Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

[Otter]

Has anyone considered seeing a lawyer about taking legal proceedings against suppliers of a corrosive and physically damaging poison which has caused them brain and organ damage, ruined their lives, cost them jobs, money, relationhips, public humiliation and stigma which the suppliers knew or ought to have known would result from the supply of this "licenced" drug called alcohol?

Maybe even regulators should be brought into this who allow for the sale of this poison under licences which do nothing to restrict the sale to people who have liver disease, pre-existing psychologica. and neurological disorders.

It is a bit like saying that a "licenced" drug like valium could be sold by a pharmacy to any adult so long as they only sold it between 10am and 10 pm and with no warnings that it is addictive and has health risks.

I would consider contacting a contingency lawyer here but the UK is far less litigious than the US.

[Xadrian]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

The governments are as guilty as well. Maybe even more, because alcohol is a milk cow for the government because of the high excise duties.

[paulywogg]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

people choose to buy and use alcohol,a lawsuit like that would be as stupid as the fast food lawsuits

[Kradle123]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

paulywogg;1458253 wrote: people choose to buy and use alcohol,a lawsuit like that would be as stupid as the fast food lawsuits

My thoughts exactly , Polly.

Can you say The Tobacco law suits? I choose to do this and RJ choose to create this great site so we could all help each other.

Why would we want to ruin all that with a bunch of lawyers...?


:l

[Otter]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

Kradle123;1458259 wrote: My thoughts exactly , Polly.

Can you say The Tobacco law suits? I choose to do this and RJ choose to create this great site so we could all help each other.

Why would we want to ruin all that with a bunch of lawyers...?


:l

What?

Yes, I can say The Tobacco law suits:

Tobacco Litigation: History & Recent Developments | Nolo.com

Individual Lawsuits in Florida
In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court threw out a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of 700,000 smokers and their families against tobacco companies. In its ruling, the court found that tobacco companies knowingly sold dangerous products and kept smoking health risks concealed, but that the case could not proceed as a class action. Instead, the court ruled that each case must be proven individually.
This ruling paved the way for over 8,000 smokers and their families to bring individual lawsuits against the tobacco companies. In these lawsuits, plaintiffs need only prove that the individual plaintiff was harmed by an addiction to cigarettes. In the first of these cases to go to trial, the jury found that the death of a long-time smoker, Stuart Hess, was caused by his addiction to cigarettes.

There, I said it.

What you and Polly are suggesting is that people choose to smoke?? So they can't sue for the health damage it has caused.

WRONG. Strike one.

Or, maybe you are saying that alcohol isn't addictive.

WRONG. Strike two.

Or maybe that alcohol doesn't cause physical damage to health
Wrong. Strike three. Yiiiiiiiiiiir OUT.

With thinking like that no wonder there is a huge alcohol problem.

Sorry for being so sarcastic but I just don't get where you are coming from and frankly, I don't want to know.:H

Hey, but why should the two of you give a tinker's about the carnage caused by alcoholism...you've got huggies and kissies. Why compensate a family which has been ruined by drink in the same way as tobacco has when they can come here and have a chat about their cat and what they had for breakfast.

[Otter]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

Big damages for "addicts".

roward jury: Tobacco companies must pay $75.35 million to smoker's widow
May 31, 2012|By Jon Burstein, Sun Sentinel
Four tobacco companies must pay $75.35 million in damages to the widow of a Lauderhill smoker who died from bladder cancer and heart disease, a Broward jury decided Thursday afternoon.

The verdict for the family of cement finisher Johnnie Calloway is one of the largest so far in the wave of more than 7,000 tobacco lawsuits filed in Florida courts as a result of a 2006 state Supreme Court ruling.



A Broward Circuit Court jury found R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, Philip Morris USA, Lorillard Tobacco Co. and Liggett Group responsible for $20.5 million in compensatory damages and another $54.85 million in punitive damages.

Calloway, a father of eight, had smoked up to three packs a day until his death in 1992 at the age of 59. His wife of 20 years, Marvine Calloway, said she hopes the verdict sends a strong message to the tobacco companies.

"I'm glad justice is served and I want them out of business," she said.

