updated:Philip Morris ordered to pay $28bn damages to cancer victim

**NuTs62** · 10-04-2002, 09:38 PM

By Neil Buckley in New York
Published: October 4 2002 19:47 | Last Updated: October 4 2002 19:47

A Los Angeles jury ordered Philip Morris to pay $28bn in punitive damages to a cancer victim in the highest ever award in a individual case against a tobacco company.

Philip Morris immediately said it would appeal against an award its lawyer called "absurd".

But the award was a huge blow both for the company - which was its fourth successive defeat in California court cases - and the industry, which had believed the US litigation threat was receding.

Philip Morris shares, which had already fallen sharply last week, closed 7.4 per cent lower at $36.59 in the wake of the jury's decision. The Dow Jones Industrial average fell sharply to close 188.79 points or 2.45 per cent down at 7,528.40, its lowest level since November 1997.

A jury in the Los Angeles Superior Court said the world's biggest tobacco company should pay the damages to Betty Bullock, a 64-year-old woman with lung cancer.

Ms Bullock argued she had become addicted to smoking after Philip Morris had misrepresented the risks.

The size of the punitive damages award came as a shock after the jury last week awarded compensation to Ms Bullock of only $850,000 - one of the smallest such awards in California tobacco cases.

Some $750,000 was for economic damage, and $100,000 for pain and suffering.

The $28bn punitive damages, designed to punish wrongdoing, outstripped the $24.6bn that an economist witness for Ms Bullock had argued was the net worth of Philip Morris USA - the com- pany's US tobacco arm. The jury found Philip Morris liable for fraud, negligence and product liability claims in Ms Bullock's lawsuit.

Ms Bullock started smoking at 17 and said she had believed Philip Morris's past claims that there was no evidence to show smoking caused cancer.

Michael Piuze, her lawyer, called the damages "long overdue".

"There's no amount of money big enough to punish Philip Morris," he added.

Philip Morris said the award was inconsistent with the evidence and the law. At 33,000 times greater than the compensatory damages, the punitive damages were well above a four-to-one maximum ratio suggested by the US Supreme Court, it said.

It added that the jury should have focused on what Ms Bullock knew about smoking's health risks, and whether anything the company did improperly influenced her decision to smoke.

"Instead, it appears that this decision speaks to more general policy issues regarding smoking that can't fairly be decided in lawsuits like this," said William Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris's general counsel.

The company's attorney told the court that Philip Morris had already been sufficiently punished by the $246bn so-called "master settlement agreement" between tobacco companies and US states in 1998.

The award could be substantially reduced on appeal. A previous $3bn damages award to a smoker also represented by Mr Piuze, Richard Boeken, was later reduced to $100m.

linkage
-------------------------

dayuuum!! $28 billion... i wonder what it'll be brought down to.. but still I think it'll be a hefty penalty against them..

**DankNstickY** · 10-04-2002, 10:22 PM

yea.. i heard about this earlier. pretty crazy. 28 billion... with a B!

ehh... thats about 15 billion after taxes... no biggy

**NuTs62** · 10-04-2002, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by DankNstickY
yea.. i heard about this earlier. pretty crazy. 28 billion... with a B!

ehh... thats about 15 billion after taxes... no biggy

heh.. a lesson to all the young kiddies.. ignore all the warning signs of smoking, and light up.. 20 years down the road, when you develop some illness, then sue! you too can become a billionaire!

**sbp** · 10-05-2002, 12:06 AM

Ridiculous. People have known for decades that smoking was bad.

**Memo** · 10-05-2002, 01:28 AM

Damn those tobaccoo companies for making people smoke! Don't they know people have no free will?!

**johnnymk** · 10-05-2002, 05:23 AM

Let's see, assuming she was capable of working for 50 years.. at $28 billion , that averages out to approximately $550 million per year. With her logic, I doubt that she could find a job making $5500 per year.

**Grimm** · 10-06-2002, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by johnnymk
Let's see, assuming she was capable of working for 50 years.. at $28 billion , that averages out to approximately $550 million per year. With her logic, I doubt that she could find a job making $5500 per year.

It's not her logic, it's the jury's. Her attourney stated the worth of the company, not that she wanted all of it. Yes, the tobbaco companies should be hurt for what they have done, maybe even shut down entirely. But giving all the money to one woman when there were millions wronged, it's just plain stupid.
It will be overturned on appeal. The jury fill of crack heads should have considered that when making their decision. Hey, give her millions, she was lied to and her health was ruined, her family was put at risk. But 28 Billion is a crock.

