I haven't clicked on your link yet, so I don't know anything about the specifics of this case, but I believe the point at issue in many of the smoking cases moving forward at this point is that the plaintiffs (or their survivors) demonstrate that they began smoking at a time when the General Public was not yet widely informed on the dangers of smoking yet the tobacco companies WERE, internally, aware of the health risks.
The cases that have been identified as posing a serious threat to the tobacco companies (and it would seem this is one of them) concern plaintiffs (or their survivors) who can demonstrate, moreover, that they made multiple attempts to quit smoking, but that the addictive nature of the ingredients--allegedly added to cigarettes by the tobacco companies in order to foster addiction--made quitting impossible.
These conditions would seem to suggest a scenario in which someone innocently falls victim to a concerted campaign by the cigarette mfrs that willfully deceived consumers about the risks of their product AND "coerced" them into continued--and lethal--use.
You think, what do you want?
You think, make a decision...
Updated On: 7/21/14 at 11:35 AM