Philip Morris ordered to pay $28bn damages

[sbp]

http://biz.yahoo.com/ft/021004/1031119927221_1.html

Los Angeles jury ordered Philip Morris to pay $28bn in punitive damages to a cancer victim in the highest ever award in a individual case against a tobacco company.

Philip Morris immediately said it would appeal against an award its lawyer called "absurd".

But the award was a huge blow both for the company - which was its fourth successive defeat in California court cases - and the industry, which had believed the US litigation threat was receding.

Philip Morris shares, which had already fallen sharply last week, closed 7.4 per cent lower at $36.59 in the wake of the jury's decision. The Dow Jones Industrial average fell sharply to close 188.79 points or 2.45 per cent down at 7,528.40, its lowest level since November 1997.

A jury in the Los Angeles Superior Court said the world's biggest tobacco company should pay the damages to Betty Bullock, a 64-year-old woman with lung cancer.

Ms Bullock argued she had become addicted to smoking after Philip Morris had misrepresented the risks.

The size of the punitive damages award came as a shock after the jury last week awarded compensation to Ms Bullock of only $850,000 - one of the smallest such awards in California tobacco cases.

Some $750,000 was for economic damage, and $100,000 for pain and suffering.

The $28bn punitive damages, designed to punish wrongdoing, outstripped the $24.6bn that an economist witness for Ms Bullock had argued was the net worth of Philip Morris USA - the com- pany's US tobacco arm. The jury found Philip Morris liable for fraud, negligence and product liability claims in Ms Bullock's lawsuit.

Ms Bullock started smoking at 17 and said she had believed Philip Morris's past claims that there was no evidence to show smoking caused cancer.

Michael Piuze, her lawyer, called the damages "long overdue".

"There's no amount of money big enough to punish Philip Morris," he added.

Philip Morris said the award was inconsistent with the evidence and the law. At 33,000 times greater than the compensatory damages, the punitive damages were well above a four-to-one maximum ratio suggested by the US Supreme Court, it said.

It added that the jury should have focused on what Ms Bullock knew about smoking's health risks, and whether anything the company did improperly influenced her decision to smoke.

"Instead, it appears that this decision speaks to more general policy issues regarding smoking that can't fairly be decided in lawsuits like this," said William Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris's general counsel.

The company's attorney told the court that Philip Morris had already been sufficiently punished by the $246bn so-called "master settlement agreement" between tobacco companies and US states in 1998.

The award could be substantially reduced on appeal. A previous $3bn damages award to a smoker also represented by Mr Piuze, Richard Boeken, was later reduced to $100m.

[saturnotaku]

$28 billion is a lot of bull. No one forced this ***** to put the cigarette in her mouth. Maybe I ought to take up smoking now so I can later sue the companies when I'm ready to die from lung cancer. :rolleyes:

I hope she doesn't get a dime, or at least never live to see it. :mad:

[vampireuk]

Amen, its typical ignorance

"well umm umm, I knew they gave me cancer but I wasnt so sure on that":rolleyes:

[madthumbs]

The non smokers should be getting the money for having to tolerate it being shoved down their throats. Non smokers weren't given a choice... she was.

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by madthumbs
The non smokers should be getting the money for having to tolerate it being shoved down their throats. Non smokers weren't given a choice... she was.
i agree with that 100%

the money awarded in cases just gets more and more outrageous. thank God for appeals court.

[saturnotaku]

Originally posted by madthumbs
The non smokers should be getting the money for having to tolerate it being shoved down their throats. Non smokers weren't given a choice... she was.

I couldn't agree more. Both her and the tobacco companies should have to pay for that.

[LoRD.MuAD'diB]

You're lighting something on fire and sucking the fumes into your lungs. What did you think this was going to make you live longer?

What's more, the first time you sucked this smoke into your body, you about coughed up your lungs. Ever occur to you that this might be your body's way of saying "Hey! Dumbass! Probably you shouldn't do that!"?

For the record I smoke. I do it not because Phillip Morris said it was good for me. I do it because I like it. And quite frankly, it keeps other people alive.

Smoking is bad for you. But you know what? So is living. Deal with it.

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Yup, I agree, we non-smokers should be compensated. Second hand smoking is worse for the person receiving it than for the person with the cig in their mouth. I guess the argument for that cancer person is that there was no warning on the box(which there wasn't at that time). My dad smoked 4 packs a day for 17 years and messed up his lungs. He sees it as his mistake and lives with it. He hasn't asked money from nobody even tho there was no warning because he sees it as his choice that he made to smoke. But for us non-smokers, we have to put up with all the crap floating around in the air due to inconsiderate people that don't care for anyones health.