**~~Cantacuzene~~** · 10-06-2002, 06:50 AM

They should pay for her health bills but any more is ridiculous and money grubbing.

If they award her beyond her bills and "pain and suffering" they should donate the rest of the money to cancer research, not to her.

**NuTs62** · 10-06-2002, 02:32 PM

*ahem* and money should go to all us second hand smokers that hafta put up with that crap

**Jeffbx** · 10-07-2002, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by johnnymk
Let's see, assuming she was capable of working for 50 years.. at $28 billion , that averages out to approximately $550 million per year. With her logic, I doubt that she could find a job making $5500 per year.

She only got $750k for 'economic damage', which works out to $15k/yr, which would be pretty low for 50 years of work. The $28B was strictly punitive damages against Philip Morris, and was decided by the jury. Still crazy, tho.

**~~Cantacuzene~~** · 10-07-2002, 05:54 AM

I still think any money she gets in excess of lost wages should be donated to cancer research.

**sbp** · 10-07-2002, 07:03 AM

I don't think she should have gotten a damn thing except a big kick in the ass.

**johnnymk** · 10-07-2002, 09:36 AM

**kain9i6** · 10-07-2002, 10:53 AM

This is straight BS.. People choose to smoke.. Just like people CHOOSE to go to Mc Donald's and get fat http://www.gotapex.com/forums/showth...threadid=50695
people taking advantage of the laws we set up to protect those who are in NEED of protection.. Not some tobacco junky who says "Hey, I gave myself cancer, and now I think the people who provided me with the medium for it should have to pay me"..

Hmm.. if this goes through, I push we shut down all fast food restaraunts, close all gun factories, abolish all alcohol and remove all cars from the face of the earth, close anything that is a threat to life and the way we live it.

We do have this thing called a brain... and in that brain lies a little thing called WILL POWER.. it can overcome any addiction you have built up in your mind..

**Speedfreak** · 10-07-2002, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by sbp
Ridiculous. People have known for decades that smoking was bad.

Ya, and yet millions still smoke. I guess if they can't convince the user that they are doing nothing but harm to themselves (and people within breathing distance of their smoke), then they have to hit the source

I don't think she should have gotten a damn thing except a big kick in the ass.

I agree. In fact, that should be the same for all smokers. I know nicotene is addictive, but I'm begining to think it makes a person stupid, too. Well, maybe not stupid, but just makes you forget that you are inhaling burning plant into your lungs. I always thought it would be a good idea to charge admission and have tobacco growers burn their whole crops. I wonder if that would be heaven for smokers. They could just walk around and breathe in all they want.

**Speedfreak** · 10-07-2002, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by kain9i6
Hmm.. if this goes through, I push we shut down all fast food restaraunts, close all gun factories, abolish all alcohol and remove all cars from the face of the earth, close anything that is a threat to life and the way we live it.

Well, I can't get fat if I walk by a person eating a quarter pounder or get second hand drunk walking by a person drinking. As far as guns..well maybe they should be limited to enforcement (don't know how to fix that problem) and cars.. we will eventually have all electric cars, and for right now, at least they serve a purpose.

We do have this thing called a brain... and in that brain lies a little thing called WILL POWER.. it can overcome any addiction you have built up in your mind..

Now, that's BS. There are millions of smokers, yet the increasing cost of cigarettes doesn't convince them. The risk of ilness doesn't convince them. The patches and gum to help them quit (which are more expensive in the begining, but far more cheaper in the long run than if you keep buying cigarettes. Also, many times the price of these are covered by insurance as I know a couple of people that were charged $1 a month for the patch) don't convince them. All this stuff to boost their will power, and yet they continue.

I have never been able to get my WILL POWER to prevent me from getting second hand smoke. I'm sorry that I have to leave my house sometimes, but it is necessary.

**Merlin** · 10-07-2002, 12:13 PM

Something interesting I read in today's Financial Times. Typically, in a situation such as this the courts will award punitative damages in the amount of approximately 3x the compensatory damages. In this case it was 33,000x the compensatory damages. So they were saying that we should expect to see this award to be greatly reduced on appeal. Also, given the magnatude of the award that appeal should happen rather quickly.

This is just what I read in the paper. If there is anyone out there involved in the legal system, they might be better able to shed light on it.

**Grimm** · 10-07-2002, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by kain9i6
This is straight BS.. People choose to smoke.. Just like people CHOOSE to go to Mc Donald's and get fat ...

