$23.6bn payout
Discussion
Grumfutock said:
And it is bad for you, who knew!
Clearly not the chap who died in 1996, nor his widow 
...A small point to be considered here - the overall award was $40.4BN, as the $23.6BN was only the punitive damages awarded plus there was also $16.8BN in compensatory damages awarded.
That's another incorrect/misleading headline (and a blatant lack of research by at least one of your slackers
), Auntie Beeb 
!aw51 121565 said:
Grumfutock said:
And it is bad for you, who knew!
Clearly not the chap who died in 1996, nor his widow ...A small point to be considered here - the overall award was $40.4BN, as the $23.6BN was only the punitive damages awarded plus there was also $16.8BN in compensatory damages awarded.
That's another incorrect/misleading headline (and a blatant lack of research by at least one of your slackers
), Auntie Beeb !Whilst the amounts involved are utterly crazy, I do think it strange that cigarettes are still allowed to be manufactured and sold in the way that they are. If it were a modern pharmaceutical or foodstuff, known to have such toxic effects, it would be withdrawn immediately and that would be that.
I suppose the issue would be the wider social effect of withdrawing something consumed so widely in society with such a large number of people addicted. I expect, at least initially, there would likely be widescale disobedience over any prohibition, not to mention a serious reduction in duty earned by governments.
I suppose the issue would be the wider social effect of withdrawing something consumed so widely in society with such a large number of people addicted. I expect, at least initially, there would likely be widescale disobedience over any prohibition, not to mention a serious reduction in duty earned by governments.
aw51 121565 said:
Clearly not the chap who died in 1996, nor his widow ...
A small point to be considered here - the overall award was $40.4BN, as the $23.6BN was only the punitive damages awarded plus there was also $16.8BN in compensatory damages awarded.
That's another incorrect/misleading headline (and a blatant lack of research by at least one of your slackers ), Auntie Beeb !
Not quite. According to the Beeb the compensatory damages were 16.8 million, not billion. ...A small point to be considered here - the overall award was $40.4BN, as the $23.6BN was only the punitive damages awarded plus there was also $16.8BN in compensatory damages awarded.
That's another incorrect/misleading headline (and a blatant lack of research by at least one of your slackers
), Auntie Beeb !This was a jury award. AIUI, these routinely get scythed down by appeal courts.
Plus the lawyers are almost certainly going to take a huge chunk of the eventual award as they will be on a contingency fee. Maybe a third, maybe as much as 40%. Nice work if you can get it.
REALIST123 said:
Amazing reward for abject stupidity......
Why do we continue to pander to the weak willed and inadequate?
Well: it is not a reward. It is punitive damages. Keep up at the back.Why do we continue to pander to the weak willed and inadequate?
In other words, it is a punishment. A punishment for manufacturing, promoting, selling and publicising something which they knew to be a killer. Tobacco companies made their product more dangerous and more addictive. They did this after their own research pointed out what was dangerous in the stuff they made. Do you feel they should be rewarded?
This isn't a case of a too-hot cup of tea, this is deliberate poisoning of people for profit.
£16bn? They got off lightly.
Jonathan27 said:
The article says that the compensation is $16.1m and the rest is a punitive fine. Would she receive the punitive element or would that go to the court / state?
This is a class action so I would assume (please correct me if I'm wrong) but this is divided amongst the claimants. Derek Smith said:
This is a class action so I would assume (please correct me if I'm wrong) but this is divided amongst the claimants.
Don't think this was a class action. Interesting reading here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages#Unit...
http://nypost.com/2014/07/19/rj-reynolds-fined-23-...
Greg66 said:
Derek Smith said:
This is a class action so I would assume (please correct me if I'm wrong) but this is divided amongst the claimants.
Don't think this was a class action. Interesting reading here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages#Unit...
http://nypost.com/2014/07/19/rj-reynolds-fined-23-...
From Wiki:
Most recently, in Philip Morris USA v. Williams (2007), the Court ruled that punitive damage awards cannot be imposed for the direct harm that the misconduct caused others, but may consider harm to others as a function of determining how reprehensible it was. More reprehensible misconduct justifies a larger punitive damage award, just as a repeat offender in criminal law may be punished with a tougher sentence. Dissenting in the Williams case, Justice John Paul Stevens found that the "nuance eludes me," suggesting that the majority had resolved the case on a distinction that makes no difference.
The judges seem to have taken a strong line against tobacco companies due to the 'reprehensible conduct'.
tenpenceshort said:
Whilst the amounts involved are utterly crazy, I do think it strange that cigarettes are still allowed to be manufactured and sold in the way that they are. If it were a modern pharmaceutical or foodstuff, known to have such toxic effects, it would be withdrawn immediately and that would be that.
So would paracetamol. Question for the USA legal aficionados:
She is part of that group which sued before, was awarded $145bn and then had it overturned on appeal. They were then told to claim individually so her case is funded by the group as a trial case. Does than mean that the awards of punitive damages goes to the group or to her individually?
If it is the latter then the company stands to lose a considerable sum each time an individual case is pursued. Can Mercedes-Benz keep up with the demand from the lawyers?
She is part of that group which sued before, was awarded $145bn and then had it overturned on appeal. They were then told to claim individually so her case is funded by the group as a trial case. Does than mean that the awards of punitive damages goes to the group or to her individually?
If it is the latter then the company stands to lose a considerable sum each time an individual case is pursued. Can Mercedes-Benz keep up with the demand from the lawyers?
BoRED S2upid said:
Soon we will have health warnings on everything we eat! It all has the possibility of killing you if misused and you are dumb enough to continue misusing it.
But you need to eat. You need to do it in order to survive. Same with some medicine.there is nothing good about a cigarette. Nothing at all. No nutritional or medical value whatsoever. Just a fashionable, sexy, rebellious thing to do. But it only causes harm. Can you see the difference??
Hooli said:
tenpenceshort said:
Whilst the amounts involved are utterly crazy, I do think it strange that cigarettes are still allowed to be manufactured and sold in the way that they are. If it were a modern pharmaceutical or foodstuff, known to have such toxic effects, it would be withdrawn immediately and that would be that.
So would paracetamol. Will anybody get it, I wonder?
williamp said:
But you need to eat. You need to do it in order to survive. Same with some medicine.
there is nothing good about a cigarette. Nothing at all. No nutritional or medical value whatsoever. Just a fashionable, sexy, rebellious thing to do. But it only causes harm. Can you see the difference??
It won't stop these American nutjobs from trying. there is nothing good about a cigarette. Nothing at all. No nutritional or medical value whatsoever. Just a fashionable, sexy, rebellious thing to do. But it only causes harm. Can you see the difference??
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff