Paris Forums ‹ Paris General Discussions ‹ Paris General Chat

‘Why companies were blamed for the actions of people who sucked smoke into their lungs - obviously an unhealthful habit’ wonders Tony Benitez. For him the $17.3 billion settlement between the tobacco industry and the state of Texas for health-care costs is absurd and ridiculous.
"I should smoke for that kind of money, but I know it's not good for me," he said, describing the settlements as one example of a judicial system that is off course. "There is way too much money paid out for ridiculous reasons."
One reform passed this year - and supported by Texans for Lawsuit Reform - was a bill that added checks and balances to approving contingency fees in state contracts.
The legislation was inspired by former Texas Attorney General Dan Morales' approval of multibillion-dollar fees for five lawyers handling the tobacco litigation, which alleged companies committed fraud by concealing tobacco-health dangers.
Future reforms the group plans to advocate include a bill that would allocate punitive damages to the state instead of the plaintiff. The plaintiff would still receive compensatory damages for lost wages, medical bills and emotional distress.
Many people like Leo E. Linbeck, Jr., Richard J. Trabulsi, Jr., Allan Shiversare involved in Texas Lawsuit Reform (TLR), Dick Weekley is the Co-Founder, Chairman and CEO of Texans for Lawsuit Reform.

What is this all about? Does it relate to Paris somehow?

Can you describe the cases of lawsuits you are talking about? what is with that amount of 17 billion dollars?

In my opinion, the sum is not exaggerated, but it is a good lesson for tobacco companies, in order for them to not repeat such mistakes in the future.

mixi wrote:In my opinion, the sum is not exaggerated, but it is a good lesson for tobacco companies, in order for them to not repeat such mistakes in the future.

mixi, take me through all this, I don't know about how about you, but I'm not a lawyer and am not aware of this case.

It is not for the first time a company must pay a larger sum then expected for a single accident. I remember a car manufacturer being sued over4 billion $ for excluding some security option of a car presuming that such accidents happen very rare. This usually happens because big companies have a very large list of clients and customers, and all of them were subject for that risk, not only one person. The judge did a very good job. Security and the health of the customers must come first every time.