Jump to content

Has Anyone Here Sued?


MO_Sugar

Recommended Posts

Not to mention any names or such, I know that the tobacco companies have been sued by some of the members, however, it is very difficult to get a law firm to take the case as they will have to put up thousands of dollars to front the litigation and casework and really not one case has paid out any monies and are all on appeal. The cases were won, however the tobacco giants always appeal the judgements. They have a lot of power, thats why cigs are still for sale. Banned Ephidrine due to 14 deaths, banned silicone breast implants for a minimal number of deaths and cigs are still sold at every store and they kill 400,000 people per year.

Off my soap box now....

I do however have a firm that could help out and validate the case. Most smoking related cancer suits would have to come from someone that had smoked in the earlier days prior to all the warnings and such.

Thanks

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mo Sugar, I cant personaly comment however, I will tell you that yes there are several of us that have filed large personal injury suits against some of the big hitters so to speak. I wish i could comment more on my particular case but without talking to lawyers i dont know what i can divulge. What i will do is make a call tomm. and find out exactly what i can talk about on here. Just in hopes that it may help someone else. I will go as far as to say i am the litigant in a very large personal injury suit against a major tobacco co. Not a class action suit but a personal injury case. I will for sure find out tomm. And hopefully, i can pass on some useful info to those who may benefit from the info.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is very unlikely that anyone who is seriously ill and has a ligitimate case against Tobacco will ever see a dime from any tobacco company. I don't mean to rain on anyones' parade, but Rick is right. I have worked on two Tobacco Litigation lawsuits and they are almost impossible to try if and that's a big IF, you can get an experienced firm to take your case. Class actions are better if you can get in on something like that....

But the low-down honest truth is that if you are successful as some have been, chances are that your heirs will be the beneficiaries of any monies you receive and that is after the attorneys get their cut. It is a bare minimum of about 300,000 in my experience, to try a tobacco case from beginning to judgment so there may not be much left if the judgment isn't a hefty one.

Also, just FYI- most Tobacco companies tend bury their plaintiffs in interrogatories and depositions.... how many packs a day, provide receipts and evidence of all your tobacco purchases, proof of your first cig purchase, witnesses from the store that sold you your first pack of cigarettes, hours in depositions facing mutiple attorneys going at you with the tenacity of bears and asking your these stupid questions...outrageously ridiculous questions that can keep suits in the middle of litigation for YEARS...In my opinion, they do this hoping that the plaintiff will die and the case will then be dismissed. IF a plaintiff gets a sympathetic judge who forbids the tobacco companies to do this and limits this...the tobacco companies may then motion to have the case moved to FEDERAL court..... this is a whole other animal... The tobacco companies may be hoping to have the suit bounced back and forth between state and federal court (you want state, they want federal...its a tug-o-war) in the hopes that over the 1-2 years, the plaintiff will die and therefore the case will be dismissed. It's terrible, but that is the nature of going against the tobacco companies.

I do not tell you this to discourage anyone wanting to go this route....If more people won judgments, then tobacco would have to pay one of these years and perhaps people would begin to listen and things would begin to change ! ...but make no mistake that this would be a fight on principal- not a fight for compensation...like Rick said, tobacco has never paid one single cent out in any lawsuit it has lost to date. But one day....they WILL!

Also- a tip for anyone out there-- "jointly" named lawsuits can keep a tobacco case in state-level court. (Much easier to try and win at the state-level) Your lawfirm will already know about this or else you can e-mail me and I will share what I know.

On another note, in my observation, Asbestos cases are much better to try. Ligitimate claims have been very successful. If someone has a ligitimate asbestos case, chances are (a really HIGH chance) that you might receive a settlement offer almost immediately after depositions from most if not all of your named defendants. These are very lucritive cases and until the law changes in your states these defendants almost always settle and the govt. has provided a large fund to aid the defendants for asbestos victims as well. I've seen settlements ranging from a few thousand to several hundred thousand depending on how much exposure (how many different defendants) you have had in your lifetime. (I've read of wrongful death cases that won over millions)

THESE ARE MERELY MY OPINIONS FROM MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AND IS NOT MEANT TO BE LEGAL ADVICE OF ANY TYPE WHATSOEVER.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion differs somewhat ---but I agree with Katie--if you could prove that you got cancer when we were not warned--- but these warnings have been around for years and years. Addiction is hard to stop but not impossible---some heroin addicts even kick their addiction

