhmmmmmm....wonder if we could get him in court to answer a few things??

[nanajoanie]

I don't think you should be able to sue a tobacco company. They are making and selling a "legal" product. No one holds a gun to your head and forces you to smoke that first one. I smoked for 43 years. I just quit a little over a year ago by tapering off and smoking lighter and lighter brands.

But hubby smokes like a chimney and has for over 60 years, he started before he was a teenager. He has severe emphysema and now diagnosed with lung cancer. The lung and cancer doctors both said by quiting smoking will only prolong his life by a few minutes, maybe an hour. No one "made" him smoke either.

All we can do is try to keep the young people from trying that first puff. We must teach them to stand up and take charge of their own lives in front of their peers. NO needs to be their best friend!!!!!!

OK, I'm off my soapbox. Hope I didn't offend anyone.

[chort1313]

Philip Morris loses $28B suit

California jury orders No. 1 cigarette maker to pay record punitive damages.
October 4, 2002: 4:13 PM EDT



NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Philip Morris Cos., the No. 1 cigarette maker, was ordered Friday to pay a record $28 billion to a 64-year-old woman with lung cancer who blamed her tobacco addiction on the company's failure to warn her of the risks of smoking.

Philip Morris vowed to appeal after a Los Angeles jury awarded Betty Bullock of Newport Beach, Calif., what the company said was the largest single judgment against it.

Higher before the news, shares of Philip Morris (MO: Research, Estimates) tumbled more than 7 percent Friday. The $28 billion would amount to 38 percent of the company's $72.9 billion in revenue last year.


"I think it will be reduced; $28 billion is a bit much," said Mary Aronson, a tobacco analyst at Aronson Washington Research. Still, Aronson suspects the award may encourage suits beyond California, where juries have appeared more willing to favor plaintiffs in tobacco cases.

"The industry keeps saying that this is a West Coast phenomenon," Aronson said. "I don't think we know it's just the West Coast. I think this industry has some rocky roads ahead."

Philip Morris is no stranger to smoking-related legal fights. In September, Bullock won $850,000 in compensatory damages. Friday's award was intended to punish the company.

Before this, in a separate case, Philip Morris faced a $3 billion punitive judgment, which was later reduced to $100 million.

Bullock started smoking at age 17 and was diagnosed last year with lung cancer that since has spread to her liver, the Associated Press reported.

During Bullock's trial, Philip Morris did not try to defend its past actions. Instead, the company turned the spotlight on Bullock and her decision to smoke. The strategy was a major shift from previous defense efforts.

"If she had stopped smoking ... even in the 1980s, she would not have lung cancer today," Peter Bleakley, the attorney representing Philip Morris, told jurors at the start of the trial in August.

Bullock's lawyer, Michael Piuze, argued that Philip Morris concealed the dangers of cigarettes with a widespread misinformation campaign that began in the 1950s.


William Ohlemeyer, a lawyer for New York-based Philip Morris, told CNNfn's The Money Gang that he is confident an appeals court will reverse the damages.

"This is another example of the jury ignoring the law and doing what they are not supposed to do," Ohlemeyer said.

Philip Morris said the jury's punitive damage award was nearly 33,000 times greater than its compensatory damage award, "well in excess of the four-to-one ratio the U.S. Supreme Court has suggested approaches the constitutional limit of such awards."

The company said that Bullock's testimony showed that she was aware of the health risks of smoking and was warned repeatedly of those risks by her doctors over four decades.

The jury award comes two weeks after Philip Morris slashed its 2002 profit forecast, saying it expects earnings-per-share growth of as little 3 percent this year because of sluggish sales and higher spending on promotions.

Philip Morris said that if the verdict is not set aside, the company will ask the court to reduce the amount of punitive damages awarded.

If the request for a new trial is denied, the company intends to appeal to the California Court of Appeals.

Stock losses spread to Philip Morris rival R.J. Reynolds (RJR: down $3.36 to $35.10, Research, Estimates), which sank nearly 9 percent.

