Smokers seem to want it both ways. Suing the tobacco companies for millions of dollars for wrongful death, arguing that the companies are responsible for their lung cancer, missing oral anatomy and the fact that they have to breathe through a hole in their throat. All of these arguments are similar, that the tobacco companies knew that the product would do harm and did not make it known to the consumer.
Here is a summary of judgements from Wikipedia:
-June 2002: A District Court in Kansas awarded $15 million in punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco after calling the company's conduct "highly blameworthy and deserving of significant punishment." (David Burton vs. R.J. Reynold's Tobacco
-June 2002: A Miami jury held three cigarette companies liable for $37.5 million in a lawsuit involving an ex–smoker who lost his tongue to tobacco–related oral cancer. (Lukacs vs. Phillip Morris)
-October 2002: A Los Angeles jury issued $28 billion in punitive damages against Phillip Morris. This was later reduced to $28 million. (Betty Bullock vs. Phillip Morris)
-2004: A New York jury issued $20 million to the wife of a long-term smoker who died of lung cancer at the age of 57. This was the first time that a New York court had held a tobacco company liable for an individual smoker's death. (Gladys Frankson vs. Brown and Williams Tobacco Corp)
Now if this is the case, and smokers were able to win suits from the tobacco companies that knew they were doing harmful things to others, shouldn’t it work both ways? I have an equal right to be in a restaurant, bar or casino as anyone else, assuming that I am of legal age. If a smoker is participating in a behavior that they know is causing me harm, shouldn’t they be held liable? If the tobacco companies can be held liable for smokers health problems, shouldn’t the source of second hand smoke be liable for my bronchitis or asthma? I would argue that they should be.
I suggest that non-smokers start getting the name and address of anyone smoking indoors and suing them for causing lung damage to those around them. It is easy to prove actual damages, proximate cause, as well as neglegence on behalf of the smoker, who has been educated that they are in fact causing harm to those around them.
Who needs a smoking ban, just start holding smokers accountable for their actions.
Who wants to be my lawyer?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Big brother wanting it both ways is the true story here. If the FDA knowingly knows a product is bad, and may kill you, do they not BAN that product? Ask China. Lead paint anyone? So then why is tobacco not a band product in this counrty? Because BIG FAT politicians would cry because they can't get their grubby hands on the revenue it generates to the coffers for the state & federal gov't. It should be left up to the business owner if he wants his business smoking or non! I am just tired of the gov't telling us what is best for us. Hypocrits, all of them.
Amen. The government does not want to give up any of it's( our's) money unless it is to buy votes.
Nitrous55
I don't agree with a smoking ban, but I disagree with the role of the government in certain issues. Sometime it is essential to have the gov't do things for us. For example, nuisance laws. People living near slum housing can sue the owners for nuisance, but it would cost them thousands. Too much, that is why we have housing codes.
Post a Comment