$23.6bn payout
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
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?
"Aficionado" (as opposed to knowing anything concrete) is about right for me, but here goes: It is possible there is an arrangement for her to share out a part of what she gets with the group, but I would guess it is more likely that the group is funding her in order to obtain a precedent that each individual member of the group can use to negotiate their own settlement with a tobacco company. She is likely to have been selected from the group due to her case being one that the group's lawyers can justifiably say can be applied with tweaks to a much larger number of group 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?
If that guess is right, in principle she gets to keep what she is awarded and the other group members will get to recover what they can negotiate. In reality, her award is going to be cut down very substantially - the tobacco lawyers saying it is "unconstitutional" looks like a reference to the passage in the wiki article that generally a ratio of 4:1 for punitive to compensatory damages is fair. This is about 1500:1.
There's also the issue of it not being much use having a massive award if the defendant can't pay it. If the award stands, and 99 other members of the group want the same thing, that is close to 1/4 trillion dollars. According to this, from 2000, RJ Reynolds had a net worth then of $5.3bn http://archive.tobacco.org/news/39311.html
More stuff on the punitive award here (it isn't going to survive): http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/20/us-usa-t...
The market cap. of Reynolds is about $31bn at today's prices. Don't know what they have as cash in the bank, but no doubt they could raise finances (not sure on their insurance cover and how this might relate to any settlements, either).
I doubt the size of the settlement would stand, but if the judgment stands it'll pave the way for rather a lot of claimants to start crawling out the woodwork. It'll make PPI look like a lost penny.
I doubt the size of the settlement would stand, but if the judgment stands it'll pave the way for rather a lot of claimants to start crawling out the woodwork. It'll make PPI look like a lost penny.
Derek Smith said:
The court, no doubt, took into account the actions of the tobacco companies in denying the evidence that smoking was harmful and doing nothing about it.
There were lots and lots of 'research' produced to suggest that it wasn't harmful, all of which have been proved to have been fabricated or misinterpreted.
The tobacco companies knew that what it was selling was deadly and took no steps to reduce the danger.
The companies were aware that cigarettes were addictive so took steps to increase addictiveness.
When you factor in how many deaths were are a result of cigarettes and that those flogging them knew full well the likelihood of their actions, then £26bn becomes more sensible.
My understanding is that this was a class action.
That could almost be a post in the climate threadThere were lots and lots of 'research' produced to suggest that it wasn't harmful, all of which have been proved to have been fabricated or misinterpreted.
The tobacco companies knew that what it was selling was deadly and took no steps to reduce the danger.
The companies were aware that cigarettes were addictive so took steps to increase addictiveness.
When you factor in how many deaths were are a result of cigarettes and that those flogging them knew full well the likelihood of their actions, then £26bn becomes more sensible.
My understanding is that this was a class action.
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.
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.
With a massive reduction in tax take, and a massive increase in money flowing to organised crime via the inevitable smuggling, the government have no realistic option but to continue to let people smoke.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.
williamp said:
No nutritional or medical value whatsoever.
Actually - that's not quite true. There is evidence that smoking and in particular - nicotine - can have positive therapeutic effects in some cases.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Health_effec...
Of course - the negatives of smoking far outweigh the positives, but with the rise in e-cig use, we could see some of these benefits come to the fore without the negative aspects of tobacco smoking.
Greg66 said:
"Aficionado" (as opposed to knowing anything concrete) is about right for me, but here goes: It is possible there is an arrangement for her to share out a part of what she gets with the group, but I would guess it is more likely that the group is funding her in order to obtain a precedent that each individual member of the group can use to negotiate their own settlement with a tobacco company. She is likely to have been selected from the group due to her case being one that the group's lawyers can justifiably say can be applied with tweaks to a much larger number of group
If that guess is right, in principle she gets to keep what she is awarded and the other group members will get to recover what they can negotiate. In reality, her award is going to be cut down very substantially - the tobacco lawyers saying it is "unconstitutional" looks like a reference to the passage in the wiki article that generally a ratio of 4:1 for punitive to compensatory damages is fair. This is about 1500:1.
There's also the issue of it not being much use having a massive award if the defendant can't pay it. If the award stands, and 99 other members of the group want the same thing, that is close to 1/4 trillion dollars. According to this, from 2000, RJ Reynolds had a net worth then of $5.3bn http://archive.tobacco.org/news/39311.html
More stuff on the punitive award here (it isn't going to survive): http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/20/us-usa-t...
As you say, it isn't going to stay at that figure.If that guess is right, in principle she gets to keep what she is awarded and the other group members will get to recover what they can negotiate. In reality, her award is going to be cut down very substantially - the tobacco lawyers saying it is "unconstitutional" looks like a reference to the passage in the wiki article that generally a ratio of 4:1 for punitive to compensatory damages is fair. This is about 1500:1.
There's also the issue of it not being much use having a massive award if the defendant can't pay it. If the award stands, and 99 other members of the group want the same thing, that is close to 1/4 trillion dollars. According to this, from 2000, RJ Reynolds had a net worth then of $5.3bn http://archive.tobacco.org/news/39311.html
More stuff on the punitive award here (it isn't going to survive): http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/20/us-usa-t...
Thanks for the review.
My understanding is that punitive damages are a one off for cases that come out of the same circumstances, and in this - addiction, life-long smoking - I would assume all the cases would be more or less the same. (?)
Doesn't this give a lever to the group for an out of court settlement? At the rate courts move the payment will not be forthcoming in such time to benefit the wife. My cousin died of asbestoses. He sued some years before payment, a dozen or so I think, and died a few months after payment was agreed, but wasn't made. His missus couldn't even use the money to bury him. A justice fail. His last years could have been made a fair bit more comfortable.
