• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Philip Morris told to pay 8 mln in smoker's death

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That's because Philip Morris tied the guy down, put a gun to his head, and made him smoke 3 packs a day for 30 years....

Wait, no they didn't. Is it just me, or does anybody else see a problem with this verdict? I mean, come on, dammit. The guy had a choice, and made that choice. He shouldn't have gotten a dime.

Article is here.
 
I agree, this is no different then letting fat asses sue McDonalds or speeders who crash their car sue the car manufacturers or someone who cut themselves with razor blades sue the razor blade manufacture. I hope they appeal this decision.
 
I think that our legal system has lost all its sanity.
 
That's because Philip Morris tied the guy down, put a gun to his head, and made him smoke 3 packs a day for 30 years....

Wait, no they didn't. Is it just me, or does anybody else see a problem with this verdict? I mean, come on, dammit. The guy had a choice, and made that choice. He shouldn't have gotten a dime.

Article is here.

We all know much the apster hates smoking and likes to see it when cigarette companies suffer from their disgusting product. However, I blame the smoker in these type of cases. $8 million? Are you kidding me? And the wife says it wasn't about the money. Bull****, you stupid wench.

Rant done.
 
I think that our legal system has lost all its sanity.

It really has. The things people sue over these days. It's pathetic.
 
I've instructed my wife to sue the hammer company after I beat myself to death with a hammer.
 
Absolutely insane and a very, very dangerous precedent.

Okay, if I die paddling a river, I think someone should sue this 'god' people speak of. I mean, 'he' made the river, right? IT'S ALL HIS FAULT!!!! And you KNOW he's gotta be rich.

So many lawsuits should just be tossed out of court. Like the one in the OP. You know, we aren't allowed to call Life Jackets "Life Jackets" because of a lawsuit. They have to be called "Personal Floatation Devices" , and we have to point out that they MAY not save someone's life. Why? Because some dude paddled a river and died. His wife sued the Life Jacket company because the jacket didn't save his life. (He hit his head on a rock) She won. She ****ing WON. So now, no more "life jackets".
 
Absolutely insane and a very, very dangerous precedent.

Okay, if I die paddling a river, I think someone should sue this 'god' people speak of. I mean, 'he' made the river, right? IT'S ALL HIS FAULT!!!! And you KNOW he's gotta be rich.

So many lawsuits should just be tossed out of court. Like the one in the OP. You know, we aren't allowed to call Life Jackets "Life Jackets" because of a lawsuit. They have to be called "Personal Floatation Devices" , and we have to point out that they MAY not save someone's life. Why? Because some dude paddled a river and died. His wife sued the Life Jacket company because the jacket didn't save his life. (He hit his head on a rock) She won. She ****ing WON. So now, no more "life jackets".

That is crazy! Talk about the dumbing down of America.

Call them Death Vests just to cover your ass. :mrgreen:
 
Okay...I hate stupid lawsuits but I can see this on one condition: the premise of the suit was that the man began smoking BEFORE the tobacco companies released information (which they would have had to withhold knowing the dangers) on how deadly their product is.

That's the only way I can see this being legitimate.
 
Okay...I hate stupid lawsuits but I can see this on one condition: the premise of the suit was that the man began smoking BEFORE the tobacco companies released information (which they would have had to withhold knowing the dangers) on how deadly their product is.

That's the only way I can see this being legitimate.

Doesn't matter, he could still quit.
 
Doesn't matter, he could still quit.

Sure he could. But damage is done from one cigarette. Also, the tobacco company caused his addiction so there is punative damage there.
 
That's because Philip Morris tied the guy down, put a gun to his head, and made him smoke 3 packs a day for 30 years....

Wait, no they didn't. Is it just me, or does anybody else see a problem with this verdict? I mean, come on, dammit. The guy had a choice, and made that choice. He shouldn't have gotten a dime.

Article is here.
More govt extortion to line the pockets of Congress.
 
More govt extortion to line the pockets of Congress.

You have got to be kidding me. You become more irrelevant by the day, American.
 
Sure he could. But damage is done from one cigarette. Also, the tobacco company caused his addiction so there is punative damage there.

No, HE caused his own addiction by choosing to smoke. He could have ended his addiction by choosing to quit.
 
You have got to be kidding me. You become more irrelevant by the day, American.
I should have said the govt.
 
You have got to be kidding me. You become more irrelevant by the day, American.
Yeah well, you've never been relevant.
 
No, HE caused his own addiction by choosing to smoke. He could have ended his addiction by choosing to quit.

No, HE bought a product that the tobacco companies hid the effects of. Addiction is not something you just toss out like a plastic fork.

Now that we know the effects of tobacco and it's addictive qualities, I would have no sympathy for anyone who starts smoking. However, that isn't the case for an entire generation that were duped.
 
Cool, sue the hell outta them so then the tobacco company can go ask -and get- a bailout from our government. Cause like our economy would collapse without income from tobacco taxes. :doh
 
Sure he could. But damage is done from one cigarette. Also, the tobacco company caused his addiction so there is punative damage there.

What damage is done from one cig? Lung cancer? I don't think so.

The tobacco company did not cause his addiction. No one made him smoke or continue smoking.
 
What damage is done from one cig? Lung cancer? I don't think so.

Whether you think so or not is irrelevant. The facts state otherwise.

The tobacco company did not cause his addiction. No one made him smoke or continue smoking.

No but there is an obligation on the part of a product manufacturer to disclose dangers and side effects of a product. The tobacco company did not do that 30 years ago. Liability for an entire generation of uninformed smokers is on them.
 
Whether you think so or not is irrelevant. The facts state otherwise.



No but there is an obligation on the part of a product manufacturer to disclose dangers and side effects of a product. The tobacco company did not do that 30 years ago. Liability for an entire generation of uninformed smokers is on them.
Warnings on packs of cigarettes have been there since the 60's. What should they have done, put skull and crossbones on each pack? :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom