Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

[Otter]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

The warning isn't an answer to this:

Third Wave: Plaintiff Successes & Lawsuits by the States
In the 1990s, plaintiffs began to have limited success in tobacco lawsuits, partly because some cigarette company documents were leaked showing the companies were aware of the addictive nature of tobacco. The first big win for plaintiffs in a tobacco lawsuit occurred in February 2000, when a California jury ordered Philip Morris to pay $51.5 million to a California smoker with inoperable lung cancer.
Around this time, more than forty states sued the tobacco companies under state consumer protection and antitrust laws. These states argued that cigarettes contributed to health problems that triggered significant costs for public health systems. In these lawsuits, the tobacco companies could not use the defense that had proven so successful in lawsuits brought by individuals -- that the smoker was aware of the risks and decided to smoke anyway.
In November 1998, the attorneys general of 46 states and four of the largest tobacco companies agreed to settle the state cases. Terms of the settlement are referred to as the Master Settlement Agreement. Highlights include:
Tobacco companies agreed to refrain from engaging in certain advertising practices, particularly ad campaigns that marketed cigarettes towards kids.
Tobacco companies agreed to pay annual sums of money to the states to compensate them for health-care costs related to smoking (a minimum of $206 billion over the first twenty-five years).
The settlement created and funded the National Public Education Foundation, dedicated to reducing youth smoking and preventing diseases associated with smoking.
Tobacco companies dissolved three of the biggest tobacco industry organizations.

That was the third wave. We have moved on since then.

The latest cases say this: 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.

These sorts of cases are quite complex legally. A lot of cases involving warnings turn on whether the warning was as prominent as the advertising. In other words, did the person really understand the nature of the warning. It is not usually enough just to say that there was some sort of warning. Certainly here, the warnings on cigarettes cover half the pack and there is no cigarette advertising. There is still alcohol advertising here and the warnings are tiny.

I think there are a lot of people who have been drinking longer than these warnings were in place. The site I took this from says to get in touch and they can get a lawyer to look into it. I think alcohol is in the same situation but not yet developed. Tobacco Litigation: History & Recent Developments | Nolo.com

[Otter]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

Have a look at the warnings about the addictive nature of cigarettes: Tobacco packaging warning messages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is nothing similar on alcohol packaging.

Alcohol's addictive nature has been known for years and there is no doubt in my mind that booze companies know about it being addictive so it is the same situation as tobacco.

This is what I am talking about: Alcohol packaging should carry graphic health warnings, urge doctors | Society | The Guardian

[bleep]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

You hit the nail on the head in one of the posts up there Otter. As long as it is viewed as a lifestyle choice then I doubt the recourse is there. That will eventually change, then the door is probably open.

It wouldn't surprise me to find the same analogous knowledge is currently held by the big breweries that the big tobacco companies knew in the 50's! Another conspiracy theory to add to the mix.

Just out of interest, why did the courts decide not to treat it as a mass action? Different degrees of harm to each plaintiff is a fairly standard thing in torts, isn't it?

[Otter]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

I don't know why it failed as a class action. It may be that some plaintiffs had been smoking longer,ie., before warnings came in, others not started smoking after they became aware it was an addiction but continued to smoke knowing that. You have to prove that you all belong to the same class. For instance, everyone lived in the area of a polluting factory. People who only vacationed there wouldn't fit that category.

I think the people who can sue are those who are addicted, didn't know it was addictive, weren't warned that it was addictive, and at a time when the tobacco companies knew it was addictive. If you can't get a medical report saying you are addicted then you are out of the class, or if you knew it was addictive but smoked anyway, that sort of thing.

I don't think level of damages comes into it. Not sure.

[Otter]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

I suppose what bugs me is that, say you have recovered from alcoholism, are under treatment by a GP etc. You are still in a toxic environment because you still have the bigotry, stigma, lack of support.
How many smokers get abuse because they brought it on themselves. Everyone knows how difficult it is to stop and if some doctor somewhere comes up with an idea of how to treat this, no matter what it is, medical or otherwise, you don't get these smart a's coming along poo pooing it all and spouting stuff about free will.

Some people are predisposed to addiction... If you aren't...good for you, but don't go pushing what are narrow minded ideas on people who have a serious addiction and are trying to do something about it.

