Post a response to this discussion thread
By the way, those warning labels went on in 1969 over the tobacco companies' strongest possible objections.
I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of comparative fault? That is, in the trial in Oregon in 1999 (our firm was part of the litigation team, I managed the exhibits), we freely acknowledged that our decedent shared fault with Philip Morris for his smoking habit. After considering the evidence, the jury found Philip Morris 80% liable for its fraud on the public in awarding punitive damages of $100 million, reduced to $79.5 million, and 50% liable for our decedent's economic damages of $1.6 million, reduced to $800,000.
So, are we saying the plaintiff is completely blameless? Obviously we are not, and the jury so found. What the jury also found was that Philip Morris also shared some culpability for his death. As I delve deeper into the evidentiary documents tomorrow, you'll probably be able to discern a pattern for yourself.
Post a response to this discussion thread