I agree that many years ago, when I first started smoking, there were no warnings and everyone did it---and now I know there were things put in cigarettes to make them addictive---

but now---I have absolutely no excuses, and if I chose to smoke, it is my responsibility---I cannot sue tobacco companies any more than someone could sue a liquor company because they are an alcoholic and their liver went bad---or sue a car company because they made their cars fast and then someone had an accident because they were speeding--Maybe these are poor analogies, but I feel people at some point have to take responsibilty for their own actions-

I quit after my operation and started up again---(am trying to quit again)--

this is my fault--not the tobacco companies--

and honestly does anyone really think the government wants us to quit and lose those big tax bucks? Just how much of the money won in these tobacco cases is actually going towards helping people quit smoking? I think it is very little-- I know in New York City cigarettes are taxed to the max (about $8.00 for a pack)---is this money going to help people quit? nope--- it is to help balance the big deficit in the budget for New York City---

Ok now I will also get off the soap box

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone started smoking when there were no warnings and it was "cool" to smoke... most people were hooked on them and the govt or tobacco companies offered no support or help with the addictions when it was found that the cigs kill. Did you know there is actual proof that the govt and tobacco companies had proof that cigs caused cancer in the early 40's but it was not advised. The tobacco companies also used products in the tobacco that made it more addictive than if it were paper and tobacco alone.

There has been some huge judgements for many people, its just the tobacco companies keep it in appeals.

I dont feel that if someone started smoking after the warnings were out and everyone knew that cigs cause cancer. I am 40 years old and smoked for 10 years from 1991 to 2001. I should not be able to sue since it was my own stupidity to choose to smoke a possibly deadly product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and then, even if you DID have your receipts, etc., there'd be someone like ME to blow the curve. I cannot blame my cancer on cigarettes - I've never smoked. It would seem that tobacco companies would start picking up on the fact that tobacco use seems to be going down and cancer rates are going UP and use that to their advantage (I read that somewhere, need to start printing out the things I read and be able to "document" the information).

I guess people have a need to put the blame SOMEWHERE. My opinion is that if the smoking/lung cancer link were broken, there would be more funding for a CURE... BUT, that's just an opinion. Seems that the world is set on "Lung cancer? You smoked? You asked for it..." Need a cure, not another round of the Blame Game...

Rick, it's NOT smoking that causes 400,000 deaths a year, it's lung cancer. Not all off us got here by the same route...

Becky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Becky, the smoking is responsible for a lot of deaths other than lung cancer. Lung cancer only accounts for about 150,000. The rest of the deaths Rick was referencing are from emphysema, heart attacks, other kinds of cancer, ........

I do agree that the research might go quicker if the world got it that there are more people like you and me out here with lung cancer than they think. I don't know what caused mt cancer, and I probably never will, but it wasn't cigarettes. That news ought to scare people, and it does--it's not at all comfortable to realize that the thought that "I never smoked, so I don't have to worry about lung cancer" just isn't true.

Becky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and then there's the random aspect of those going to the store to buy a pack of cigarettes and being hit by a beer truck...

But, STILL...

There are other questions out there that need to be answered with the supposed link between smoking and lung cancer - and how can "Big Tobacco" be the ONLY ones being held responsible when some of us with the disease have never used it?? What are some of the other common threads? Naturally occuring radon, friable asbestos, lead from paint and pipes, cosmic rays...too much TV, microwaving plastic....

I don't understand how people would win a lawsuit with the number of us running around who DON'T have a smoker's cough or Marlboro Mile prizes. Seems like it would be an argument for an appeal...

Of course, if the form of cancer CAN be tied to the smoking, the smoker started well before the warnings were put on the packs, smoking cessation began when the "word" got out of the bad stuff associated with smoking, etc., THEN I would support the tobacco companies being responsible. I just can't jump on a bandwagon that is not a "definite" for me. (Of course, I also do not feel that Dow Corning should have had to claim bankruptcy to pay all the litigation over breast implants - women don't NEED bigger boobs to survive, it was a CONSCIOUS choice to put a foreign body under the skin, no one forced the women to do it...)

Anyhow, life is choices and we are all different people. Do your research on costs, etc. (as Katie pointed out, it seems a little unbalanced) and decide for yourself on what you wanted to do with your life and where your energy should be spent. Best of luck to all on their chosen paths. I'm still wondering where I am heading...

