RJ Reynolds ordered to pay Robinson $25 billion

Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
2,800
Location
Indiana
$26 Billion. That's so much $$$$$, I wish my Dad would have died of lung cancer from smoking cigarettes. Or better yet, I'm willing to die of cancer if my son got this money. Geeeez!! [censored] is happening to our society.....It's sad really.
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2010
Messages
488
Location
Detroit, Michigan
Originally Posted By: Turk
$25 Billion for "1" Life?? If that's the case, OMG, there's not enough money in the World!!
Personally I feel life is priceless. Perhaps we should pro-rate life based upon age, sex, IQ, athletic performance, ASVAB scores, SAT, ACT...
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2003
Messages
36,927
Location
ME
RJR had an operating income (profit) of $482 million 1st quarter 2014 and $758 million a year ago. So figure they make $2 billion a year. This is 13 years of profits. Corporations are people too. OJ Simpson has to pay $25 million for a wrongful death lawsuit which could take him years if not a lifetime to make. There are plenty of folks whose lives were ruined by lawsuits (and lung cancer) yet these executives can leave the boardroom and go home to happy lives. Arguments in the case probably involved -- that it's not 100% tobacco in the cigs, they add "something else" on purpose to make it more effective, addictive, or unhealthy -- they knew about it. -- they lied about it. -- they didn't disclose it. The board figured if they got sued for doing it, they'd pay out less than the profits they'd lose by making more natural cigs, or lying less, or whatever sin they're guilty of. Ford did this with Pinto gas tanks and flopped.
 

