| Author | Message | ||
| Scott Levinsohn (Rennen)
New member Username: Rennen Post Number: 11 Registered: 7-2003 |
She chose to buy the cigarettes, chose to smoke them in a car, with a child in it, then chose to leave the car, with a child in it, for a long enough period of time for a cigarette to set it on fire. She should be arrested for negligence, she doesn't deserve a dollar. | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Senior Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 6855 Registered: 8-2002 |
Maybe PM should counter-sue the mother for negligence, relinquish her parental rights, adopt the baby and rekindle their popularity in america...  | ||
| Ken Thomas (Future328driver)
Member Username: Future328driver Post Number: 628 Registered: 12-2001 |
Nothing to appeal....PM settled the case on its own volition. The compentence of the mother as a mother is another issue. | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Intermediate Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 1493 Registered: 1-2002 |
Unbelievable. The mother is obviously incompetent, and should be prosecuted for negligence and the child should be taken into protective custody. She, the mother, is a moron on too many levels to count. She doesn't deserve to pain that child an additional day of it's life. Phillip morris should appeal the decision on grounds of parental negligence. Unbelievable. | ||
| todd (Flat12)
New member Username: Flat12 Post Number: 31 Registered: 7-2003 |
I see a mental defect on the part of the mother. That is the only defect. Smokers lungs are so bad they don't have the needed suck to keep a "self-outing cig" lit.....Why don't you sue the car company for not making the rear ejection seat more easily reached by the infant? Baby should have felt the heat and unlatched itself and got out of the car..Sue the baby too...And it's the mothers genes in the baby so sue her too... | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Senior Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 6846 Registered: 8-2002 |
Taek, i'm sure they do but i smoke Kools (super longs, in the box) and they're owned by Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. Louisville, Kentucky 800-811-6961 www.bw.com | ||
| Taek-Ho Kwon (Stickanddice)
Intermediate Member Username: Stickanddice Post Number: 2194 Registered: 11-2002 |
>>This thread is stressfull... Where're my cigarettes...?<< HAHAHAHA!! So PM does make money out of all of this! Cheers | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Senior Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 6837 Registered: 8-2002 |
This thread is stressfull... Where're my cigarettes...? | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Advanced Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 2933 Registered: 1-2002 |
Ken, I think you have hit the nail on the head with your last post. It's a jackpot mentality out there...and, if you wanna know why, look no further than at who gets nearly 100% of contingency trial lawyers' campaign contributions... | ||
| Ken Thomas (Future328driver)
Member Username: Future328driver Post Number: 626 Registered: 12-2001 |
On a similar topic.....I must point out that as a lawyer, I have very conflicted feelings about contingency fee-based lawyering. Clearly, this lawyer was on contingency and he saw a defedant named PM, a burned infant, a trend toward a negative societal view of cigarette manufacturers, and thought.... "holy •••• ... I have just been handed a case that can make me rich." | ||
| Ken Thomas (Future328driver)
Member Username: Future328driver Post Number: 625 Registered: 12-2001 |
Amir, I think you are right. I would bet that a term of the settlement was that PM did not have to admit fault. I hope that the settlement was written so that the money goes into trust for the child's education and medical expenses and that the mother cant get to the money. Any judge worth his salt should make sure this about about the best interests of the child. | ||
| Amir (Amir)
Junior Member Username: Amir Post Number: 169 Registered: 2-2003 |
$2 million might not be a "reward" but PM's agreement to pay for the care the child received and probably continues to receive. Sounds like a lot, but it might be nothing "in the pocket" after all is said and done. I don't think they are admitting fault, but rather than face negative publicity which might cost them more than a paltry $2 million, they said they'd foot the bill and get rid of the headache. | ||
| fanatic (Fanatic1)
Member Username: Fanatic1 Post Number: 507 Registered: 2-2003 |
Yeah, Ken.......you're right.......the bottom line is DID MOM LEARN HER LESSON? probably not.........tht's the most sickening part. | ||
| Ken Thomas (Future328driver)
Member Username: Future328driver Post Number: 624 Registered: 12-2001 |
I agree that the mom is an idiot and should not get a dime. But she got lucky because she probably had at least a colorable claim of products liability and PM decided to pay rather than fight. Companies settle lawsuits they should probably fight for principle beacuse it costs more to fight and win than to settle. Unfortunately, there are people out there who have a slightly colorable claim that decide to sue and many times there lawyers are probably banking on the fact that a compnay will settle rather than fight. Lawyers get punished if their claims are bullsh*t, but if they have the slightest colorablity to them, they can get away with this nonsense. I completely agree with everyone that this is crap. All I am saying is that the mother (even though she caused this to happen) got a lucky break because she might have had some good facts in her favor and the cigarette industry wants to avoid juries right now. So, they settle, the mom wins, the kid gets burned, and the mom thinks that it is all the cigarette companies fault becuse they gave her $2M. Question is....DID MOM LEARN THE LESSON? Doubtful...she can blame PM. | ||
