Get Rich Quick! All You Have to do is be Completely Irresponsible!

[Amused]

Eat, smoke, gamble..

Wisconsin State Journal Editorial

Let's face it: The concept of personal responsibility is dead as a doornail. Pffft. Playing harps with Hoffa. Somebody send flowers.
Consider this: With $28 billion to her name, Betty Bullock of California is the third richest person in America. Bullock achieved this fortune not by hard work, nor by marrying well, nor by having a rich relative kick the bucket.

Bullock got rich by smoking 30 cigarettes a day for 40 years. When she contracted (big surprise here!) lung cancer, she sued Philip Morris, and a jury in (another big surprise here!) California awarded her $28 billion in punitive damages.

That's $63,926 for every cigarette she smoked since she was 17. Yes, she testified, she knew smoking was dangerous. But she couldn't stop.

It wasn't her fault.

David N. Williams has not yet received a similar windfall, but he's hopeful. Williams, a $35,000-a-year government auditor, has sued the Casino Aztar in Evansville, Ind., for allowing him to gamble away his life savings.

He admits being addicted to gambling. He acknowledges being hospitalized against his will to treat his addiction. He acknowledges receiving a letter from the casino saying he would only be allowed back in when he presented medical documentation that "our facility poses no threat to your safety."

He also acknowledges slipping back into the casino and gambling away another $45,000. But he couldn't stop.

It wasn't his fault.

The same goes for Caesar Barber, the 272-pound maintenance worker who is suing fast food restaurants for making him fat. Barber acknowledges eating fast food because he liked it, and because it was easy. He even admits knowing that eating nothing but high-fat food like burgers and fries would make him, in a word, fat.

Which it did.

But it wasn't his fault.

We know we'll probably hear from the trial lawyers association about this editorial. They'll explain how the lawyers who filed these lawsuits have nothing but the good of society in mind. They'll tell us that individuals are powerless to resist flashy advertising campaigns, are incapable of making rational decisions, and must be protected from heartless, greedy corporations.

They'll tell us we should stop writing editorials harping on personal responsibility and making fun of ridiculous lawsuits.

But we can't. We're addicted.

It's not our fault.

 

[StageLeft]

I don't agree with the big tobacco lawsuits. However I can SOMEWHAT understand why they happen IF you're the sort who somehow was so freaking dumb to start when it was only obvious it was bad for you instead of exceptionally and painfully clear. Of course the guy sueing for gambling? Kick him in the nuts. And that fat bastard for the eating. Well it really disgusts me.

 

[Colt45]

I dont want $63k per cigarette, I just don't want to pay so much tax on them


but yeah, the whole situtation deserves a

 

[Jhill]

First OJ and then this stuff.

Does our legal system need a makeover?

 

[klah]

Originally posted by: Jhill
Does our legal system need a makeover?

tort reform!!!

 

[Martin]

I sometimes wonder if litigation will cause America's implosion...probably not.


You guys need some reforms, that's all. IIRC, there as a similar case in Canada. The guy was asking for $6000 (yes you read that right) but his lawsuite was thrown out.

 

[Moonbeam]

The court systen should be abolished. No law suites and no lawyers.

 

[Lithium381]

it's all a load of BS.....i saw a story somewhere about a lady who sued everyone and everybody....the kids down the street for playing basketball and causing her to develop headaches(yeah right).....she tripped and sued the buliding owner that she was outside of........it makes me sick......

 

[Dacalo]

I took a business law school years back and I learned a few things about these kind of cases.

There are two different kinds of compensations: I think one is punitive and I dont remember the other.

The other is usually small compensation. The punitive damage is what makes up the mega dollar of compensations, it is designed to punish big corporations so that they do not think about repeating the same mistake.

Still, I think the money from corporations should be donated to some charity and for the needy, not some person who smoked all her life knowing that it is harmful :|

 

[ElFenix]

its the american way.

 

[bizmark]

$28billion?!?!?! That's just plain retarded!

 

[Ns1]

st@b em all!

 

[notfred]

Hell, you don't have to give me $63k per cigarette. I'll take up smoking for just $63 each!

 

[Zebo]

Sad for America (or world):frown: Angry at the lawyers, plaintiff, and judical system:| Mad no one in power really wants things to change.

Edit : Why does'nt every case make it this far? Legally speaking everyone who had died or had cancer attributed to cigs should have the same result./..NO?

 

[tcsenter]

Pretty soon, there will be nothing cool and fun and righteous and useful left on earth.

No lawn mowers, because people can stick their hands and feet under them. The blades of a lawn mower are 'ultra hazardous' products, being so sharp and spinning so fast and all, and manufacturers are negligent and liable because they continued to produce lawn mowers with dangerously sharp and fast-spinning blades knowing that thousands of stupid people are injured or maimed or disfigured annually.

You can pretty much apply directly the exact legal theory used against the tobacco companies with little material change against the manufacturers of every single product on earth that has or can or does somehow become implicated in the injury, death, or illness of a person, or merely in the use of the product in such a way that it contributes to someone's financial or emotional woes.

It can because it must, the legal theory being used against big tobacco is engineered from the ground up to eliminate as a factor any and all contribution that the plaintiff may have made to his or her own condition.

Time and time again, when the foreman or jurors themselves are interviewed and polled about their deliberation process, we are shown that deliberations are 10% legal reasoning and 90% emotional appeal. I cannot say that I necessarily fault jurors, because the vast majority of the public knows nothing about the law, nor its principles, history, or underlying philosophy. So, they have no other choice but to base their deliberations on issues and factors they understand and feel they know something about; emotion, sympathy, and any other base prejudices they might have.

