G'day all - Paul, great thread. Of course, your insight and subsequent responses seem to suggest this can be expanded quickly into the nature of American Jurisprudence.
I am neither a lawyer nor a legal minded person, but like many here, I agree one should separate personal preferences from judicial necessities. In addition to the [potential] cases you have cited, remember a couple of years ago a psychic [no joke!] sued and won a $4MM judgement from a hospital who did a catscan on her, from which she claimed of the loss of her psychic ability. The judge has specifically instructed the jury to disregard certain aspect of the testament - to no avail. Case in point? While trial by peers is a great concept, sometimes it has its moments of absurdity.
Almost 2 decades ago, I was attending a conference in NYC and since my best friend of the time, Michael Roebuck, a quasi-professional Wittgensteinian scholar, a vietnam vet, a torturous genius eagered to lose himself to the mainstream of the great american experience, was going to NYU Law School, I had a couple of late night conversations with him in some bars near Washington Square. He mentioned that economic principles embedded in contemporary american jurisprudence. This is what I call the "Deep Pocket" principle, which is so prevalent in the malpractice suits. It really doesn't matter who is at fault. Once a child of terrible deformities was presented, it is almost inevitable the insurance company would have to foot the bills.
Mind boggling cases aplentive.
However, I think the defense you layed out is too little too late. While it is true that some of my dearest friend and relative deaths could very well be linked the use of tobacco use, I agree it is a it-takes-two-tango situation. Tobacco [and other drugs, for that matter] is not a recent discovery. The native indians have treated tobacco and other psychoactive substances with reverence. Not so in the modern society. They are used for personal gain, be it "calm me down," "peck me up," or "make me feel belong." So, the person has to bear the responsibility. Having said that, the problem with the tobacco companies is their legalistic concerns when they denied allegations of their own findings. Then, the opposing camps - some a genuine activists and some ambulance chasing bandwagoneers - found the smoking guns in the former internal memoranda. Now, it is too late. One doesn't think one can get a free ride from a tiger!
I do think that it has to stop. Whether the settlement with the state AGs is enough, the tobacco industry should make a gigantic writeoff - admit their guilt [with limited immunities] and pay - and move on. Preferably, it should back out some of the contaminants [additives] from the cigarettes [Note: here lies the distinction between tobacco and other industries. While food industries have used preservatives like BHA and sulfides, they are at least labeled. However, I suspect few really knew of the anmonia being added to cigarettes until recently.] Of course, tobacco industry is really reaping the seeds it has sown. It has been contributing a lot of mony to politicians. Once it inserts itself into the political process, in the hope of influencing the legistrative process, which in turn in the hope of influencing the judicial process, it basically is handing its head on a plate for the politicians. It is too late to pull out. Now, it becomes the best wiping boys for the vultures in search for a cause.
best, Bosco |
