Jury Awards Record $28 Billion to Ex-Smoker

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 5 2002, 12:05 AM

"I didn't know!!"

A jury awarded a record-shattering $28 billion in punitive damages today to a 64-year-old former smoker who sued Philip Morris Inc. for fraud and negligence.

...
...Last month, the jury ordered the tobacco company to pay Bullock $750,000 in damages and $100,000 for pain and suffering.

like isn't there more or less a formula or something for compensatory damages already?


WELL...given this is a punitive damage and i guess doesn't have anything to do w/ whether she personally "deserved" it, what do ppl think about the award? does it change your original opinion? makes it easier to justify to me, but i still think it's over-the-line.

[Reinhard H.]

I tell you how the American legal system works: You have a good lawyer, you have a sympathetic jury and you can act well, then you win ANY trial (see O.J.), probably she was good at sobbing in the court room and putting on a big stage show while some emotionally cold guy (like myself) would probably get a kick in the ass from the lawyers of Philip Morris at such a trial.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 7 2002, 07:24 AM
the fact that i'm arguing for the possibility that she might possibly deserve the judgment does not mean that i would dispute that your parents would not deserve a similar judgment.

well in fact, it does, because we're dividing up pieces of a fixed pie here: the capital of a corporation. $28 billion dollars to her means $28 billion dollars less to be donated to cancer research, or to compensate other victims who don't earn as much sympathy from the jury (if she were Asian, think her jackpot would have reached THIRTEEN TIMES THE GDP OF BHUTAN?), or to conduct anti-drug education in the public schools.

and my definition of deserving? Earning the money through productive activity, or demonstrating tangible economic loss. We can't start putting a monetary value on "pain and suffering," and disgusting awards like this perpetuate the fiction that we can. Why should she get $28 billion whereas a guy who dies in fishing accident gets the face value of his life insurance policy - maybe a few hundred grand at best? Why should she get $28 billion when in all likelihood the team of scientists who actually finds a cure for cancer sometime in the future are maybe gonna see 1% of that amount? In what metaphysical sense does her suffering entitle her to $28 billion dollars when there are nations whose entire citizenry produces less than that amount in 10 years, and whose citizens face everyday poverty and suffering she can't even imagine?

[thaite]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 6 2002, 10:44 PM
furthermore, we're just debating with the facts given to us by the media. we don't know what the media is withholding. perhaps there is a reason for the big judgment. perhaps they are not disclosing the reason because it makes the story more sensational...

:pissed:

Umm, yeah. I got a clue for ya. Reporters aren't allowed to talk to jurors during the course of a trial. Jurors debate in seclusion. And jurors aren't compelled to talk to reporters after the trial is over. I seriously doubt that "the media" is intentionally withholding information and don't see how that could make it more dramatic or sensational.

[angel nympho]

With that much money, she could buy herself a new fucking lung.

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 7 2002, 06:13 PM
With that much money, she could buy herself a new fucking lung.

She's gonna make some transplant surgeon very rich.

[sandra]

Originally posted by buoywonder@Oct 7 2002, 07:39 PM
I seriously doubt that "the media" is intentionally withholding information and don't see how that could make it more dramatic or sensational.

i do. it's certainly drawn more attention the case in here.

[thaite]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 8 2002, 01:53 AM

i do. it's certainly drawn more attention the case in here.

I don't see how. I mean, do you see any public calls to the media to release further information? I don't.

[sandra]

Originally posted by buoywonder@Oct 8 2002, 08:36 PM

I don't see how. I mean, do you see any public calls to the media to release further information? I don't.

how? well, if you leave out certain facts, it makes the judgment that much more absurd and therefore sensationalizes the story. kinda like what they did with the latasha harlins case. "korean woman kills black girl over bottle of orange juice." simplify = sensationalize.

i'm not sure what you mean by public calls to the media. is that what usually happens when information is lacking? and how is the public supposed to know when information is lacking?