"At this point, it's really open season on the industry," Richard Daynard, a law professor at Northeastern University in Boston and chairman of the Tobacco Products Liability Project, told the Associated Press.

"Juries all around the country are sending a message that this conduct was not only totally inexcusable but that it was so outrageous, there is no amount of money that would be enough to punish the people who perpetrated it."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are my thoughts.. In the beginning the cig companies DID have ads out there WITHOUT warnings. What about the people who have lung cancer from second hand smoke? The spouses whose others halfs smoked two packs a day and they were the ones who ended up from cancer--never smoking.....People knew later on that smoking caused cancer, but not in the EARLY beginning. I think that cig companies SHOULD be held responsible for lieing to the public in the beginning. But now there are all kinds of cases popping up... So where do we cut that fine line? Is 28 billion a small price to pay (I'm sure it'll but cut down significantly.) or not enough to pay? Or they could never pay for their actions in the beginning. I'm torn.


I know that my grandpa smoked a pack/day from when he was 15-45 and he lived another 30 years after that, but died from LUNG cancer and pneumonia.

I have an ocassional cigarette. At the most 5/week. I know the warnings and what could happen. It's my choice whether to smoke or not.
--

[CanadianBoy]

Originally posted by MistyWolf
I am an ex-smoker and yes I do think it is too high of an award. We all know the risks of smoking and yet we still do it. It is the same as suing a fast food place for making us fat!

Well said MistyWolf!!! :):D:p

[adair]

no one held a gun to that person's head and forced her to smoke that first cigarette.......or any other cigarettes.

The lawsuits are getting absolutely ridiculous (ie. suing McD's because the coffee was too hot and trying to pull the top off to add sugar/creamer while vehicle was in motion and hence was scalded[pardon me but I expect my coffee to be hot], or a person is too fat because he has an "addiction" to french fries). What makes it even worse is that these people will not see the majority of the monies they have been awarded by the court...their lawyer will take a huge chunk out of it for their legal services! These law suits, and the people involved in them, just show how greedy some have become.

Sort of makes that old adage "Money is the root of all evil, and I am still rooting" all the more true!

[cSoReNSoN]

I find it funny that one can sue a company for causing one's illiness when one could have easily prevented this to begin with. While Philip Morris does purposely make their product more addiciting it is still the individual's choice whether or not to use this product. One knows when one picks up a cigarette that it is unhealthy and can lead to serious health problems. As others have stated it is like blaming McDonalds because one has become overweight. Just as one was not forced to consume Big Mac after Big Mac, one was not forced to put that cigarette in one's mouth and light it up.

[adair]

gee..........just thought about it.........maybe we all should start a class action suit against Al Gore and the other creators of the internet, Bill Gates, AOL, MSN, etc..........I am ADDICTED, how 'bout you????

[schsa]

It will get overturned. Those warning have been on the sides of cigarette packs since the 60's. That gives most people about 40 years to quit. This might be the first decision but by the time it goes through with all of the appeals she will be lucky if she gets anything.

People have to be responsible for their own lives. If you sit back and blame everyone else then you can spend your life never being responsible for anything that you do. We all know and have known for a very long time that cigarettes cause lung cancer. We know that drinking excessive amounts of alcohol will lead to liver damage. Speng your life eating sugar and starches and fats and you will probably end up diabetic and with heart problems from high cholesterol.

At some point you have to say that you smoke because you enjoy it. You smoke because you get something from it. And you can stop if you are willing to make the conviction and stick to it. It might take a few tries but if you want to, you can. If I want to control my diabetes I need to drastically change my diet. And since I don't want to die of the complications of diabetes, I have changed my diet.

Common sense. Take responsibility for your actions.

[moocher]

Originally posted by adair
gee..........just thought about it.........maybe we all should start a class action suit against Al Gore and the other creators of the internet, Bill Gates, AOL, MSN, etc..........I am ADDICTED, how 'bout you????

LMBO adair!!!

And they thought they were on easy street with all their money! Here we come!

