It's funny, big tobacco disgusts me, yet I am a huge customer of the boutique cigar and pipe tobacco companies. I guess the difference is that the stuff I buy is small family owned specialty products typically made from whole leaf in the case of cigars or at least use quality tobacco in the case of pipes versus the rotting tobaconwith cyanide and other addictive additives included in big tobacco.

This BBC article gives absolutely zero context to the facts of the case. So how should we decide?

Whatever the context is, this lady isn't getting all that money. It WILL be lowered on appeal because the Supreme Court has consistently said huge awards like this violate the due process clause of the Constitution.

Punitive damages usually cannot exceed ten times the compensatory damages awarded. I doubt this widow has two billion dollars in medical bills.

I'd rather the executives get thrown in prison for knowingly participating in mass murder, since that's effectively what smoking is.

@ Putin: What context exactly do you feel is missing. The article tells us:

- The fine is intended as a punishment, not compensation. It is in additon to the compensation.
- Florida case law establishes that claimants only need to prove (a) that their dead relative was addicted to smoking, and (b) that smoking caused the illness from which they died.


What IS missing is an explanation of how the figure of $23.6 bn was calculated. I can't find a source that explains that. Can anyone help? Did the judge just pick a figure out of the air?

That's not at all what it is.

perhaps prolonged assisted suicide would be a better description.

"What IS missing is an explanation of how the figure of $23.6 bn was calculated. I can't find a source that explains that. Can anyone help? Did the judge just pick a figure out of the air?"

I have no idea where the number came from. However, even though the article doesn't say it, I'll bet a jury came up with this number rather than a judge. In America we still have juries in civil suits.

I was going to correct, but see you corrected yourself, there, jmo. The problem is suicide is legal in some places now.

This apparently used to be part of a class action. I haven't made a claim here (since I don't legitimately qualify for any of the rebates), but some of my friends finance their bad habits with these little pay outs. Many don't even need a proof of purchase.

http://www.classactionrebates.com/

"This apparently used to be part of a class action."

That fact was left out of the BBC article.

"What context exactly do you feel is missing. "

The evidence in the suit. Why the damages were what they were. The fact that it was a civil act suit that was thrown out but allowed individual suits to go forward. RJ Reynolds past record of losing suits. Anything really.

What you seem to want is nitty gritty legal issues, which you're unlikely to find in a news article. It also doesn't seem to be anywhere on the Volokh Conspiracy, the one legal new source I can stand to read.

All the context you need is that punitive damages generally can't exceed ten times the amount awarded for compensatory damages. So this will get whittled down drastically, regardless of the questions you have. Frankly, it seems strange the judge would even enter judgment on such a bloated award.

This is why tort reform gets such great play, because news sources just post headlines without any details, and then when you finally get to the details you realize that the story is completely different than how it's portrayed.

Well tort reform's still a good idea, but it's probably not at play here. This award is already probably not OK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Farm_Auto._Ins._v._Campbell

I'm basing it off my memories of reading this case and a few related ones in civil procedure. No other class has flown out of my head so much, so please don't think I'm making myself out to be some sort of expert. I'm not even a lawyer yet, nor particularly close.

Incidentally, this is the only Wikipedia article on a Supreme Court case or other important case that's really quite unhelpful. It's amazing how good almost every law article on there is.