[Cassander]

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

and the tobacco lawsuits!

which only cost the tobacco industry $206 billion.

Tobacco Litigation: History & Recent Developments | Nolo.com

EDIT: Whoops, as usual, Otter got here before me with the same point.

To Heavy Fuel re the difference between bacon, soft drinks, booze and cigarettes and who decides...the answer is that in a representative democracy the legislature decides. If on the one hand the legislature decides that the benefit of bacon eating freedom exceeds the cost to society of bacon eating in terms of diabetes, obesity, etc then the legislature will not regulate bacon eating. If on the other hand the legislature decides that the cost of cigarette smoking freedom to society in terms of lung cancer, emphysyma, and coronary disease exceeds the benefit of cigarette smoking freedom (you too can be the Marlboro Man) then the legislature will regulate cigarette smoking. Which it did.


FURTHER EDIT: And one more thing. Since the totality of the costs of alcohol abuse and addiction are not usually covered by the individual who uses and abuses alcohol, or the vendor who peddled the dangerous substance in the first place, they fall on society as a whole to cover. Think of who bears the cost a drunken driving accident which fractures a family forever. In enlightened societies, legislatures often tax dangerous activities so that the cost is borne more by the users as a group and less by society as a whole. If alcohol consumption were adequately taxed, the costs of abuse and dependence could be shifted to those who want to use and away from those who don't. And the proceeds of taxation could be used for education and treatment so as to reduce the exposure of society as a whole. And nobody's freedom would be impinged.

[redhead77]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

Cassander;1458671 wrote: and the tobacco lawsuits!

which only cost the tobacco industry $206 billion.

Tobacco Litigation: History & Recent Developments | Nolo.com

One of the reasons people might have been able to get a tobacco lawsuit is because tobacco companies aren't just selling tobacco. They aren't selling the plant that just contains nicotine to smoke. They've added hundreds of chemicals to make cigarettes burn faster and to make them highly addictive. The chemicals have also made cigarettes much more dangerous to our health. They've done it on purpose to make us addicted and so we buy more cigarettes.

Not to play devil's advocate, but the fermentation of grains and fruits has been going on for a long time to make alcohol. How are alcohol producers doing anything that makes a substance more addictive or even more damaging to health? Outside of marketing so more people think it's glamorous to consume them.

Add to that, that only about 10% of people (give or take) end up dependent on alcohol. Even with how much it's advertised and with how pervasive it is in our cultures.

I see your point and maybe you have something there. There might be some differences too when considering a lawsuit.

Edit: I think by calling this a fun little debate I'm trivializing something that you are clearly passionate about Otter, so I removed it.

[Otter]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

I don't mind a debate. It makes people think about things at a deeper level and do more research for themselves. I don't know that I am right about the law on this. Nor do I think I am going to make anyone pick up the phone to a lawyer but if someone did and got a positive response, that might start something and it doesn't cost anything.

The broad legal issue is as Cassander has pointed out. The basis of product liability which is strict liability is that people who engage in dangerous activities should bear the costs of it. If there is a group of people who supply alcohol freely to another group and there is a huge spillover of costs to the public then those groups need to bear responsibility for it. So, if a booze company gets sued for its activities it passes the costs onto the group who use the product, not society at large. Then the individuals in the group can decide, on an informed basis, knowing the risks, whether to carry on paying the price and using the product.

At the moment it doesn't seem that there is a warning that alcohol can be addictive even though that has been known for years. That may, I think, place the booze industry in the same position as the tobacco industry.

Everyone has to mitigate their damages. My point in raising this issue is also that if there is a good treatment for alcoholism then the booze industry should be put in a position that they support it to reduce the damages claimed against them. If they can say that people and their doctors are not bothering to use a very good cure for an illness, why should they be responsible. It makes sense that they spread the word about this treatment so they don't end up with billions of dollars of claims against them for inflicting permanent, incurable harm on people.

Where is Ralf Nader when you need him, or Michael Moore?

[cuckoosnest83]

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 too value freedom so why am I not free to grow marijuana in my backyard if I so desire? It's my yard and my choice. Ironic that our government spends billions of dollars on a failed "war on drugs" yet profits from the sales of the legal drug alcohol. Why not legalize all drugs including prescription drugs and let those who choose to abuse them suffer the consequences? It's all about personal choice, isn't it?

As for millions of people who drink without ONE of the consequences outlined, just read some of the posts on this site from people who have witnessed someone dying from alcohol abuse let alone some of the members of this site who are no longer with us due to their addicition to the legal drug alcohol.

[Otter]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

If you live in Spain you can cultivate and use cannabis. It is a cultural thing I think, going back to Puritanism. Dr. David Nutt in the UK is big on legalizing cannabis and other legal highs but he got kicked off the government drugs advisory board because it is not a politically correct view in our up tight world. Apparently it causes brain damage. I never took it myself. Well, I didn't inhale...

Alcohol is deadly compared with cannabis.

What does one do?

[cuckoosnest83]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

[QUOTE=Otter;1458742] Well, I didn't inhale...QUOTE]

Me neither.......

[Ne/Neva Eva]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

I don't generally read or pass things on from such lame sources as Yahoo news, but I couldn't resist this one:

Sharp drop in drink deaths follows alcohol price rise - Yahoo! News

I haven't looked at it closely, but I am highly skeptical. Extremely. But whatever. Might be an interesting addition to who can sue, and why and whether or not we are responsible for our decisions when we are addicted to alcohol.

Also, there is a good deal of history about this very issue. It led to Prohibition. There is a fascinating book about how absolutely drunk the young United States was. (The water wasn't safe!) After a couple of centuries of this drunkenness, there was a popular uprising. It wasn't just the teetotal ninnies that we tend to associate with the movement. It was really a popular movement based on a very serious public health issue. I haven't seen the Ken Burns PBS series about it. I wonder if that's relevant?

[Cassander]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

redhead77;1458698 wrote: ...
Add to that, that only about 10% of people (give or take) end up dependent on alcohol. Even with how much it's advertised and with how pervasive it is in our cultures.
...

If you include people who regularly abuse alcohol the number is much higher than 10%. Alcohol dependence and abuse is a bona fide, indisputable, real public health crisis which is costing the US (not to mention all the other countries in the world) billions of dollars.

Its a far bigger problem, for example, than the AIDS crisis was at its peak.

[Kradle123]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

Otter;1458487 wrote: 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 you completely took what I said ass backwards...but then you're a lawyer so that's to be expected.

Have fun litigating...no hugs or kisses for you...

[redhead77]

Contingency law suit against suppliers and manufacturers of alcohol

Cassander;1458823 wrote: If you include people who regularly abuse alcohol the number is much higher than 10%. Alcohol dependence and abuse is a bona fide, indiputable, real public health crisis which is costing the US (not to mention all the other countries in the world) billions of dollars.

Its a far bigger problem, for example, than the AIDS crisis was at its peak.

I don't disagree with you that it's a huge public health issue, Cassander. I witness on a regular basis what alcohol does in my professional life, and I've experienced it in my personal life, as you know. I was only discussing some of the differences (as I see them) regarding alcohol and tobacco, and the potential for a lawsuit.

I used the term alcohol dependence because this would correlate to alcohol addiction. About 10% of people who experiment with alcohol become addicted. Whereas, it's estimated that for people who experiment with tobacco, that the rate is higher. Cigarettes are considered one of the most addictive things on the planet. Much of this has to do with the tobacco companies creating a highly addictive product, so people will continue to smoke cigarettes. Later, they suffer the health consequences.

My point was only that alcohol companies are not tampering with our products (as far as I'm aware) to create a substance that's more addictive, like the tobacco companies are.

Then, there's the issue of why someone gets addicted to alcohol as far as a lawsuit would go. Since it's a small percentage of people who consume alcohol, what's the difference? Unfortunately, our society may recognize this as a disease, but they still aren't treating it like one. People are told to go to their support group and pray the disease away, or that with enough willpower, they can beat it. So, as I know you know, we aren't treating this like a disease at all. The person or people who start the lawsuit, will have to convince the judge and jury of why they didn't stop drinking in the first place when they were started to have health problems from their drinking.

I'm just mentioning some potential obstacles is all. Good luck and have at it for anyone that wants to give it a go.