Nov

23 Another Excessive Judgement

Today, it was announced that a Florida jury awarded a 60 year old with emphysema $300 million in compensatory and punitive damages, ‘because she claims the cigarette company committed fraud against her.’
The claimant stated she took up smoking at age 20 in 1968, ‘because she thought it made her look older and more sophisticated’; ironically enough, she wasn’t that far off, since we all know the aging that tobacco smoke does to one’s face. She quit after 25 years of use, but as you can imagine, that was too late and the effects of 2 ½ decades of smoking took their toll on her lungs.
The jury returned the verdict and, this is no joke, they claim ‘Ms. Naugle [claimant] was 10% at fault and Phillip Morris [defendant] was 90% at fault.’ The issue I, and no surprise Phillip Morris, take with the issue is the amount of damages awarded to this woman for using a product that has been clearly labeled as dangerous by the surgeon general since before Ms. Naugle started smoking. While there’s no argument from me that cigarettes are a blight on this nation, they are, nevertheless, a product that requires the user to make a choice.

The following are variations of the ‘Surgeon General’s Warning’ that have appeared on cigarettes for the past 40 years:

• Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health (1966-1970)
• Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health (1970-1985)
• SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy. (1985-present)
• SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health. (1985-present)
• SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking By Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, And Low Birth Weight. (1985-present)
• SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide. (1985-present)

So the problem with the jury’s award is that it is counter to all of the public service announcements and warnings by state and federal governments to give users the information that cigarettes are bad for them. As I see it, the only plausible way the claimant could have anything less than 50% is if she was given the cigarettes, never read a package and lived in a cave for 50 years, which isn’t the case.

If we continue to allow offensive punitive awards like this, we send a message to citizens that their responsibility is somehow diminished. After all, the US and state governments allow the sale of tobacco; shouldn’t they bear brunt of any punitive action for allowing and TAXING these products?

More to the point, this type of villainy of the cigarette companies is just the beginning; why not sue Budweiser if your dad drank a 6 pack a day for 40 years and was diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver? Where does the responsibility of the consumer come into play anymore? Why does our nation think it’s acceptable to push off blame on someone else for the terrible things that happen to us and the terrible choices we make? You are responsible for smoking that cigarette, just like you are responsible for drinking that beer and you are responsible (and held accountable for, I might add) the death/destruction you cause if you get in an accident while driving drunk. The lawsuits against McDonalds for you being fat or against the pharmaceutical company for you taking a drug that really wasn’t needed (like Viagra) are just frivolous; put down the Big Mac and learn when it’s time to give up recreational sex.

Only when Americans stop blaming other people for their bad choices in life will they learn from their choices/mistakes and make the changes needed to their lives, hopefully before it’s too late.

Sources:
$300 Million Trial Verdict Leaves Philip Morris Smoking Mad
Tobacco Warnings