Given that procrastination is a skill brought to genius levels by lawyers, I'd settle for just the damages and ignore the punitive side.
Scuffers said:
this in a country where it's OK to buy a gun and go shooting.
I'm not a smoker, and never have been, but if people want to kill themselves, that's fine by me, (although I do object to them clogging up the NHS!)
As a smoker can I remind you of that the next time you have an off and need air ambulance and NHS?I'm not a smoker, and never have been, but if people want to kill themselves, that's fine by me, (although I do object to them clogging up the NHS!)
Derek Smith said:
As you say, it isn't going to stay at that figure.
Thanks for the review.
My understanding is that punitive damages are a one off for cases that come out of the same circumstances, and in this - addiction, life-long smoking - I would assume all the cases would be more or less the same. (?)
Doesn't this give a lever to the group for an out of court settlement? At the rate courts move the payment will not be forthcoming in such time to benefit the wife. My cousin died of asbestoses. He sued some years before payment, a dozen or so I think, and died a few months after payment was agreed, but wasn't made. His missus couldn't even use the money to bury him. A justice fail. His last years could have been made a fair bit more comfortable.
Given that procrastination is a skill brought to genius levels by lawyers, I'd settle for just the damages and ignore the punitive side.
From the tobacco side: someone's foot is on my throat right now. This is not a good time to start negotiating. I need to unravel some of this verdict in an appeal court. Then when I have done,maybe I will talk. Thanks for the review.
My understanding is that punitive damages are a one off for cases that come out of the same circumstances, and in this - addiction, life-long smoking - I would assume all the cases would be more or less the same. (?)
Doesn't this give a lever to the group for an out of court settlement? At the rate courts move the payment will not be forthcoming in such time to benefit the wife. My cousin died of asbestoses. He sued some years before payment, a dozen or so I think, and died a few months after payment was agreed, but wasn't made. His missus couldn't even use the money to bury him. A justice fail. His last years could have been made a fair bit more comfortable.
Given that procrastination is a skill brought to genius levels by lawyers, I'd settle for just the damages and ignore the punitive side.
From the plaintiff and the group's side: we will accept an offer, providing it accommodates the needs of everyone in the group. We've got our foot on your throat, so don't waste our time with buttons offers.
Both sides: we know the punitive element is going to get slashed on appeal. So might the compensatory element. We each have different ideas as to how much though.
And both sides will, I am certain, have offers on the table which could be accepted. They are just miles apart right now, that's all.
Finally, procrastination. The tobacco company will want to spin this out. The lawyers here do what they are told - very effectively. The spinning out is pour encourager les autres: some plaintiffs, now or in the future, may be more minded to accept an early lowball offer if they think they might not survive long enough to see the big payday.
OTOH, the current plaintiffs no doubt rightly want to see justice done. Quite possibly for others who may follow them, as much as for themselves. Which is why this particular plaintiff may be disinclined to drop the punitive element just to get paid now: they know that would mean the group would have to start all over again with a new case to build a reliable and re-useable punitive damages precedent.
tenpenceshort said:
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?
(Icmfp
)Anyway, back to my original question (unless it's been answered and I've not seen it) how does one get paid large amounts of damages?
Zyp said:
tenpenceshort said:
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?
(Icmfp
)Anyway, back to my original question (unless it's been answered and I've not seen it) how does one get paid large amounts of damages?
Edited by Efbe on Wednesday 23 July 16:34
Beati Dogu said:
It's punitive damages, scaled to reflect the size of the organisation involved. I'm sure I've read this John Grisham book before.
Google might want to rethink their driverless car technology for the same reason. The first time one of their vehicles squishes some jay walking retard, the lawyers will start the mother of all feeding frenzies.
Google are not showing a lack of care for their customers, quite the opposite.Google might want to rethink their driverless car technology for the same reason. The first time one of their vehicles squishes some jay walking retard, the lawyers will start the mother of all feeding frenzies.
BoRED S2upid said:
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??
Should we go on?
BHC said:
It is the fault of the smoker. That is obvious. She misses her husband and that is sad, but it is not the responsibility of R.J. Reynolds.
And she won't get that much.
I see your pont. However health risks weren't advertised in the past; no health warnings printed on the cigarette packets either.And she won't get that much.
I have just watched a Cigarette advert on TV... And it rendered me temporarily speechless with confusion as I haven't seen a cigarette advert for years especially on TV.
It was an avert showing young and 'cool' people enjoying cigarettes while having a great time, which really confused me...
Then at the end it became clear it was an advert for e-cigarettes.
I was amazed they allow such adverts for e-cigs??
It was an avert showing young and 'cool' people enjoying cigarettes while having a great time, which really confused me...
Then at the end it became clear it was an advert for e-cigarettes.
I was amazed they allow such adverts for e-cigs??
NinjaPower said:
I have just watched a Cigarette advert on TV... And it rendered me temporarily speechless with confusion as I haven't seen a cigarette advert for years especially on TV.
It was an avert showing young and 'cool' people enjoying cigarettes while having a great time, which really confused me...
Then at the end it became clear it was an advert for e-cigarettes.
I was amazed they allow such adverts for e-cigs??
The tobacco companies were/are losing a fair chunk of revenue from e-cigs, so much so they have tried to have them banned (unsuccessfully so far)It was an avert showing young and 'cool' people enjoying cigarettes while having a great time, which really confused me...
Then at the end it became clear it was an advert for e-cigarettes.
I was amazed they allow such adverts for e-cigs??
They've now realised how much money there is in the market and the fact they can advertise them and are making their own, I believe these are the ones with the glossy tv ads
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff