It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
The Supreme Court threw out a $79.5 million punitive damages award to a smoker's widow Tuesday, a boon to businesses seeking stricter limits on big-dollar jury verdicts. The 5-4 ruling was a victory for Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA, which contested an Oregon Supreme Court decision upholding the verdict.
In the majority opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the court said the verdict could not stand because the jury in the case was not instructed that it could punish Philip Morris only for the harm done to the plaintiff, not to other smokers whose cases were not before it. States must “provide assurances that juries are not asking the wrong question ... seeking, not simply to determine reprehensibility, but also to punish for harm caused strangers,” Breyer said. The decision did not address whether the size of the award was constitutionally excessive, as Philip Morris had asked.
The Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to hear a constitutional challenge by tobacco companies to Minnesota's 75-cent-per-pack health impact fee on cigarettes. The justices refused to review a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that upheld the constitutionality of the fee enacted in 2005 to recover state health costs caused by tobacco use. The state high court reversed a judge's ruling that the fee violated a 1998 settlement agreement between the state and tobacco companies meant to reimburse Minnesota for the cost of caring for sick smokers.
Originally posted by kenshiro2012
What a win for Big Buisness!
What a loss for the American citizen.
I will post more links as more information is released
Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Look at it this way,
It has been proven that the tobacco industry has gone to great lengths to hide / disprove the addictiveness as well as the health hazards of using their product.
This proof has lead to multi-billion judgements against them by various states.
Yet, when a person who has been addicted to tobbacco for a decade or more (before the big "truth" was made known to the world) the Supreme Court rules against the citizen.
That is where the disparity lies. People and families have suffered for decades and have lost loved ones, lost jobs etc from the use of tobacco and yet, these same people are denied compensation from the tobacco industry. The goverments though get billions in comensation and yet spend absolutely no monies to " offset the health costs of the tobacco user" Instead these monies are used for everything but.
That to me is a problem. A big problem.
I like you am against multi-million dollar lawsuits for idiotic things like spilling a hot cup of coffee on yourself and then suing McDonalds because they did not tell her it was hot.
In the case of the tobacco industry, they have spent millions of dollars in covering the detrimental effects of tobacco use. They have spent millions in advertising to the youth (remember the "flavored" cigarettes a few years ago. Advertising to promote the "coolness" of smoking. Those of the younger generation may not remember but the tobacco industry went out of it's way to make the worldwide public beleive that they need to smoke in order to be cool, sexy and even hip (those are actually the terms that the tobacco industry has used in it's campaigns). The tobacco industry, needs to be held accountable for it's misdeeds.
Note when the "warning Labels" were put into effect. Also note that the tobacco companies did their best to hide these warnings.
In 1964, the United States Surgeon General's Report on Smoking declared cigarettes a major source of health hazards, prompting a decline in U.S. cigarette consumption. By 1994 only about one in four Americans over the age of sixteen was a smoker, and per capita consumption had declined as well—to about 2,500 cigarettes per adult per year. Warning labels had been put on tobacco packaging in the 1960s, though tobacco companies had managed to soften the blow somewhat by camouflaging the labels. New forms of advertising were also sought to compensate for the 1970 ban on television advertising. Tobacco companies became major sponsors of many sporting events (such as race-car driving and tennis) and began to pay actors to smoke in Hollywood movies. Brown and Williamson, for example, in 1983 agreed to pay Sylvester Stallone $500,000 to use that company's tobacco products in each of his next five films.
Tobacco companies won all of the lawsuits filed against them in the 1960s, '70s, and '80s, arguing either that smoking had not been proven hazardous or that smokers themselves were to blame for their illnesses. Tobacco companies spent hundreds of millions of dollars challenging the medical link between smoking and disease. Front organizations such as the Council for Tobacco Research and the Tobacco Institute were established in the 1950s to "balance" the anti-smoking message with "no evidence of harm" propaganda.
Research on smoking shows that 80% of all smokers desire to quit. But smoking is so addictive that fewer than 20% of the people who try ever successfully kick the habit. Still, many people attempt to quit smoking over and over again, despite the difficulties—the cravings and withdrawal symptoms, such as irritability and restlessness.
Originally posted by kenshiro2012
What a win for Big Buisness!
What a loss for the American citizen.
I will post more links as more information is released
Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Yet, when a person who has been addicted to tobbacco for a decade or more (before the big "truth" was made known to the world) the Supreme Court rules against the citizen.