[styles-T]

not to mention that millions of ppl die from lung cancer?? why did she get a break?

[LORD-eX-Bu]

those $28 Billion should go to lung cancer research.

[The Baron]

Well...

I read this, and one thing went through my mind.

"Holy ****! How is a 64-year old woman with lung cancer, on her deathbed, gonna spend 28 billion dollars! HOOK ME UP!"

;)

Yes, that might be considered blatantly offensive. But you know, it's what everyone around her is thinking.

--edit--as for the secondhand smoke thing... there should be a law requiring a billyclub readily available in public places. if somebody smokes, WHACK! and nothing they can do about it if you only hit them once. I'd like that law. :D --/edit--

[PsychoSy]

I'm mixed on this issue...

On one hand, the lady is stupid for smoking in the first place becase - DUH - it's SMOKE!!

But, on the other hand, she (and even the non-smokers, too) deserve the money because the tobacco industry is guilty as hell for misrepresenting the truth about the addictive nature of cigarettes.

For many years, both Congress and the public was lead to believe that, aside from carbon monoxide, smoking was harmless for the most part. The tobacco industry went out of their way in the 60s and 70s to make sure neither Congress nor the public knew the truth that the tobacco they used would emit over 80 seperate toxins when lit and consumed. And they sure as hell didn't want the public to know that Lorilard frequently engaged in manipulating the levels of those toxins so that they became more addictive, evangelized more smokers, and thus increased their revenues.

The tobacco industry was allowed to get away with it for 30-40 years. They knowingly made a mint out of watonly poisoning people and misrepresenting the facts, both in the eyes of the public and under oath during their many Congressional hearings. In my book, that is perjury, and they deserve to pay...and pay dearly.

I'd go so far as to say that the Government themselves can be guilty of being "pushers" because they predominately pushed cigarettes onto our soldiers during the WW2 and Vietnam (as well as exposing them many other deadly chemicals). They felt that soldiers on the front lines smoking cigarettes would calm their nerves and increase performance as well as their awareness of danger in spite of the long-term health issues that would follow.

In my opinion, the following groups should pay out the nose:

The Tobacco Industry.
The U.S. Government
The DNC
The GOP
Every Single American

The Democrats and Repubicans let this happen because it filled their personal coffers and helped them keep office. And we, as Americans, should pay out the nose because we've sat on our collective asses and let those groups of people poison us all.

This was text-book murder, folks. The tobacco industry and the US Governement might have the held the smoking gun, be WE the Americans sat on our duffs and witnessed them engage in this mass murder and did nothing to stop it - not with our votes, and not with our Constitutional rights to overthrow the regime. Our failure makes us accessories to their mass murder.

Yet we have the conceit - the unmitigated gall - to come down on Saddam Hussein for poisoning his own people when we are just as guilty?!? :rolleyes:

Go smoke your Tax Break, America!! :mad:

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Every single American?

[PsychoSy]

Yes, every single American.

Some might say that in some ways we are paying out the nose for it allready in high insurance costs but I say BZZZZZT! Insurance companies are businesses, predominately Republican-run businesses, that make the majority of their profits when you're NOT sick and, like all other businesses and industries, the first motive of hiking the prices is consumer ignorance . If they think you'd be so stupid enough to actually pay an extra 5-10% for coverage, that's all the motivation that need to jack their price up. They use "smokers" as the official excuse strictly for PR. Everyone knows you always get bonus points for beating up on single women, immigrants, and smokers.

[LORD-eX-Bu]

But that does not cover every single american, only those who pay for life insurance. Thats it, I owe nothing to the fact that the tobacco companies exploit and destroy the lives of people. It is not my fault that others choose to smoke and support these companies. Same with insurance companies, they charge smokers more, why? because they are a higher liability and risk. They are killing themselves slowly, and when you are in the business of life, you don't want to pay out. They charge more, to discourage smokers from getting insurance. The companies are betting against that you will die, they want you to live as long as you can, so then you can keep paying them, and they can keep investing that money and so then eventually you'll grow old enough that they will be able to either end their term with you or drop you from their coverage due to liabilities.

[t6_shadow]

There is a bartender in Canada who worked for 40 some odd years (more I think) and she got lung cancer from all the second hand smoke. All she is getting is workmans comp. Now that is ****ty.

