Shit. . major [_: ett for tahts husband. who that at my cancer after 2 [tasks _ cigarrettes he 2 years (straight She inst won the ease. making the nan her Billi
Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

Shit

major [_: ett
for tahts husband.
who that at my cancer
after 2 [tasks _ cigarrettes
he 2 years (straight
She inst won the ease.
making the
nan her Billion
HIST MINT KNEW WHAT TO
...
  • Recommend tagsx

Comments(50):

goldendarknessx has disabled anonymous comments.
[ 50 comments ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:
User avatar #1 - flemsdfer (08/01/2014) [+] (11 replies)
stickied by goldendarknessx
That's a long ass time to take to finish 2 packs of cigarettes.
#4 - doktorwhat (08/01/2014) [+] (4 replies)
Well, the case was actually about suing the tobacco industry for making harmful products that cause cancer. It was filed basically the moment people found out smoking can increase the risk of lung, throat and mouth cancer AND contains a highly-addictive substance. There were many people that were suing and had one giant lawsuit for a very large amount, enough to really bring the tobacco industry to its knees. It was in court for this long and finally there was a loophole that individual lawsuits could be filed, but the joint lawsuit was invalid. So this one bitch did it and won! I'm hoping she shared the money with the other 300 people in the original lawsuit.

You just have to imagine: imagine all of a sudden we discovered plasma screens give you cancer. We'd first find out in a few years and it would be too late, and we'd likely have been poisoning our whole generation. Of course some people would want to sue plasma manufacturers for not researching the cancer-qualities of their products before selling them. And of course about 40 years in the future, people would be like "duh, how stupid can you be! Of COURSE watching plasma TV all day for 20 years will give you cancer!"

See? Context is key. Don't believe anything you hear on the internet. Not even this message. But it is true. Look it up for yourself.
#27 - angelusprimus (08/02/2014) [+] (3 replies)
Lets just put some facts straight.
Man started smoking when he was 15, in 1975 when that company was not just aggressively advertizing to children (even on children's shows like Flintstones), but were still publishing false medical papers and advertizing that smoking is not bad for you in any way. They had "experts" on tv claiming that smoking can increase your lung capacity and make you able to handle sports better.
On shows aimed at teenagers.
Man died in 1996 and case dragged in since.

Jury decided to award his wife $7.3 million and the couple's son $9.6 million for damages.
That means that they didn't get billions for losing a father, they got nearly 17 million.
Jury also decided on the $23.6 billion in punitive damages.
That is PUNISHMENT for deliberately targeting children and teenagers and fighting against admitting that smoking is bad for you, while fully knowing that its deadly.
#13 - tomahawkkit (08/02/2014) [+] (3 replies)
so what about the warning label that says this product will kill you is misleading?
#35 - oily (08/02/2014) [+] (1 reply)
23 billion... Yeah, no ******* way! You can literally buy the whole continent of Africa with that. But then again, it DOES say so on the internet therefore it must be true.
User avatar #21 - dksidefortyone (08/02/2014) [-]
The actual thing she was going was that back when the trial started (about 1970 if I remember it right), the cigarette companies would explicitly advertise to young children, cartoons would smoke, they would sell fake cigarettes to them, ect. That was the thing she went for because her husband started when he was young, and back then there were so few ways to stop smoking.
User avatar #20 - slapchoppin ONLINE (08/02/2014) [+] (2 replies)
aren't there warning on the ******* packs so this kind of **** doesn't happen

when you smoke cigarettes thats a choice you make and you know it can kill you
User avatar #14 - pfccross (08/02/2014) [+] (2 replies)
i do not buy in the slightest no matter how bad it was, no one singular person is ever going to win 23 BILLION dollars over the death of a single person.
#37 - megayoming (08/02/2014) [-]
I don't like that.
User avatar #34 - davyjoneslocker (08/02/2014) [+] (1 reply)
The problem is that in the USA, people can sue for punitive damages. These are meant to be a fee to punish the company for their wrongdoings. In theory this works and is a very effective way to punish companies since they really only care about the bottom line (usually). The problem comes in when that money is awarded to a single individual bringing the case instead of to a class action lawsuit. class actions suits have their own issues but that's usually the fault of the attorneys This would punish the company as well as splitting the money amongst all the victims, or into a special fund to be used in helping victims.

TL;DR Punitive damages to one person instead of to all affected.
User avatar #36 to #34 - davyjoneslocker (08/02/2014) [-]
Also usually when you hear about these cases (especially the mcdonalds coffee case) the media has deliberately blown it way out of proportion to the advantage of the companies, this has been a long term tactic to encourage tort reform and limit punitive damages. Eventually this would have the effect of allowing companies to do whatever they wanted (with regards to causing damages) while only having to pay a small fee (in comparison to the money made).
User avatar #23 - Customer Services (08/02/2014) [-]
Not like most major compagnies / public services don't give a **** about killing you nowadays, as long as the cash flows.
User avatar #15 - klick (08/02/2014) [+] (1 reply)
They won't pay it. This has happened before; the tabaco companies keep on appealing the case forever.
User avatar #49 - helion (08/02/2014) [-]
game of thrones anyone?
User avatar #47 - nimba (08/02/2014) [-]
Oh yeah... poor ******* massive tobacco company what an outrage.
#43 - triarii (08/02/2014) [-]
Is that Tormund Giantsbane?
Is that Tormund Giantsbane?
User avatar #42 - ivroht ONLINE (08/02/2014) [-]
Go home, Florida, you're drunk.
#32 - auryn ONLINE (08/02/2014) [-]
Cheers for the American legal system.
User avatar #29 - WhitePimp (08/02/2014) [-]
but that's 23 billion dollars
inb4 im not even mad that's amazing
User avatar #25 - testaburger (08/02/2014) [-]
ameeeericaaaaa
[ 50 comments ]
 Friends (0)