It is quite a surprize for this decision from a conservative supreme court. In my opinion, what about the guy who smoked? Is he not responsible? The amount of $75 million is excessive and these kind of judgements are obscene and should be reduced.
Posted by suresh at March 31, 2009 01:34 PMThe important question is: when did he start smoking? Anyone know?
Posted by Colin at March 31, 2009 02:31 PMThe amount of $75 million is excessive and these kind of judgements are obscene and should be reduced.
My ass they are. For the malfeasance we've seen by the tobacco companies in 20 years (20!) of public trials and verdicts, this is a fairly justifiable verdict, even if you're a politicized court dominated by a majority of BJ-giving pro-corporate lackeys. And the Court itself basically ran away from the issue as though they knew the pitchfork and torch laden mob would overrun the building if they issued a real verdict.
There are plenty of other stalled and hang up tobacco lawsuits out there that may get to the Court at a later date when the hoi polloi aren't so up in arms at the financial masters of the universe. Those will come up for ruling when its less hot and then suresh and the court can finally put all this punitive damage nonsense away when it's less controversial.
Posted by idiosynchronic at April 1, 2009 08:23 AMThe important question is: when did he start smoking? Anyone know?
My god, does anyone not read links anymore?
Posted by idiosynchronic at April 1, 2009 08:27 AMMy god, does anyone not read links anymore?
I do. But I never get the break right on the greens. Be sure and try the veal, folks!
Posted by phidipides at April 1, 2009 09:56 AMYou got me, idiosynchronic! I have now read the details and I see the man started smoking in the army in the 1950s. Be warned - anecdote follows!
I did my military service here in the UK from late 1953 to late 1955. During a technical lecture the time came for a break, and the lecturer said sardonically "OK, tickle your cancers".
Now, the important point is, we all knew exactly what he meant, we weren't saying to each other "What'd he mean by that?" Warnings against smoking were already well publicised, but most smokers simply refused to believe them. They were in denial. I don't know what the situation was in America, but I'd say anyone in the UK who started smoking in those days cannot claim, or have it claimed on their behalf, that they didn't know the risks.