While I do have to lay some of the blame on the smoker, I have to disagree with you. At the time this lady got hooked the Tobacco Companies were intentionaly deceiving people about the health risks. They should pay out the ass for lying. Someone who started smoking in the past few years made and informed decision. They get what they get, they asked for it. Someone who was hooked on this increadably addictive drug more than a few years ago never had a chance.

**Nija** · 10-07-2002, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Grimm

Someone who started smoking in the past few years made and informed decision. They get what they get, they asked for it. Someone who was hooked on this increadably addictive drug more than a few years ago never had a chance.

wasn't the tabacoo companies exposed back in like the 70's or something? I thought it wasn't very recent...

**sbp** · 12-19-2002, 09:11 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73399,00.html

"A judge Wednesday slashed a record-breaking $28 billion award to a former smoker to $28 million, saying the jury's decision on punitive damages was excessive."

Still wayyy too much

**molecularfire** · 12-19-2002, 12:25 PM

Why is anyone suprised that c@#p like this happens? If you think about it, our jury system relies on one basic premise... "12 people who don't know what happened, don't care what happened and were too dumb to be able to get out of jury duty are the best ones to decide what happened."

**nickel** · 12-19-2002, 12:33 PM

you think this is outlandish? a jury found OJ the Slasher Simpson innocent. i lost any faith i may have had in our judicial system right there forever.

**Hoser** · 12-19-2002, 01:18 PM

Just think what'll happen if they pass the costs onto the smokers? A pack of cigarettes will probably cost at least $100.

**Nija** · 12-19-2002, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by nickelback
you think this is outlandish? a jury found OJ the Slasher Simpson innocent. i lost any faith i may have had in our judicial system right there forever.

If the glove doesn't fit,
You must acquit.

**Speedfreak** · 12-19-2002, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Hoser
Just think what'll happen if they pass the costs onto the smokers? A pack of cigarettes will probably cost at least $100.

Ya, and I wonder how many people will still buy them instead of buying that gum or the patch and TRY to quit.

**nickel** · 12-19-2002, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Nija

If the glove doesn't fit,
You must acquit.

what a joke that was, OJ pretending he couldn't get his killer hands into those gloves. the man is an actor after all. or m'be the gloves shrank after all that exposure to blood.

**Hunny** · 12-27-2002, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by sbp
I don't think she should have gotten a damn thing except a big kick in the ass.

I agree...I use to be a smoker..and I find that all a bunch of bull****....
She knew exactly what she was doing...& the risks...anddddd where she could get a damn good lawyer... C'mon..why dont we all go to McDonalds, so we can burn our mouths on hot coffee..

**mojo** · 12-27-2002, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by Hunny
C'mon..why dont we all go to McDonalds, so we can burn our mouths on hot coffee..

ms. lieback needed skin grafts due to 3rd degree burns sustained by coffee that was routinely kept 40 degrees hotter than home-brewed in order to improve the aroma. while she may have been careless, it was still found to be unfit for consumption until it cooled quite a bit. mcdonalds had rec'd 700 complaints prior to the incident and didnt do anything about it.

but hey, if you're willing to purposely pour 185 degree coffee on yourself to prove a point, i wish you luck.

**Hunny** · 12-27-2002, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by mojo
ms. lieback ...by coffee that was routinely kept 40 degrees hotter than home-brewed ... it was still found to be unfit for consumption until it cooled quite a bit........185 degree coffee

How hot was that coffee again? 185 degrees? or was that a figure of speech??

and where did you get all these facts? Ms Lieback & her lawyer?

**mojo** · 12-27-2002, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Hunny

How hot was that coffee again? 185 degrees? or was that a figure of speech?? and where did you get all these facts? Ms Lieback & her lawyer?

the case has interested me for a while...mostly because it's so often used as an example of a "frivolous lawsuit" and such.

depending on where you look, you'll get different details...amounting to about the same ideas. everyone agrees that she received 3rd degree burns tho. i dunno about you, but last time i spilled coffee on myself, i didnt get 3rd degree burns...and i doubt that such a simple mistake should result in skin grafts under normal circumstances.

anyhow, here are a few links:

washington center for consumer law
http://www.consumerrights.net/mcdonalds.html

urban legends (legal beagles)
http://www.tafkac.org/faq2k/legal_2019.html

and according to public citizen

By its own corporate standards, McDonald's sells coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. A scientist testifying for McDonald's argued that any coffee hotter than 130 degrees could produce third degree burns. Likewise, a scientist testifying on behalf of Ms. Liebeck noted that it takes less than three seconds to produce a third degree burn at 190 degrees.

anyhow, a simple search will pull up all kinds of stuff. you can look under lieback or liebeck and get a few things here and there.