MolaKule

Staff member
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
22,362
Location
Iowegia - USA
Originally Posted By: niero
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: tstep
Change RJ for McDonalds, Burger King, Kraft Foods, etc Change cigarette for transfat Change RJ for Monsanto Change cigarette for chemical of choice sprayed on crops we eat
Please study some chemistry before making uneducated statements. Could you clarify what you mean? I'm not following. Do you mean, cigarettes are more, or less, harmful than trans fats, chemicals by Monsanto, etc.? How does a knowledge of chemistry inform your opinion of the lawsuit?
How about we use the scientific method to falsify or verify claims instead of emotions: http://chemistry-sets-review.toptenreviews.com/chemistry-sets-teaching-the-scientific-method.html Since you assume that you know what my response will be, I will assume you are simply repeating some anti-chemical dribble from a pamphlet doled out by a campus environmentalist group. No one is questioning the effects of smoking. What is in question is 1) why is there no personal responsibility considerations involved in these lawsuits (whether it be smoking or obesity), 2) what is it with the meaglawsuits and ridiculous court reawrds, 3) genetics never seem to be a part of the courts decisions. Here is a little research project for you. Determine why bedbug (Cimex lectularius) population and infestation is on the rise and how it relates to a chemical banned in 1972.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
3,434
Originally Posted By: eljefino
“This verdict goes far beyond the realm of reasonableness and fairness, and is completely inconsistent with the evidence presented,” Mr Raborn said. In other words, we didn't budget for this, but we're not sorry we make coffin nails. Our actuaries put a price on human life, and this ain't it.
How about reality. Just compensation would have been to extrapolate the expected earnings of the deceased and make the woman whole to fill the financial void she suffered at the hands of the evil corporation who forced her man to smoke. Same [censored] make me drink beer!! Unless you can show the man was unable to read, suffered from a mental development defect, then he knew at the very least smoking is not a healthy habit. I don't have the facts, but I will GUESS the man made less than 100k a year in his top earnings year of his life. Pay it out to his expected death based upon the average in the southeast region of the country, and that is what is due the wife. The jury did the wife no benefit by returning this incredulous verdict. Makes certain she will not see anything for many years to come. This was for headlines....and they got em, at the client's expense. There is a very big difference between winning a zillion dollar verdict, and collecting it! Don't get me wrong, I hate smoking and always have. I'm all for no smoking in restaurants and such but if a grown man wants to smoke, go to it it's his dime (or $12 a pack!!). Just do not agree with blaming the manufacturer when that same grown man voluntarily forks over his money for the smokes. I love my microbrews...there is no warning I can see in any of the breweries I frequent...and the cheese on my nachos doesn't come with a warning either. Betsy the cow, I'm coming for ya!!! YOU ARE TO BLAME!!! NOT ME!
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
6,254
Location
Atlanta,GA
Originally Posted By: Miller88
That's insane. Doesn't it tell you on the package that it is going to cause cancer? Shouldn't that be enough for those who choose to give themself cancer?
I believe the issue with this case revolved around whether RJR knew how addictive the product(cigarettes) was.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
3,434
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: niero
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: tstep
Change RJ for McDonalds, Burger King, Kraft Foods, etc Change cigarette for transfat Change RJ for Monsanto Change cigarette for chemical of choice sprayed on crops we eat
Please study some chemistry before making uneducated statements. Could you clarify what you mean? I'm not following. Do you mean, cigarettes are more, or less, harmful than trans fats, chemicals by Monsanto, etc.? How does a knowledge of chemistry inform your opinion of the lawsuit?
How about we use the scientific method to falsify or verify claims instead of emotions: http://chemistry-sets-review.toptenreviews.com/chemistry-sets-teaching-the-scientific-method.html Since you assume that you know what my response will be, I will assume you are simply repeating some anti-chemical dribble from a pamphlet doled out by a campus environmentalist group. No one is questioning the effects of smoking. What is in question is 1) why is there no personal responsibility considerations involved in these lawsuits (whether it be smoking or obesity), 2) what is it with the meaglawsuits and ridiculous court reawrds, 3) genetics never seem to be a part of the courts decisions. Here is a little research project for you. Determine why bedbug (Cimex lectularius) population and infestation is on the rise and how it relates to a chemical banned in 1972.
We had a serious issue of this in my department holding cells. All 16 were infested. 1 of the cops had to have her house rid of these guys after they came home with her boots. 4k later! AND we've had a great relationship with our exterminator for decades. He also stated there was a ban on a substance in the 70's that really made these things difficult to control. If you don't mind, I'd like to hear more.
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
11,196
Location
NY Capital District
I know the verdict won't stand (the award anyway) but to see a big company slapped with such an insane fine, I can't help but laugh. It's good to see large companies who abuse their customers finally get some thrown back at them.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2004
Messages
13,275
Location
Middlesex County CT
Quote:
What is in question is 1) why is there no personal responsibility considerations involved in these lawsuits
Are you referring to the consumers or producers of the product? As of 1994, tobacco companies testified in front of Congress, that 1) nicotine is not addictive 2) cigarettes "could" contribute to health issues, but they don't have any evidence that they do. This is 30+ years after the Surgeon General issued warnings.
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2003
Messages
36,927
Location
ME
Why are tobacco companies fighting so hard to keep ingredient labels off their product? Massachusetts tried to get a list back in 1997. We know about "pink slime" in mcnuggets because food comes under a different jurisdiction.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2011
Messages
1,262
Location
Cadyville, NY
Judgments, maximum and minimum, are regulated by law. The judgment is within the legal allowable amount. Tobacco companies have done this to themselves. By doing tons of "independent" and biased research to refute the health community's claims about smoking risks, by lobbying for their interests instead of accepting what is best for the health of the nation, by waiting for the government to make them admit the dangers of their products, by manipulating their products chemically to ensure more rapid absorption of nicotine in higher concentrations, these giant companies have screwed themselves. Tobacco companies are the poster child for why the free market must be regulated in order to provide for the public good. People can only be held accountable for their decisions if they are provided proper information to make those decisions.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
385
Location
PA
Do the pot products sold in Colorado carry any sort of warning label? Has Colorado petitioned the Surgeon General on advisement concerning warning labels on marijuana products that can possibly be consumed in the same manner, and may have similar adverse effects, as tobacco products? Do (or should) the growers, manufacturers, distributors, etc in the marywanna chain require waivers be signed that the consumer consumes at his/her own risk with full knowledge of all possible side effects regardless of the known facts (or interpretations) at this time? Without proper nanny labeling, will the good state of Colorado be a party to future lawsuits should the ultimate legal interpretation of the effect of maryjay on health be similar to tobacco?
 