[lilmeanie43]

Originally posted by mesue
No it is not too big an award, if anyone saw the movie The Insider Russell Crowe stars in it then you would be aware it is not enough.


I saw the movie... it was a great movie... but I will never agree that there ever should have been any kind of lawsuit... much less any sort of settlement... I am a smoker, I am fully aware of the consequences... it is way too much for me to sue, it's just rediculous. Yes, I realize smoking is an addiction, I have no will power to quit... but I knew the consequences when I first started and COULD quit too... so yes, it's WAY too much.

[stresseater]

I think they shouldn't have to pay this. What should happen is they should have to pay for the medications to help people who want to quit . This helps the people who are addicted and it allows the company to make up for helping to addict them in the first place.(by making the tobacco more potent and for bad marketing practices.)
I know the settlement the states got in the big trial here in Oklahoma went mostly to the rainy day fund and to the roads. So much for medical help for the smokers which is what part of it was suppose to go to.

[Danny]

Yes - it is way too much to award

BUT..... If you want to award it to me - it is just perfect!!! And I never smoked - but the amount will fit into my checking acount just right.

[mesue]

These are excerpts from the article someone else published thanks below that you will find my opinion and as an ex smoker and the daughter who watched her father die of emphysema this is the cold hard truth as I see it and most of you will not like it and the truth is I struggled with my decision to smoke for years but the hardest part was to recognize that in many ways I was responsible but even more difficult was the realization that I was influenced in many ways, that still does not take away my responsibility but if I am willing to accept responsibility for my actions why should I let others including cigarette comapnies off the hook for theirs!

During Bullock's trial, Philip Morris did not try to defend its past actions. Instead, the company turned the spotlight on Bullock and her decision to smoke. The strategy was a major shift from previous defense efforts.

"If she had stopped smoking ... even in the 1980s, she would not have lung cancer today," Peter Bleakley, the attorney representing Philip Morris, told jurors at the start of the trial in August.

Bullock's lawyer, Michael Piuze, argued that Philip Morris concealed the dangers of cigarettes with a widespread misinformation campaign that began in the 1950s.


""At this point, it's really open season on the industry," Richard Daynard, a law professor at Northeastern University in Boston and chairman of the Tobacco Products Liability Project, told the Associated Press.

"Juries all around the country are sending a message that this conduct was not only totally inexcusable but that it was so outrageous, there is no amount of money that would be enough to punish the people who perpetrated it."
__________________________________________________ ____________________
Well as usual everyone (all smokers) are willing to take the full amount of blame for their actions but if you read above you will see that Philip Morris is not willing to do so, no they were perfectly happy to blame it all on the smoker and did not even try to defend themselves for their widespread misrepresentation campaign that began in the 1950's. Why one wonders did they not try and defend themselves on this issue? Why do you think there are multimillion dollar advertising agencies pulling in big bucks, could it be that advertising really works. Yes we all made the choice at one time or another to smoke but the cold hard truth is in some form or another we were all influenced and heres the cold hard truth and that is simply put if you the smoker always takes the blame for your actions and swear up and down that no one influenced you in any way then you can continue to deny the fact that you were influenced and not feel as though you were duped, you can swear everytime that you put that cigarette in your mouth and suck a puff of cancer into your lungs its all because you really want to, you like cancer, you want to feel it eating away at your lungs and fight for breath so that you can have that precious drag of cancer hitting your lungs you can't wait to drag an oxygen tank around with you, you can't wait to see your children standing at the foot of your bed and watch you gasp for breath while you lay dying from some smoking related illness, of course lots of kids of smokers, smoke themselves so some may not be right there they may be outside on a smoke break, thats why you smoke its not because you are addicted you can quit any time can't you of course you can all those extra chemicals in those cigarettes that make it even more difficult to quit they don't affect you in the least, what a waste for those poor cigarette companies, who were aware of the danger long before anyone else, who spent all that extra money on research to make their cigarettes even more addictive and thus more difficult for the smoker to quit, they should ask for their money back.