[[Corporal Dan]]

I hope philip morris goes bankrupt.

I already sold my shares.

See, I had originally invested in them way back when. No, making money from the stupidity of others never bothered me. You wanna smoke it up, boys? Go right ahead. *Cha-CHING!*

Except for the financial gains PM has presented though, they are an evil corporation, and like all Tobacco empires, should collapse - Permanently.

I hope the old idiot gets all the money she wants and more, as long as it comes out of the tobacco industry's pockets.

I just hope she donates a nice, large portion to science. She's 64 frickin years old. Her life is like 80% over already. She's too old to drive a fast car, and too old to live it up. Donate all the green to cancer research or something of a similar nature

[Kruno]

Or to educate.

Originally posted by |TX|-LORD-EX-BU
those $28 Billion should go to lung cancer research.

[The Baron]

No, it should go to lung cancer research, because even with no smoking there will still be widespread lung cancer considering how polluted society is.

And if we educate people, we might put tobacco companies out of business without milking them for every dime their worth. And I don't want any bastard whose livelihood revolves around killing people to walk away with a cent.

[PsychoSy]

Originally posted by |TX|-LORD-EX-BU
I owe nothing to the fact that the tobacco companies exploit and destroy the lives of people. It is not my fault that others choose to smoke and support these companies.

In today's climate, smoking is indeed a personal choice and I agree neither of us owe a damn thing to them. But 20-40 years ago, it wasn't really a choice. The armed forces, television, radio, the media - all of them glorified it. Some of them bastards that served in Congress during that time knew about the true health effects smoking did and turned a blind eye and a deaf ear. Why? Because they were either taking PAC money from the industry (Republicans) or they were the sons & daughters of North Carolina/Virginia/Georgia/Kentucky tobacco farmers (Democrats - like Al Gore).

Yet these sorry sacks of human flesh call themselves Americans?!? They are the same type of idiots that heehaw around taking about "the will of the people", and "the great wholesome, generous, American spirit".

These phrases are BULL.

Real Americans don't buy that crap except when it's election year or when large catatastophies hit too close to home and kill a lot of people (earthquakes, floods, large federal buildings getting bombed, etc.)

Only during those times does "love thy neighbor" trully become practiced by the American community. But when things are just fine - the economy is booming, people are spending their tax breaks or shoveling their liabilities under tax shelters, when gas is cheap, no floods, no earthquakes, no fires, no starving people, etc., the true face of America comes out to play and "love thy neighbor" suddenly turns into "screw thy neighbor". :D :p

In my book, I think that is crappy.
Red, white and blue crappy. :eek:

[Kruno]

Good point :)

Originally posted by =SSC=The Baron
No, it should go to lung cancer research, because even with no smoking there will still be widespread lung cancer considering how polluted society is.

And if we educate people, we might put tobacco companies out of business without milking them for every dime their worth. And I don't want any bastard whose livelihood revolves around killing people to walk away with a cent.

[Smokey]

I think that the words governments are to blame here. How could something so addictive ever be made legal?Money, our governments are more interested in money than our health, now when all these court cases are poping up the governments are quick to point the finger. I think the governments worldwide should be inversting money in programs for smokers to stop, as smoking is addictive, even people like myself that want to stop find it very hard to. I find that there is more support for helping people addicted to illegal drugs, than this is helping people addicted to legal drugs and in my opinion is the responsabilty of the government, as they have never had a problem putting high taxes on a product that people are addictted to.

[vampireuk]

Over here the NHS have set up a programme to help people quit smoking. I can't see why it is legal myself either, more people die from smoking every year than all the illegal drugs put together. How in their right minds can any government keep smoking legal.

[sbp]

Yes, the tobacco companies are disgraceful.

Smokey, smoking has been around for centuries now.

Though smoking was promoted as beneficial in some quarters, the ultimate decision whether to smoke or not laid with each person. And we've known smoking was bad for decades now.

If cigarettes are to be outlawed, stop messing around and get on with it. It won't happen though-there's too much money to be made. On the one hand, the government doesn't want folks to smoke. On the other hand, it does want people to smoke so it gets money from the taxes.

Ban cigarettes and watch as cigarette smuggling goes up even more.

I have never smoked and have no interest in ever doing so. However, I'm not going to preach to those who want to. Got free choice?

[StealthHawk]

i don't think many people would be happy if smoking was outlawed. after all, there are a lot of smokers, even though many of them started after knowing full well the ill consquences of smoking.

hopefully, smoking will eventually be phased out, little by little.