Absurd amount of compensation

[antijoke]

Nope she gets that. It's to encourage people to bring lawsuits forward. As they costs so much to bring forward it's a good incentive.

She's not going to end up with 23 billion dollars.

 

[Marmot]

That verdict is never going to stand. Grossly excessive and completely unreasonable figure, what was the judge thinking?

 

[Lartyconshayo]

You should be much more worried about TTIP which will allow the corporations to sue the people for lost profits. By the people I mean the government so you know...taxpayers, anyone who uses public services and welfare claimants etc..

http://www.waronwant.org/campaigns/trade-justice/more/inform/18078-what-is-ttip

 

[CREATIVE!11]

Don't care,

Cigarette companies suck balls and use underhanded tactics to try and advertise to kids all the time. I wish they'd all go bankrupt.

And people who smoke are morons too. Such a useless habit.

 

[Luke_Bowman]

That is an absurd amount of money and I hope she donates the vast majority of it to a decent cause.

However I am all for tobacco companies losing money

 

[bazzabear]

It's sensible. Not point fining a company 1million, when they wouldn't even notice it. It is UK who has it wrong. Punitive charges in such case are needed. It will be lowered,p to a point that will hurt the company but not make them go bust.

And no it won't set a precedent as that happened years ago. all smokers family have to prove, is that they were addicted and their death/illness was caused by smoking. as tobacco companies have already been found guilty of lying and misinformation.

I don't quite understand your reasoning on why this won't set a precedent.

Yes it refers to smoking from ages ago. But this court case has only just gone through, what's to stop everyone else who lost a relative to cancer in the last ten years or so doing the same?

 

[Glaucus]

She's not going to end up with 23 billion dollars.

No she will end up with what ever they decide. It will be revised down. Its a figure that hurts the company, but doesn't make them go bankrupt. so the bigger their profit the more she will get.

 

[Glaucus]

I don't quite understand your reasoning on why this won't set a precedent.

Yes it refers to smoking from ages ago. But this court case has only just gone through, what's to stop everyone else who lost a relative to cancer in the last ten years or so doing the same?

For the simple fact, precedent has already been set, there is a long list of cases before this one. All identical. It doesn't stop them, however it hasn't stopped any one for the last decade or two. As I say this is not the first case.

 

[Destination]

I don't quite understand your reasoning on why this won't set a precedent.

Yes it refers to smoking from ages ago. But this court case has only just gone through, what's to stop everyone else who lost a relative to cancer in the last ten years or so doing the same?

The precedent was already set with the class action law suit the cigarette companies lost.
They lost this some years ago.

To get compensation now, all one has to do, is prove the two points already listed. This is quite clear.
The amount is the surprising thing.

 

[Theophany]

Wow. £13 billion, eh? Smoke up, Johnny!

 

[Glaucus]

... surely you're joking!
!

Why would I be joking, that's how it works and the justification given.
Remember this isn't some accident. It was systematic lying and cover up.

 

[Cosimo]

They deserve it. I hope it hits them hard.

 

[Nitefly]

Why would I be joking, that's how it works and the justification given.

Punitive damages are supposed to deter potential defendants, not encourage claims!

 

[Glaucus]

Punitive damages are supposed to deter potential defendants, not encourage claims!

Yes and no.
Punitive damages are supposed to deter potential defendants.
The reason the defendant keeps it all, is to encourage law suits. Rather than going to goverment or some other fund.
This is America such law suits are stupidly expensive if you lose.

 

[Fenris]

Don't care, cigarette companies are the ****ing devil.

 

[~Divine~Wind~]

That was never the case in any country. They lied for decades, even the written health warnings is relatively new. 1971 in UK. US was the first to introduce health warnings 66-70, but this still leaves decades of lying.

You will see just as many as has already been seen. This is not the first case in the slightest. It's simply the highest reward that will be revised down.
Punitive charge is meant to hurt the company, but not make them go out of business.

Ah I always thought they had that tiny little B&W strip saying smoking damages health.

 

[Nitefly]

The reason the defendant keeps it all, is to encourage law suits. Rather than going to goverment or some other fund.

I'm not going to spend any more time on this than this post alone, but that is just total nonsense

 

[Glaucus]

I'm not going to spend any more time on this than this post alone, but that is just total nonsense

Google it, that is the justification given. seeing as you didn't even seem to understand to begin with, hence your last post.

What are punitive damages? Punitive damages are money the defendant in a lawsuit is sometimes ordered to pay when the behavior at issue is held to be especially egregious. Each state makes its own rules, but typically the defendant is supposed to have acted knowingly and with malicious intent, not just negligently. Punitive damages are assessed on top of "actual damages," which are supposed to include compensation for all of the victim's actual losses, including hard-to-measure ones such as pain and suffering.






Who gets the money? The victim gets the money, minus the lawyers' share (generally one-third, though usually less in huge class actions like the tobacco case).




If actual damages are supposed to make up for all the harm done by the defendant, why should it have to pay more than that? The theory is that if the price for gross misbehavior is just enough to make up the victims' losses, the defendant may not be sufficiently punished or discouraged from misbehaving again. Punitive damages are supposed to guarantee that the wrongdoer gets the message.




Who decides whether there will be punitive damages, and how much? Sometimes the judge, sometimes the jury. Jury awards are usually reviewed by the judge and often reduced (as most people expect them to be in the Florida smoking case). The standard of how much is vague: enough to deter future misbehavior but not enough to put the wrongdoer out of business.




If punitive damages are not about compensating the victim, who supposedly has been fully compensated by actual damages, why does the victim get the money? The theory is that deterring bad behavior through lawsuits is socially useful activity and that victims and their lawyers need an incentive and reward for bringing such suits. Critics of the tort litigation system believe that punitive damages are one of its central flaws and that encouraging lawsuits is one of the main things wrong with them.




Can other states recover punitive damages too? Yes, in theory, although the tobacco companies claim that paying $145 billion even once will wipe them out. One criticism of punitive damages is that they can be assessed again and again in lawsuits by different victims of the same misbehavior. Meanwhile, though, the judge or jury in each case is supposed to measure punitive damages as if this case were the only one.

 

[DJ_Bucho]

That is absolutely outrageous, I can't believe in thus day and age things like this still happen...

 

[[TW]Fox]

It is an absurd level of compensation - which will be reflected in its reduction at appeal. The fact Glaucus thinks its reasonable is further support to the idea that it's absurd

$23Bn for *one* person who didn't themselves contract cancer as a result of smoking is bizarre. It is a staggering amount of money. Many thousands of other people are in the same situation as she is through the actions of tobacco firms, there is no $23bn for them never could be.