We may fault the public school system for taking the academia out of academics and teaching only what is necessary to pass some standardized test so that schools will get more funding, or the economic and material priorities of society, or the law, but we cannot fault juries themselves, because we as a society foist them into an environment which is completely foreign to them and they have no other choice but to be there and render a judgement, in the best way they are able to.

Of course, 'the best that the vast majority of the public is able to do' is precisely the problem.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Pretty soon, there will be nothing cool and fun and righteous and useful left on earth.

No lawn mowers, because people can stick their hands and feet under them. The blades of a lawn mower are 'ultra hazardous' products, being so sharp and spinning so fast and all, and manufacturers are negligent and liable because they continued to produce lawn mowers with dangerously sharp and fast-spinning blades knowing that thousands of stupid people are injured or maimed or disfigured annually.

You can pretty much apply directly the exact legal theory used against the tobacco companies with little material change against the manufacturers of every single product on earth that has or can or does somehow become implicated in the injury, death, or illness of a person, or merely in the use of the product in such a way that it contributes to someone's financial or emotional woes.

It can because it must, the legal theory being used against big tobacco is engineered from the ground up to eliminate as a factor any and all contribution that the plaintiff may have made to his or her own condition.

Time and time again, when the foreman or jurors themselves are interviewed and polled about their deliberation process, we are shown that deliberations are 10% legal reasoning and 90% emotional appeal. I cannot say that I necessarily fault jurors, because the vast majority of the public knows nothing about the law, nor its principles, history, or underlying philosophy. So, they have no other choice but to base their deliberations on issues and factors they understand and feel they know something about; emotion, sympathy, and any other base prejudices they might have.

We may fault the public school system for taking the academia out of academics and teaching only what is necessary to pass some standardized test so that schools will get more funding, or the economic and material priorities of society, or the law, but we cannot fault juries themselves, because we as a society foist them into an environment which is completely foreign to them and they have no other choice but to be there and render a judgement, in the best way they are able to.

Of course, 'the best that the vast majority of the public is able to do' is precisely the problem.

can my padded room have a playstation in it?

 

[tcsenter]

can my padded room have a playstation in it?

I'm afraid that won't be possible, young man. As you may know, deaths, seizure disorders, and repetitive injury syndromes have been associated with game consoles such as the Play Station, and since the manufacturers of these products have outrageously and immorally refused to provide with the sale of each and every game console a personal nanny free of charge who can watch you 24 hours a day to ensure that you're using the product safely and comfortably, we had no other choice but to sue the manufacturers of game consoles out of existence. Sorry.

Perhaps we can interest you in a nice game of thumb-twiddling? That's pretty safe, there have been no documented injuries or deaths as a result of thumb-twiddling. Although, we must advise you, that if such a documented injury or death should ever come to our attention, we'll have no other choice but to pull your thumbs off. Its for your own good.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Pretty soon, there will be nothing cool and fun and righteous and useful left on earth.

.

That is no joke. This is some things I/we enjoyed as children which you never will see today.

-Steel chain linked high strung swings with open seat to get major velocity and jump high and far from and also going for style points. We used to spend hours jumping and judging as kids with only a couple major injuries Have you seen the crap today at playgrounds? Looks like Mcdonalds fun house and my kids get bored after 5 minutes.

-Steel heavy high velcocity merry-go-rounds which also were fun to jump on and off.

-BB gun wars (only 2 pumps allowed). Nuff said.

-M80s Again nuff said

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

We may fault the public school system for taking the academia out of academics and teaching only what is necessary to pass some standardized test so that schools will get more funding, or the economic and material priorities of society, or the law, but we cannot fault juries themselves, because we as a society foist them into an environment which is completely foreign to them and they have no other choice but to be there and render a judgement, in the best way they are able to.

What are you saying, it can't be the juror's fault for being ingorant and stupid? It must be society's and the school system's? Sounds like the makings of another lawsuit to me.

 

[tcsenter]

What are you saying, it can't be the juror's fault for being ingorant and stupid? It must be society's and the school system's? Sounds like the makings of another lawsuit to me.

This issue isn't that the juror's are ingorant and stupid, the issue is that we know that juror's are ignorant and stupid but continue to place an extremely large responsibility on them, anyway.

Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[QTPie]

stupid jurors, period.

 

[kherman]

I smoked in college for a year. My excuse. only 25% of these people get lung cancer. That's nto bad. That gets me started. Then Big Tobacco gets me hooked!!!

Took me a while to actualyl quit. Cigerettes make me want to puke now.

 

[yellowperil]

MOst of these high-profile cases in the media are the exception rather than the rule. If you're going to blame the justice system on this one, blame the jurors - they are supposed to make findings of fact as the reasonable person standard. Unfortunately sometimes you get 6 people in a room and they go crazy with the punitive damages verdicts (Alabama has a notorious track record for this ). Fortunately many of these sums get knocked down considerably on remittur, but you never read about it in the news headlines. The news is there to grab your attention, but the $28 billion verdict is not the end-all to this case. After the appeals, remittur, and factoring in comparative negligence, it's hard to say what she'll end up with.

As to the actual merits of the case (whether tobacco companies negligently marketed cigarettes) I haven't been following up.

 

[Placer14]

Maybe someone needs to make some really off the wall law suit and win, and then deny the whole thing, made the jurors look stupid and the judge for allowing it and say "What has society come to! You people should ashamed." That should get some media attention, right?

 

[Gnurb]

I agree with the lawsuits. She may be the third richest person in the world, but what good is it if she'll be dead in a couple years from cancer?

Read Thank You For Smoking by Chris Buckley, it's a hilarious fictional story about a cigarette lobbyist.