MolaKule

Staff member
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
22,362
Location
Iowegia - USA
Excellent question. And how about the shootings, wife beatings, children mistreated, incarceration costs, and vehicle accidents that is caused by this stuff?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
3,730
Location
SE PA
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
A very outlandish award indeed. It will be revered on appeal, guaranteed.
Or reduced by a great deal. See Grimshaw v Ford for an example.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
3,434
We have a great number of bright people on this forum. Smoking equates to death and everyone knows it. This dude has plenty clamoring for his wife to reap an award that is akin to the lottery when that is merely not even close to making her whole for what she or her family lost with his passing. Under this premise, why aren't there a ton of lawsuits against any of the alcohol producers? Yes the tobacco companies lied and did a a lot of [censored] to sway things. No different than any car manufacturer. These guys got smart and pushed their product to foreign lands. Asia everyone smokes, kinda like when you watch MadMen series of shows. End of day, this is political and the winner is the firm who took it and in the end screwed their client so for eons they can say we hammered RJ and won a zillion verdict!
 
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
13,194
Location
Maricopa Arizona
Originally Posted By: BISCUT
We have a great number of bright people on this forum. Smoking equates to death and everyone knows it.
After birth all of us are doomed to death.
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2003
Messages
36,927
Location
ME
Originally Posted By: BISCUT
Under this premise, why aren't there a ton of lawsuits against any of the alcohol producers?
Do they put catalyzing chemicals in booze to make it soak into the stomach liner faster or more addicting or to make hangovers less unpleasant? I don't think so but if they did and were discovered that would be the "in" to sue. Jeez, they put shards of glass in snuff to cut your gums to make them more absorbent-- do they do that to liquor? Also there is a socially acceptable dosage for liquor that works for most of the population without ill effects. This is not true of tobacco. A very plausible defense is that the person abused/ overdosed the alcohol or used it in the wrong setting.
 

01rangerxl

Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
10,523
Location
Birmingham, AL
Originally Posted By: tstep
Do the pot products sold in Colorado carry any sort of warning label? Has Colorado petitioned the Surgeon General on advisement concerning warning labels on marijuana products that can possibly be consumed in the same manner, and may have similar adverse effects, as tobacco products? Do (or should) the growers, manufacturers, distributors, etc in the marywanna chain require waivers be signed that the consumer consumes at his/her own risk with full knowledge of all possible side effects regardless of the known facts (or interpretations) at this time? Without proper nanny labeling, will the good state of Colorado be a party to future lawsuits should the ultimate legal interpretation of the effect of maryjay on health be similar to tobacco?
Not sure, but at the moment I believe that industry is fairly unregulated as far as health issues. But, given the precedent set by tobacco, those who produce/sell it in the legal market should be aware they are potentially opening themselves up to lawsuits. I think pot is under less scrutiny in this area because it traditionally hasn't been laced with a plethora of additives to make it more addictive, burn faster, etc. It sells itself pretty well, and most any additive will just add cost to it. Also, there is limited and conflicting data on pot use health effects, compared to cigarettes which have been studied EXTENSIVELY, even though we already knew they were dangerous decades ago. The issue with tobacco is that the producers tend to add many unknown chemicals...which could amplify the damage caused by the tobacco, or be even worse than the tobacco on their own. Some companies make a business out of being "additive free," but their cigarettes are expensive, and they make up a small portion of the market. Also, while smoking pot introduces tar and carcinogens into the lungs, it does seem to be less damaging than tobacco. Not sure if the same warnings could/should apply. Tobacco companies would probably do themselves a favor by being less stubbourn and just accepting the fact that everyone knows their products are dangerous. Might even prevent lawsuits like this one. While the family of someone who died in 1996 may have a legitimate claim that the addiction had set in fully before the extent of the damage caused by cigarettes was known/studied, I am sorry, but $25 billion is steep for one person. Might sound harsh, but I don't think any person is worth that much, unless their assets are worth that much. Cold way to look at it maybe, but there is a dollar value on human life and it's way cheaper than $25 billion for most. That is an extreme amount of money. It's not that I think it's bad to make RJR to pay up for the monster they have created, but $25B to one person/family? What will that do? Better to make them pour money into education/prevention/cessation/etc.
 
Top