Big tobacco is paying for years of lying. That's the difference.
Let Mike find out how many lawyers are in Congress. He's the one who claimed to know.
By the way, I have no problem with tort reform. But a simple cut off of rights is not reform.... it is stupid.
All give you an idea or 2 for reform.
Loser reimburses winner for costs to the extent that loser spent money. In other words if you sue GM and spend $10k litigating and lose and GM spent $10 million defending itself, you have to reimburse them $10k because that is what you spent.
On punitive damages, a fraction of all punitive damage awards (maybe half) could go into a fund to reimburse winners when the loser is judgement proof.
I don't smoke, so It's not like I'm defending them, but for craps sakes, anybody who was above a 25 would have known even back in the 40's that smoking is bad for your health. Remember the tune that Phil Harris made popular back in the early 50's. So these people who have, had, and died from lung cancer and then come back and sue the tobacco companies saying they didn't know it was a health risk??? The lawyers picked up some serious cash on this whole tobacco deal. Made a lot of lawyers rich.
I will agree to that. I don't think anybody has that in mind.
If someone sues me for a million dollars because they slipped on my ice covered walk and I spend 50000 defending myself and the plaintiff spends only 5000, but loses then the plaintiff should pick up my tab plus his, it's only fair.
Let's put a cap on attorneys fees right off the bat and not allow them the huge profit from someone else's misery.
When you agree to put a cap on CEO pay and pensions then you can start talking about lawyers' pay. I know many lawyers and none are rich. Recently a door on display in Home Depot fell on a kid. Evidence was that it was installed by one bolt years previously and no one ever inspected it. Kid was smashed good. Lawyers spent more than $100k on experts regarding brain injury to kid. Home Depot spent zillions defending it. In the end jury found store libel but only $100k in damages because they were not convinced that kid injury was permanent and completely caused by accident. Attorneys for kid not only ate the cost of the experts but did not take any of the awarded amount because they felt the kid needed it. I doubt you hear those type of stories much about attorneys but it happens all the time. Few are rich.
As far as tobacco, I would say starting in the 70's everyone should know how dangerous it was. On the other hand peer pressure and addition is strong.
Last first. I would say you are dead wrong on 70's. Everyone knew about the hazards of tobacco years before that, including the sixties hippies. Puffing is a pleasurable experience to smokers and hard thing to give up until they get the big C, then it's blame time. Human nature. Sorry, but you are dead wrong. Forget peer pressure, what does that have to do with tobacco companies and why should they be liable for peer pressure.
As for lawyers, there are too many of them and they are always trying to drum up more work.
As for the kid, he was in the wrong place at the right time, it's a cold fact. If you are involved in a auto accident, no matter who's fault it is, you will still assume part of the liability, why? Because you were there in that spot where it happened. If I'm walking in a city park and a tree falls on me and I sue the city for having a faulty tree that fell on me I will get nowhere fast, try and find a lawyer that will take on that case. No one inspected that tree. As for the lawyers, don't worry about them, they will make up for in the next litigation. I'm sure as hell glad I don't have a private business, I'd hate to know what the price of liability insurance is now days. I cannot imagine what doctors pay.
Make no mistake about it, private companies are prime targets for predatory lawyers to suck up huge windfalls from litigation. It is quite an industry. We need tort reform to protect the rest of us from unreasonable litigation which drives up the costs of our health insurance and other products that we buy, lawn mowers is one prime example.
You said the lawyers are not rich, well then they should take up another career just like the rest of us rather than trying to make work for themselves at the expense of the rest of us.
I've never seen a tobacco products ad that said smoking was good for the health. I've seen ads depicting healthy people smoking, but that is common for a great many products including fast food and booze.
I guess it depended on how bad a person wanted to smoke. If you needed an excuse then you could see one of the ads and conclude smoking is healthy, but if you were like me you knew that sucking smoke, any kind of smoke into your lungs is not healthy. My father was a 2 plus pack a day lucky striker and he told me not to start smoking, I didn't, even when everyone around me was lighting up. I'd blame peer pressure more than the ads for causing people, especially young people to smoke.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.