Steve Callahan, a Philip Morris USA spokesperson, said Thursday that the company will appeal.

The Calloway lawsuit is a byproduct of the Florida Supreme Court's ruling in Engle v. Liggett, a class-action case in which a Miami-Dade County jury leveled a $145 billion verdict?then thought to be the largest punitive damage award in American legal history?against five tobacco companies. The state Supreme Court tossed out the monetary damages, but ruled ill smokers and the families of deceased smokers could file individual lawsuits with the Miami-Dade jury's findings about the health risks of cigarettes already established.

So far, 63 lawsuits arising from the Engle ruling have gone to trial with 43 resulting in verdicts for the plaintiffs, said Edward Sweda, senior attorney with the anti-smoking Tobacco Products Liability Project at Northeastern University School of Law.

The verdicts have been as high as $300 million with the Calloway case one of the 10 biggest, said Scott Schlesinger, one of the attorneys for the Calloway family.

Callahan said that since the beginning of 2011, Philip Morris USA has been involved in 17 Engle cases with about two-thirds resulting in either defense verdicts or mistrials.

[paulywogg]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

well,my uncle has emphysema frpm smoking all his life hes only 53 looks 93 in a nursing home with tubes in his body,does his family still smoke? yes,common sense only tells us if you inhale SMOKE duh,its gonna cause a few problems,same with alc

[YouKayBee]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

There's a huge element of personal responsibility here, however I think society as a whole needs to look at itself. Even normal drinkers can be in a great deal of denial and don't go any further than saying "Oh the government say 1 glass of red wine is good for you, go on enjoy yourself". Society made up of individuals also makes those who don't drink or take drugs look like party poopers, and it's about time more people kicked back and others looked at themselves and how difficult they make it for others.

[spacebebe01]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

In a perfect world Otter I would have not discovered Alcohol and cigarettes, but obviously the government are not going to give up such a massive cash cow and thats all its about. The companies will keep on making and marketing the stuff for as long as it gets sold and makes money. But on the other hand if alcohol wasnt for sale then it wouldnt be regulated and people would buy home made illegal stuff that can contain anything which is more harmful than the stuff that is sold legally. The fact that you cant walk into a chemist here in the UK and buy baclofen or topamax or the other meds people have used and talked about on here doesnt stop us getting and taking them, they are after all reglalted for a reason which is used incorrectly they can be harmfull. I have bought meds online and always have worried about there content.

I agree that there should be a massive change, and that will only be made in court where money is at stake but cant see how it would happen. I dont know the details tho but was it the lawsuits that changed things here in the UK regarding tobacco with the ban on advertising and law on no indoor smoking? since then I do actually think there has been a change in that smoking is far less social acceptable so would it be possible for that to happen with alcohol after all drinking causes far more social problems, Ive never had too many cigarettes and ended up fighting and smashing windows then getting myself arrested.

[Heavy Fuel]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

I agree with paulywog: we chose to drink. No one forced us to. Unlike cigarettes, there are millions of people who drink without ONE of the consequences you outlined. This would make this quite unlike the tobacco lawsuits, as the vast majority of smokers suffer horrendous health effects.

On a personal note, I value freedom. We have the freedom to choose things that may not be good for us, but I damn sure do not want some do good judge somewhere outlawing hamburgers and bacon. Or ice cream. One could make the same arguments against fatty foods, its asinine and insulting to think someone who cannot get a real job is going to mandate what I eat. But with similar logic, the NHS and now the overseeing boards of Obamacare are going to give us that type of society.

[spacebebe01]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

paulywogg;1458518 wrote: well,my uncle has emphysema frpm smoking all his life hes only 53 looks 93 in a nursing home with tubes in his body,does his family still smoke? yes,common sense only tells us if you inhale SMOKE duh,its gonna cause a few problems,same with alc

Common sense has nothing to do with addiction, thats why its a problem, when you have an addiction you have lost the ability to control yourself in regard to the substance.

Even in other matters tho where people arnt driven by addiction they dont always use their common sense, thats why we have to have laws and rules to stop people going round hurting themselves and each other.

