beelsebob wrote:16 billion in medical costs, loss of a loved one, etc. The rest as punitive damages.
As far as I'm concerned, it seems fair. If you do business selling something you know will kill people, and advertising that they should do something that will kill them with it, then... you should be liable when those people die.
Note, the case was won explicitly because the company did not advertise any of the risks, and in fact advertised it as a good and healthy thing to do.
It's called personal responsibility Bob.
The dangers of smoking were made clear when the surgeon general issued his report in the 1960s about it. The deceased started smoking in the early 1970s, so he would have been well aware of the dangers even at 13.
Rationally speaking though, considering humans and animals have a flight response to smoke and fire because it's inherently understood to be dangerous, why anyone would think that inhaling smoke would be without danger is beyond me. I speak as an ex-smoker who occasionally lights up a cigarette from time-to-time. I knew it was bad when I started, and I blame no one but myself as I made a conscious decision to partake in such a thing.
Demonizing the tobacco companies nowadays is a typical tactic by liberals to try and excuse people from personal responsibility. You make your choices at the end of the day, and in this day and age, that type of a jury award is pathetic.
Interestingly though I hear little said about the role and responsibility of the alcohol manufacturers for what they do.