# Smoker Wins 8 Million, Possibly More To Come



## MJS (May 28, 2010)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37384990/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/



> NEW HAVEN, Conn. - A Connecticut smoker who developed larynx cancer has won $8 million in a lawsuit against a tobacco company, the first such jury verdict in New England, her attorney said Thursday.
> David Golub, attorney for Barbara Izzarelli of Norwich, said Thursday a federal jury in Bridgeport made the award late Wednesday against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. after a two-week trial. He said a judge will decide additional punitive damages next month, which could bring the award to $24 million.


 
I'm not a smoker, although I grew up in a home with smokers.  Now, while I do feel bad for this lady to have to live like she has to, I cant help but think....even if in the early days, the bad things that could come of smoking, were not known to people, I do find it hard to believe that this woman was completely clueless as to the risks, even later on down the road.  I mean, if we think about it, anything we put into our body, has the potential to cause issues.  

It'll be interesting to see how many more lawsuits come out of this.


----------



## dancingalone (May 28, 2010)

Hmm, not knowing the specifics of this case, I thought the tobacco companies had been protected from further tort suits due to a prior mass settlement back in the nineties.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement

I do think anyone who started smoking since the eighties should be well aware of the risks posed from the habit.


----------



## MJS (May 28, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Hmm, not knowing the specifics of this case, I thought the tobacco companies had been protected from further tort suits due to a prior mass settlement back in the nineties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement
> 
> I do think anyone who started smoking since the eighties should be well aware of the risks posed from the habit.


 
I dont know the specifics of that case either.  Actually I didn't even know there was an active suit.  But yes, I agree, you'd think that as time went on, people would be aware of the risks.  Someone must've found a loophole somewhere.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 28, 2010)

It doesn't matter that someone "should have known" or not.  What matters is that the tobacco companies spent decades deliberately lying about the dangers of their product.  That opens them up to the liability, and I don't have any sympathy because of it.  No one is successfully suing gun manufacturers when someone gets shot, because the gun companies never tried to claim that guns aren't harmful.


----------



## dancingalone (May 28, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> It doesn't matter that someone "should have known" or not.  What matters is that the tobacco companies spent decades deliberately lying about the dangers of their product.  That opens them up to the liability, and I don't have any sympathy because of it.  No one is successfully suing gun manufacturers when someone gets shot, because the gun companies never tried to claim that guns aren't harmful.



Yeah, but you're missing the point I made.  I'm curious why this lawsuit is viable, considering there was a settlement way back in the nineties where the tobacco companies admitted wrongdoing with regard to deceit and concealment about the dangers of tobacco use.  In other words, they've already owned up to what you are faulting them with and they are supposed to be indemnified from future tort claims on the basis of said deceit and concealment.

Surely this lawsuit is based on something else.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 28, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Yeah, but you're missing the point I made.  I'm curious why this lawsuit is viable, considering there was a settlement way back in the nineties where the tobacco companies admitted wrongdoing with regard to deceit and concealment about the dangers of tobacco use.  In other words, they've already owned up to what you are faulting them with and they are supposed to be indemnified from future tort claims on the basis of said deceit and concealment.
> 
> Surely this lawsuit is based on something else.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement

If the Congress had agreed to the proposal, only individual lawsuits could still be brought.  However, Congress balked.  The 50 states eventually made individual agreements that were similar in nature.  As far as I know, only class-action and state lawsuits are prohibited now.  Individual lawsuits are still permitted under the agreement.  At least, that's my understanding.


----------



## dancingalone (May 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> As far as I know, only class-action and state lawsuits are prohibited now.  Individual lawsuits are still permitted under the agreement.  At least, that's my understanding.



This might be a good topic for discussion.  

When if ever will this ever sunset?  When can we consider that hazards to smoking are well-known and if you're stupid enough to light up, then you should be responsible for your own actions instead of being able to sue the tobacco companies for any health damages suffered from tobacco use?


----------



## Big Don (May 28, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> you should be responsible for your own actions


You evil,racist,bigot,homophobe,sexist,christian, republican! How dare you?! (that's the range of normal responses anytime personal responsibility is mentioned...)