[Heavy Fuel]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

spacebebe01;1458593 wrote: Common sense has nothing to do with addiction, thats why its a problem, when you have an addiction you have lost the ability to control yourself in regard to the substance.

Even in other matters tho where people arnt driven by addiction they dont always use their common sense, thats why we have to have laws and rules to stop people going round hurting themselves and each other.

The problem I see with this is who decides? If the standard is "people going round hurting themselves and each other," why not outlaw the 2,000 calorie dessert at the local restaurant? Or cola drinks? Or bacon? Or hot dogs? What about someone's psychological well being? What if things you say make me upset?

If that's the standard, simply hurting ourselves, then human beings should be outlawed. Simple. Let's ban people!!!!

[Otter]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

paulywogg;1458518 wrote: well,my uncle has emphysema frpm smoking all his life hes only 53 looks 93 in a nursing home with tubes in his body,does his family still smoke? yes,common sense only tells us if you inhale SMOKE duh,its gonna cause a few problems,same with alc

Yes, the case law now says he can sue and in Florida could get millions. It is all no win no fee so he has nothing to lose.

The issue is one of "products liability" which is an area of law aimed at putting the social consequences of products onto the producers of those products. It is akin to strict liabiltiy. If someone makes a dangerous product then they can be sued for the damages resulting from its use. That is now the law in the field of tobacco so if you want ?73million for your uncle and his family and you are in the States, speak to a lawyer.

I mean that seriously and speaking as a lawyer. What have you got to lose.

Alcoholism is another issue. I believe it could be used in the same way but the establishment hasn't yet accepted that it is a true addiction rather than a life style choice. But then, that was the same with tobacco. At least the precedent is there and the science is on its way.

[Otter]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

Heavy Fuel;1458592 wrote: I agree with paulywog: we chose to drink. No one forced us to. Unlike cigarettes, there are millions of people who drink without ONE of the consequences you outlined. This would make this quite unlike the tobacco lawsuits, as the vast majority of smokers suffer horrendous health effects.

On a personal note, I value freedom. We have the freedom to choose things that may not be good for us, but I damn sure do not want some do good judge somewhere outlawing hamburgers and bacon. Or ice cream. One could make the same arguments against fatty foods, its asinine and insulting to think someone who cannot get a real job is going to mandate what I eat. But with similar logic, the NHS and now the overseeing boards of Obamacare are going to give us that type of society.

I want to answer Spacebebe first. I am not talking about banning alcohol. What I am saying is that the social and health consequences of products are now being put back on the doorstep of the people who directly profit from dangerous products, particularly where there has been no warning on the product.

I value freedom as well. My parents both worked for a tobacco company, I learned to shoot a gun at school, we blew off firecrackers, shot each other in the backside with air rifles, took flick knives to school we bought in Tijuana. Life was great.

But now you can get millions from tobacco companies by showing you became addicted to tobacco and it has had warnings on the package for years. There is no such warning on alcohol. It is not about government protecting its tax revenue. Government is now suing tobacco companies.

Suing is about responsibilities. Make those who profit from this bear responsibility. They have the freedom to profit. Why should the rest of us pick up the pieces and pay the bill.

[redhead77]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

Otter;1458611 wrote: I want to answer Spacebebe first. I am not talking about banning alcohol. What I am saying is that the social and health consequences of products are now being put back on the doorstep of the people who directly profit from dangerous products, particularly where there has been no warning on the product.

I value freedom as well. My parents both worked for a tobacco company, I learned to shoot a gun at school, we blew off firecrackers, shot each other in the backside with air rifles, took flick knives to school we bought in Tijuana. Life was great.

But now you can get millions from tobacco companies by showing you became addicted to tobacco and it has had warnings on the package for years. There is no such warning on alcohol. It is not about government protecting its tax revenue. Government is now suing tobacco companies.

Suing is about responsibilities. Make those who profit from this bear responsibility. They have the freedom to profit. Why should the rest of us pick up the pieces and pay the bill.

?GOVERNMENT WARNING: (1) According to the Surgeon General, women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects. (2) Consumption of alcoholic beverages impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery, and may cause health problems?

Every bottle of booze in this country contains this warning.