| fanatic (Fanatic1)
Member Username: Fanatic1 Post Number: 506 Registered: 2-2003 |
Ken I completely understand what you are saying.........however, we are talking about FIRE.....to say you can design anything that deals with fire, and make it failsafe is naiive. It's fire.......we can do our best to control it, alter it, and make it more predictible, but it's like controlling the wind.......any woman that left her child in a car with a burning cigarette should not be rewarded in any way....plus, I'm assuming she cracked a window for her child.....which could have created a breeze to help the cigarette ignite.......don't know......but it's still FIRE......not man made, not 100% controllable | ||
| Ken Thomas (Future328driver)
Member Username: Future328driver Post Number: 623 Registered: 12-2001 |
By the way... my years of experience peeing into the wind when I was a Boy Scout taught me to always pee in the direction of other people | ||
| Ken Thomas (Future328driver)
Member Username: Future328driver Post Number: 622 Registered: 12-2001 |
Dave, cigarettes are inherently unsafe and noone will argue about that. what I meant by "safety" is that alot of research has been done to design a cigarette that wont start a fire if dropped on a bed, car seat, etc.... basically, I think they try to make the cigarettes so that air has to be drawn into it by the smoker to get it hot enough to start a burn. So, it could basically be a product defect if the cigarette burned hot to ingite something it was sitting against. Remember, I am a lowly patent attorney, so all i do is write technical documents. No ambulance chasing here (although it might be more lucrative). | ||
| Taek-Ho Kwon (Stickanddice)
Intermediate Member Username: Stickanddice Post Number: 2192 Registered: 11-2002 |
Dave, I think the safety that is being discussed is in their very high dividend yield. Hehehe. PM got me my first motorcycle! Cheers | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Senior Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 6825 Registered: 8-2002 |
i'm rolling here, this is great... Every Friday should have this many laughs... | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Advanced Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 2932 Registered: 1-2002 |
Ken, the "safety of its cigarettes"??? WTF, man? These are BURNING STICKS lit by FLAMES, and whose smoke causes CANCER. They are inherently UNSAFE. Any argument to the contrary is lawyer peeing into the wind, IMO. | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Advanced Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 2700 Registered: 10-2002 |
Simple. IMHO PM made a product that because when not being inhaled continued to burn and they were aware of this and could have used paper with fire breaks that wouldn't continue to burn unless inhaled. They deceided to settle (pay) rather than fight. Had they continued to fight I believe it would have and should have cost them a lot more. | ||
| Ken Thomas (Future328driver)
Member Username: Future328driver Post Number: 621 Registered: 12-2001 |
James, I think there is more to this case that the stupidity of the mother. Granted she was an idiot, but Philip Morris suddenly switched positions in defending this case and quietly decided to settle last May and the news is just coming out now. I think that maybe PM has something to hide about the safety of its cigarettes. Plus, with all the bad press that PM has gotten over the addictiveness of cigarettes, they dont look to good in frint of juries right now. My guess is that PM made a decision that it was cheaper to settle for $2M than to pay the legal costs to fight. | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 558 Registered: 11-2002 |
$2mil is cheaper than court costs, I would assume. And a hell of a lot cheaper than a really, really, really stupid jury. | ||
| James Dunne (Audiguy)
Member Username: Audiguy Post Number: 307 Registered: 6-2003 |
Someone help me out here. Woman leaves her toddler in the car while she goes inside to do something. She also leaves a cigarette smoldering in the car with the toddler. The car catches fire and burns the infant badly. Woman sues Philip Morris. It is settled out of court for $2M. Now, I do not like the cigarette companies but how can they be sued for this lady leaving her daughter strapped in a car seat unattended and then is stupid enough to leave a lit cigarette with her?? Why was she even smoking in the car with an infant?? Why is it the cigarette companys responsibility for the injury the child suffered?? Did they make the mother buy the cigarettes and light one up in the first place?? I think not. Did they encourage her to leave the child in the car unattended with a lit cigarette?? No!!!! Can Philip Morris sue her for being stupid and irresponsible?? Of course not. I hate the fact that the child has to suffer for the incompetence of the mother. But, the mother should not be able to get compensation for her own stupidity. |