----------



## MJS (May 28, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> It doesn't matter that someone "should have known" or not. What matters is that the tobacco companies spent decades deliberately lying about the dangers of their product. That opens them up to the liability, and I don't have any sympathy because of it. No one is successfully suing gun manufacturers when someone gets shot, because the gun companies never tried to claim that guns aren't harmful.


 
As I said, I'm not a smoker, but I have to wonder...if the tobacco companies knew about the dangers back then, why didn't they make everyone else aware?  I get the impression, especially from this article, that this woman was clueless of the dangers.

And as far as people suing gun companies...people sue for anything.  Some careless person doesn't take enough care when they walk into a store, the floor is wet, there is a sign that clearly states to use caution because the floor is wet, the person falls on their ***, and supposedly gets hurt, and what happens?  Lawsuit.  People may not sue a gun company every time someone gets shot, but every time someone gets shot, the anti gun folks flock out of the woodwork to voice their disgust against guns.  

IMO, people need to start taking responsibility for their own actions, rather than always looking to pass the buck and blame someone else.  So, should I sue McDonalds if I eat there 2 times a day, and balloon up to 400lbs?  Its not their fault I ate their, its mine.  Nobody held a gun to my head forcing me to eat there.  And that was simply an example..for the record, I rarely eat at McDonalds and I'm far from 400lbs. LOL!


----------



## MJS (May 28, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> this might be a good topic for discussion.
> 
> When if ever will this ever sunset? When can we consider that hazards to smoking are well-known and if you're stupid enough to light up, *then you should be responsible for your own actions* instead of being able to sue the tobacco companies for any health damages suffered from tobacco use?


 
qft!!!!


----------



## Cryozombie (May 28, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> It doesn't matter that someone "should have known" or not.  What matters is that the tobacco companies spent decades deliberately lying about the dangers of their product.



But so has Mcdonalds and everyone is against them losing lawsuits for obesity.  I remember their old ad campaign that said you should eat there everyday...


----------



## Blade96 (May 28, 2010)

I believe in personal responsibility, to a point, i guess. But these companies and macdonalds too deliberately make products that can be extremely addictive. and if someone gets addictive and they need help getting out of the rut, and these companies know they will cause this damage, I believe they too bear responsibility. I can see why a tobacco company can be sued.


----------



## MJS (May 29, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> I believe in personal responsibility, to a point, i guess. But these companies and macdonalds too deliberately make products that can be extremely addictive. and if someone gets addictive and they need help getting out of the rut, and these companies know they will cause this damage, I believe they too bear responsibility. I can see why a tobacco company can be sued.


 
But help is available.  You have gum, patches, weight loss programs, and good old fashion stopping cold!  If someone really wants to stop smoking, if someone really wants to lose weight, first and foremost, they have to have the desire to go thru with it.  If they're not going to follow advice, then they'll never lose weight and they'll never stop smoking.  

Dairy Queen has some great burgers, much better than McDonalds, IMHO.  I have one within walking distance from my house.  However, its been quite some time since I've had a DQ burger.  Tempting...hell yeah.  Again, IMO, I think alot comes down to will power and the desire to just not want to eat that stuff.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 29, 2010)

MJS said:


> As I said, I'm not a smoker, but I have to wonder...if the tobacco companies knew about the dangers back then, why didn't they make everyone else aware?



Because then people would buy fewer cigarettes?  In the fifties, they actually claimed smoking was healthy!  In any case, skepticism is not warranted.  The actions of the tobacco companies in trying to cover up research and promoting their own fraudulent research has been well established by whistleblowers, internal documents, etc.



MJS said:


> And as far as people suing gun companies...people sue for anything.



That is why I said "successfully sue".



MJS said:


> IMO, people need to start taking responsibility for their own actions, rather than always looking to pass the buck and blame someone else.



Indeed.  That is why the tobacco companies were held to account for their history of lying and made to pay for it.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 29, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> But so has Mcdonalds and everyone is against them losing lawsuits for obesity.  I remember their old ad campaign that said you should eat there everyday...



Has anyone successfully sued McDonalds for their obesity?  I don't think anyone has.  They also publish their own nutritional info.  I also don't think they've ever claimed that McDonalds is perfectly healthy and will never make you fat, nor covered up research showing their food makes you fat, or repeatedly lying about it.

