jury awards $23.6 billion in smoking lawsuit

[eznutz]

A Florida jury awarded a widow $23.6 billion in punitive damages in her lawsuit against tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, her lawyer said.

Cynthia Robinson claimed that smoking killed her husband, Michael Johnson, in 1996. She argued R.J. Reynolds was negligent in not informing him that nicotine is addictive and smoking can cause lung cancer. Johnson started smoking when he was 13 and died of lung cancer when he was 36.

The jury award Friday evening is "courageous," said Robinson's lawyer, Christopher Chestnut.

"If anyone saw the documents that this jury saw, I believe that person would have awarded a similar or greater verdict amount," he said.

The Escambia County trial took four weeks and the jury deliberated for 15 hours, according to the Pensacola News Journal. The verdict included more than $16 million in compensatory damages, the newspaper said.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/19/us/florida-tobacco-verdict/index.html

 

[Keebler Elf]

This is why there needs to be limits. While I'm no fan of smoking or the tobacco companies, sorry, but this guy Michael Johnson wasn't worth $23.6 billion.

I realize the jury wants to send a message but at some point it just becomes a meaningless joke. 23.6... why not 23.2? Or 25? Or 100? Or 10 TRILLION?

Sounds like a bunch of hick dummies on the jury.

 

[shrek71]

Being awarded a judgement from a jury is one thing, collecting it is another thing entirely.

Cheers

 

[shakenbake]

Only in the USA, and after the Master Settlement Agreement that already has punished tobacco companies, already, was put in place. Then again, O.J. was found criminally innocent but civilly guilty of murdering his ex wife and her lover. What a country.

 

[buttercup]

Only in the USA . . . Then again, O.J. was found criminally innocent but civilly guilty of murdering his ex wife and her lover. What a country.

Both verdicts are entirely consistent with the laws of USA, Canada, etc. The civil jury heard enough evidence to decide that he probably did it. The criminal jury did not hear enough evidence to convince them beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. Two different standards of proof. Every civilized country has that.

You can argue that if the two juries had been made up entirely of people like yourself, their verdicts would have been different -- but there's no mileage in such irrelevancies.

 

[shakenbake]

Both verdicts are entirely consistent with the laws of USA, Canada, etc. The civil jury heard enough evidence to decide that he probably did it. The criminal jury did not hear enough evidence to convince them beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. Two different standards of proof. Every civilized country has that.

You can argue that if the two juries had been made up entirely of people like yourself, their verdicts would have been different -- but there's no mileage in such irrelevancies.

And how does double jeopardy work in this situation? Also, how would you know how I would have voted if I were in the two juries? If there is not enough evidence to convict beyond the sahdow of a doubt, how did they convict him in civil court? I understand that the burden of proof is different in each scenario. However, was justice served, overall? Criminal matters should be naturally more severe than civil ones.

 

[bazokajoe]

Does this mean I can sue the shit out of McDonald's for clogging my arteries?

 

[Smallcock]

The company will appeal and the verdict will be over turned.

The only people winning in these frivolous lawsuits are lawyers.

 

[Viggo Rasmussen]

Everyone knew cigarettes caused cancer and were addictive decades ago, did this dude need a written letter stating this on the first pack he smoked?
The moron's life certainly wasn't worth much if he was unaware.

 

[FAST]

The company will appeal and the verdict will be over turned.

The only people winning in these frivolous lawsuits are lawyers.

YEP,...like most divorces,...everybody looses,... except the shysters.

FAST

 

[Aardvark154]

It will be reduced by the trial judge, and if not by the trial judge on appeal.


By the way Fast that will include contingency fees - thinking of which until about fifty years ago contingency feels in personal injury cases were forbidden in the U.S. by state bar rules.

 

[Aardvark154]

And how does double jeopardy work in this situation?

Buttercup, explained it quite well I thought. There is no double jeopardy - one is civil, the other criminal.

If you are troubled by that aspect of law in the U.S.A., try on the "Two Sovereigns Doctrine." A state can try you for murder and then the Federal Government can try you for a Civil Rights violation based on the same incident and it is not double jeopardy.

 

[eldoguy]

It will be reduced by the trial judge, and if not by the trial judge on appeal.


By the way Fast that will include contingency fees - thinking of which until about fifty years ago contingency feels in personal injury cases were forbidden in the U.S. by state bar rules.

Also a Mereva-Injunction would close the deal. Freezes the defendents business.

 

[shakenbake]

Buttercup, explained it quite well I thought. There is no double jeopardy - one is civil, the other criminal.

If you are troubled by that aspect of law in the U.S.A., try on the "Two Sovereigns Doctrine." A state can try you for murder and then the Federal Government can try you for a Civil Rights violation based on the same incident and it is not double jeopardy.

Thanks for the clarification, and also fro buttercup pointing it out in the first place. Geez, and one would think that one would be off the hook!