RJ Reynolds, which makes Camel Cigarettes, is to appeal the landmark award The widow of a chain smoker who died of lung cancer has been awarded $23.6bn (£14bn) in compensation from the company who made his cigarettes. Cynthia Robinson took action against RJ Reynolds Tobacco, makers of Camel and Winston cigarettes, after her husband, Michael Johnson, died in 1996 aged 36. During the four-week trial, lawyers for Ms Robinson argued that RJ Reynolds was negligent in informing consumers of the dangers of tobacco and thus led to Mr Johnson contracting lung cancer from smoking cigarettes. They said Mr Johnson had become "addicted" to cigarettes and failed multiple attempts to quit smoking. The Escambia County, Florida, jury returned its verdict after some 15 hours of deliberations. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company in North Carolina "RJ Reynolds took a calculated risk by manufacturing cigarettes and selling them to consumers without properly informing them of the hazards," Ms Robinson's lawyer Willie Gary said in a statement. "As a result of their negligence, my client's husband suffered from lung cancer and eventually lost his life. "We hope that this verdict will send a message to RJ Reynolds and other big tobacco companies that will force them to stop putting the lives of innocent people in jeopardy." RJ Reynolds plans to appeal the court decision and verdict. A spokesman for the company said the landmark award was "far beyond the realm of reasonableness and fairness".
Health warnings have been printed on packets of cigarettes in the USA since 1966, by order of the Surgeon General. It was the first country in the world to have this requirement. So unless this bloke was illiterate, or started smoking before the age of 6, he did have some warning. As you know NY, damages like this are frequently awarded by juries in the US, and very very rarely are these huge amounts actually upheld. It's more like a show trial. As an ex smoker all I can say is all smokers, as far as I know, are aware of the risks of smoking, they just choose to deny them because they are addicted. But as long as tobacco is legally available, its a matter of personal choice. In the UK the tax on tobacco far outweighs the costs to the public purse of smoking - smokers tend to die young, and relatively fast. I did find it odd that a few weeks ago when I was in New York, which has the most stringent anti smoking laws around, I saw a lot more people smoking on the street than I notice in the UK.
"I did find it odd that a few weeks ago when I was in New York, which has the most stringent anti smoking laws around, I saw a lot more people smoking on the street than I notice in the UK." I think you will find that most of those are tourists.
Why stop at the tobacco company, surely the USA Government is equally culpable as it has not outlawed smoking. It's another USA Court farce of a ruling. As with almost all personal injury claims, people just don't want to take responsibility for themselves or their actions.
The government in both UK and USA get an awful lot of money from taxing cigarettes That is why it has taken a long time to get laws and warnings in place Having said that I hate the "blame culture"......it is not my fault you have to pay culture Anyone who smokes in the last 10-15 years knows the risks...you gamble with your life!
I think the large amount awarded in these case are to punish the tobacco companies. rather than award a lady billions of dollars. If she was awarded $10,000 punishment would be meaningless. Also the UK government can take just as much blame as the US government can for not banning cigarettes, the high cost and poor service of the NHS is caused greatly by smoking related illnesses.
Strangely enough, news from today.................. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/movies/james-garner-actor-dies-at-86.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0 ...Jim Rockford in the 1970s series “The Rockford Files,” was found dead of natural causes at his Los Angeles home on Saturday night, the police said. He was 86. Mr. Garner, who smoked for most of his life, even after open-heart surgery in 1988, had suffered a stroke in 2008.... RIP James.
The compensation claim is ridiculous for exactly some of the reasons you have given above. Why do people not stop smoking people may ask, when they know the risks of indulging in things such as cigs and drinks, the reason, the more you try to ban us, the more we will do it, the more you try to lecture us, the more we will do it, the more the majority want to act as government health clones, the more we will do it. Once governments learn that message, then they might learn a better way forward, that we might listen too. The more you try to restrict our choice, the more we will find ways around legislation. Ban it, then we will break the law. Send us to prison, then you are no better than a Chinese or North Korean government. We don't wish to conform. People talk about passive smoking, yet, every time a human turns a key in a motor vehicle, every minute of every day someone is injured, maimed or killed by a motor vehicle by a person in charge of a potential killing machine, somewhere in the world, just as one example. Do we hear the same uproar about this, No. Why not, because people have become conditioned by the media on acceptabilities. That's life you might say. Correct that's life, my choice. People can go eat their fat burger and i will continue to light my cigarette. The lessons as given on that New York Street.
The highest estimate of the cost of smoking to the NHS is £5.2bn in 2005-06, though according to ASH, a doctor led health oriented charity, it was £2.6bn in 2013, based on Government figures. Tax revenue raised from tobacco in 2013 was £12.1bn (Govt figures). So smoking contributes much more to NHS funding than it costs. According to the OECD and WHO the UK ranks about 15th in the world in the amount spent on healthcare (public and private combined) at about 9.6% of GDP, lagging well behind most European countries and spending less than half per head than the leader of the pack, the USA. Of course, the NHS is largely free at the point of delivery to most users. I won't debate that the quality of the NHS is highly variable, from outstanding to frankly appalling, there are many inefficiencies and bad practices (I have worked in and around healthcare in the UK, Europe and internationally for 30 years) and it frequently makes me very angry indeed. But the WHO ranks it as the 18th best system in the world. The USA comes in at 37th. I'll bet this is based on equitable access to care and the direct cost of this to the individual. I won't deny that on a personal basis, if I had appropriate insurance cover, I would choose to be treated in the Mayo Clinic every time. Facts are wonderful things. Indeed, RIP James. But he had to die of something Nines, and 86 seems a decent innings, smoker or not......
Surprisingly brb, I agree with you. Why surprisingly, because part of my job involves working on small cell lung cancer, the smokers cancer. The one that takes approximately 8 months from diagnosis to kill its victim. I have seen people go from fit to dead really quickly. I have seen the mess in smokers lungs. So I don't smoke. My choice. My parents smoked 40-60 cigs a day each, neither died of a smoking-related disease. Obviously the right genes....but there again we didn't have much money either. The trouble is with cigarettes is that the nicotine is addictive...it is a drug...once hooked, it is a hell of a fight to escape. This is why brb is right ...."more you try to ban us, the more we will do it, the more you try to lecture us, the more we will do it" The government has played on this....and used this to tax the masses...it is a great tax for the government, it is a legitimate way of taxing the poor As is alcohol,alcohol is just as destructive as cigarettes. Once BigBrother has got rid of cigarettes, alcohol will be the next pariah. The drinkers and smokers will become an underclass But do not worry brb...yes cars are killers...but the government has got that covered too....with the increasing tax on petrol.
I would like to sue Alexander Shulgin, for all the lost hours I had in the 80's/90's.........saying that I still had a bloody great time
Why??? Do you make a deliberate point of tax the poor Stan? If you do actually go out of your way to pick on such people I shall sit next to Roller!!!
No, I work for big pharma, and have a specific interest in both small cell and NSC lung cancer......from a commercial rather than a clinical/research perspective, I wouldn't like to inadvertently corrupt a scientist!
B@@@@ @@@ Stan!...I have this mega idea for a project on SCLC, you have absolutely no idea how big this idea could be, no really big!!!. (OK you have heard this all before!) No really seriously. I have 4 years left to get this funded. I am corruptable! Lets chat