There is a certain creative leeway in advertising claims.  You can claim your sandwiches are world famous even if no one outside your town has ever had one.  There are certain fact based claims you can't make though.


----------



## MJS (May 29, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Because then people would buy fewer cigarettes? In the fifties, they actually claimed smoking was healthy! In any case, skepticism is not warranted. The actions of the tobacco companies in trying to cover up research and promoting their own fraudulent research has been well established by whistleblowers, internal documents, etc.


 
Yet today, the info is widely available, and people still buy them.  Go figure.  I wasn't thought of in the 50's so I can't comment on that.   Of course, why anyone would think that inhailing smoke would be good for you, is beyond me.  





> That is why I said "successfully sue".


 
Ok.   Then again, while its not related to smoking, I can't help but think about that careless woman who spilled coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonalds.  Hey, maybe their coffee machines were brewing the coffee, much hotter than it should've been, but I'm amazed at how easy it is to sue when its the result of your own carelessness. 





> Indeed. That is why the tobacco companies were held to account for their history of lying and made to pay for it.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 29, 2010)

MJS said:


> Then again, while its not related to smoking, I can't help but think about that careless woman who spilled coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonalds.  Hey, maybe their coffee machines were brewing the coffee, much hotter than it should've been, but I'm amazed at how easy it is to sue when its the result of your own carelessness.



You just said it: "their coffee machines were brewing the coffee, much hotter than it should've been...".  When you do something potentially dangerous for no good reason (they were doing it so people would buy less coffee) you have the liability if something bad happens from it.

IOW, they had to take responsibility for their actions.  I'm not sure why taking responsibility seems only to apply to individuals, while companies are exempted.

It's all about what you do.  Plenty of companies make very dangerous products that kill people (guns, chainsaws, planes, whatever).  Unless they've done something negligent or purposely dangerous, they have no liability for it.  If the gun manufacturers can manage this, then so can McDonalds or RJ Reynolds or whatever.


----------



## MJS (May 29, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> You just said it: "their coffee machines were brewing the coffee, much hotter than it should've been...". When you do something potentially dangerous for no good reason (they were doing it so people would buy less coffee) you have the liability if something bad happens from it.
> 
> IOW, they had to take responsibility for their actions. I'm not sure why taking responsibility seems only to apply to individuals, while companies are exempted.
> 
> It's all about what you do. Plenty of companies make very dangerous products that kill people (guns, chainsaws, planes, whatever). Unless they've done something negligent or purposely dangerous, they have no liability for it. If the gun manufacturers can manage this, then so can McDonalds or RJ Reynolds or whatever.


 
Ok, so McD was found at fault because the coffee was too hot.  According to an article I found, the woman was partially at fault.  As far as we know, nobody has successfully sued McD because their food made someone fat.  How then, does someone slip and fall in a store, on a wet floor, when its clearly marked as wet and to use caution, sue and win?  How is the store negligent?  If someone dropped a jar of pasta sauce and it broke, the store would be negligent if they didn't clean it and someone fell.  

Back to the title of this thread though...I have to wonder...did the cig. companies post the warnings prior to this woman getting cancer?  If so, and this woman kept smoking, how can she sue, and win, no less, for something that she may've knew would happen?  Isn't that like someone pointing a loaded gun at someone, pulling the trigger, and then wondering why the person got shot?


----------



## Blade96 (May 30, 2010)

MJS said:


> But help is available.  You have gum, patches, weight loss programs, and good old fashion stopping cold!  If someone really wants to stop smoking, if someone really wants to lose weight, first and foremost, they have to have the desire to go thru with it.  If they're not going to follow advice, then they'll never lose weight and they'll never stop smoking.
> 
> Dairy Queen has some great burgers, much better than McDonalds, IMHO.  I have one within walking distance from my house.  However, its been quite some time since I've had a DQ burger.  Tempting...hell yeah.  Again, IMO, I think alot comes down to will power and the desire to just not want to eat that stuff.



some people cant quit cold turkey. even with will power if they have it.



