Quote:
Originally posted by Azred:
I have always held the belief that anyone who smokes does so by their own choice and should not be allowed to sue any tobacco manufacturer because the product increases the risk of disease. I used to smoke; no one forced me to do so.
Yes, tobacco companies hid some facts of the true nature of thier research, but so have auto manufacturers yet I don't see any class-action suits trying to sue Ford for a billion dollars because some relatives died in an auto wreck. Didn't anyone tell them that driving is dangerous?
|
Wrong on the facts. When Ford made pintos with the defect that they would tend to blow up during rear-end collisions, there was a large class action. In fact, Ford memos and documents comparing the likely number of deaths to result from the event with the likely recoveries in tort actions (and determining not to do a recall) were put before the jury. It was one of the famous early auto class actions, and a famously large punitive damage award. So, though you claim you don't see Ford getting sued, it's just because you didn't look.
[img]graemlins/noevil.gif[/img]
As for the theory, I think you're wrong there too. If a product has a danger, the manufacturer has a duty to correct the danger or warn consumers of the danger. We cannot claim someone "knew it was bad for them" if they didn't actually know it was bad for them. With cigarettes, this translates into know exactly *how* bad it was. And, the cigarette companies covered up this kind of information. Why should we not hold companies to at least the same standard when it comes to health (cigs, for instance) that we do when it comes to business (Enron/Arthur Anderson). Businesses lied about money and they no longer exist. They lie about health dangers, and we don't care? That's absurd.
[ 01-16-2004, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]