Becky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Becky

I think I mentioned it before in one of my rambling messages-----but have you ever wondered why people always blame trucks or buses?People say "I could get hit by a "bus" or a "truck" tomorrow---why not a car or an SUV ? actually I do not think many people get hit by buses or trucks---but love your take on it ---not just a plain truck but "a beer truck"

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eileen,

At the risk of the groans from an intended pun, in response to bus or truck smushing vs. cars, it could only be attributed to overkill...

...and although most folks would hope for 'light beer' in their beer trucks, make mine a full bodied Guinness! A REAL beer....liquid bread!

(and to think, I actually dislike beer....just have my 'druthers in smushing...imagine the conversation - "I heard that they had to roll her up like a crepe to get her in the box - poor thing was hit by a GUINNESS truck!")

Ahhhh....laughing at Death....shame on me, I'd better look both ways TWICE before crossing any street NOW! :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tobacco case I worked on was of a man who began smoking in his teens in the 1940's. This same man was supplied FREE rations of cigarettes from the military in which he defended this country through two wars. In any of that length of time did he ever hear any of his superiors (GOVERNMENT officials) say that smoking cigarettes were bad. And he did not think twice about smoking even during the big "controversy" of whether or not cigs were bad because if the Navy gave 'em to ya, they had to be ok. These were the same folks who testified years later that they held reports that smoking was bad and that there was a definite link to smoking and many serious health problems. And yes 400,000 smokers will die each year from smoking-related diseases, (this includes LC in that mix)

My client had a form of LC that doctors have testified almost exclusively comes from cigarette smoking. He also had cancerous cells around his heart "area" - tested specifically for asbestoes poisoning due to working on military warships and working on military airplanes and helicoptors and also was exposed while working for the railroad in the 50's.

I'm happy to say that this was a no brainer, a completely undeniable ligitimate legal lawsuit. And this client initially did not want to sue until he saw an advertisement that showed his warship was full of asbestoes and that many ex/retired military men were now being diagnosed with mesothelioma and other forms of lung cancer. He just wanted to check it out. Then the idea of medical reimbursement appealed to him since he had no private insurance and he worried for his family that he would be leaving behind. Like I said, it was an open an shut case - in which he never saw a dime. He died a few weeks after his depos and the case (set to settle for MANY thousands) was dismissed. I helped the widow begin a "wrongful death" suit- but this is starting all over again at square one...will be another year and a half before new depos and interrogs are done or even any talks or hints of a settlement.

My point here, there really are ligitimate cases out there. I'm no longer working in this area of the law. I do boring corporate business law stuff now and am quite happy with that. I hate frivolous lawsuits and the blame game as much as anyone - but sometimes, there really truely is someone to blame, whether that sheds a bad light on lung cancer as a "smokers" disease or not.

It's our jobs to educate the ignorant and spread the word and be advocates for those with this disease, not point the finger as to why or what or how come...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Veteran (X2), it is of pertinence to note that every meal pack given to GIs on bivouac and/or in the field during my time-in-service (through mid-70s) included 3 cigarettes and waterproof matches. This was long after the initial official Surgeon General warnings against smoking.

How many GIs became new "customers" by this route?

Then, after you're addicted, the military PXs sold cartons of cigs MUCH cheaper than the standard civilian prices off-base...to help subsidize the maintenance of your newly found addiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cigarettes and matches were part of C-Rations as recent as 1977, folks. Have any of you done any research into exactly WHEN the Federal Government finally agreed to allow warnings to be printed on packs of cigarettes (and how hard they fought against it and for how long), or how "watered down" these "warnings" were for the first decade or so?

The original Surgeon General's report was published in 1964...I was a 9 year old, so I didn't get to see it....What I did see were kazillions of commericals telling me about how cool Kools were, and Marlboros, and Winstons, and Pall Malls, and Camels, and Lucky Strikes, and Salems, and shall I go on?

There is a wall of space at our local military commissary devoted to cigarettes.... and the cigarettes sold in the Base Exchange go to support Morale Welfare and Recreation activities at the Military Base (Golf Course, Bowling Alley, Swimming Pool, etc.) At the same time the military is paying lip service to the idea of a non smoking military force they're teeing up at the golf course and complaining because the greens are not as well kept as they once were.

I need to back off this one....at least for a while. I have known hundreds of people who started smoking during their time in the military. It usually started in Basic Training, but they've changed that now... Now they don't allow recruits to smoke during basic, but the sure as heck hook them during AIT. :evil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.