MJS said:


> Ok.   Then again, while its not related to smoking, I can't help but think about that careless woman who spilled coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonalds.  Hey, maybe their coffee machines were brewing the coffee, much hotter than it should've been, but I'm amazed at how easy it is to sue when its the result of your own carelessness.





Empty Hands said:


> You just said it: "their coffee machines were brewing the coffee, much hotter than it should've been...".  When you do something potentially dangerous for no good reason (they were doing it so people would buy less coffee) you have the liability if something bad happens from it.



I got burned from a cappucino at tim's (what i call tim horton's) Even though people are warned that its hot i didnt know at the time they made it THAT hot. anyway it burned my tongue and it was sore for more than 2 weeks. Maybe I could have sued. I didnt. ah well.

now I know. The last time i went to tim's I asked them to put some cold milk in it before they gave it to me The machines do make them too hot. Some people dont know about it. I didnt.


----------



## MJS (Jun 6, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> some people cant quit cold turkey. even with will power if they have it.


 
I think we may have to agree to disagree on this.  I've always felt that each of us controls our own life.  Nothing is easy.  It takes determination and lots of hard work.  Look at a show like The Biggest Loser.  You have people on that show, that're upwards of 500+lbs, the only exercies they're getting is sitting on their ***, with the remote in one hand and food in the other.  Yet they decide to make a change in their life and they do it.  Again, its not easy, but little in life is.  

My father was a long time smoker.  He got sick, had some fluid in his lungs, came close to dying, and quit.  This was a guy that was a 2 pack a day smoker.  And he quit cold.  As I said, there're people and resources to help you, but if you dont want the help or take advantage of it and have zero will power, then no, you wont lose weight, or stop the addiction to food, cigs., drugs, etc.  







> I got burned from a cappucino at tim's (what i call tim horton's) Even though people are warned that its hot i didnt know at the time they made it THAT hot. anyway it burned my tongue and it was sore for more than 2 weeks. Maybe I could have sued. I didnt. ah well.
> 
> now I know. The last time i went to tim's I asked them to put some cold milk in it before they gave it to me The machines do make them too hot. Some people dont know about it. I didnt.


 
IMHO, alot of this type of stuff is common sense.  I could make a hot cup of coffee in my own house, and if I just drink it down, hell yeah, I'll burn the hell out of my mouth, tounge and throat.  If I go running onto the tile floor of the local store, on a winter day, the floor being wet, yes, I might land on my ***, but if I do, its my fault.  The store is taking the job of placing signs to warn of wet floors, putting down a rug, etc.  

I think alot of the time, people are too quick to put the blame on someone else, rather than admitting their own mistakes.


----------



## JDenver (Jun 6, 2010)

MJS said:


> I think we may have to agree to disagree on this.  I've always felt that each of us controls our own life.  Nothing is easy.  It takes determination and lots of hard work.  Look at a show like The Biggest Loser.  You have people on that show, that're upwards of 500+lbs, the only exercies they're getting is sitting on their ***, with the remote in one hand and food in the other.  Yet they decide to make a change in their life and they do it.  Again, its not easy, but little in life is.
> 
> My father was a long time smoker.  He got sick, had some fluid in his lungs, came close to dying, and quit.  This was a guy that was a 2 pack a day smoker.  And he quit cold.  As I said, there're people and resources to help you, but if you dont want the help or take advantage of it and have zero will power, then no, you wont lose weight, or stop the addiction to food, cigs., drugs, etc.



Addiction can also be genetic.  Some folks, commonly referred to as having 'addictive personalities', are wired for addiction.  That's completely different than those who are lazy or lack willpower.  It would be like suggesting someone with clinical depression should just buck up and be happier.


----------



## MJS (Jun 6, 2010)

JDenver said:


> Addiction can also be genetic. Some folks, commonly referred to as having 'addictive personalities', are wired for addiction. That's completely different than those who are lazy or lack willpower. It would be like suggesting someone with clinical depression should just buck up and be happier.


 
Points taken.  However, even someone who has clinical depression, still has options, no? I mean, there are doctors available for them to talk to, in hopes of maybe bringing them out of their depression.  Of course, if those people dont take advantage of the docs, then I'd imagine they'd continue to live their life depressed.


----------

