$5M Skoal & Copenhagen Settlement

[snusgetter]

~
Chewing tobacco maker agrees to $5M settlement

NEW HAVEN, Conn. – The maker of Skoal and Copenhagen smokeless tobacco has agreed to pay $5 million to the family of a man who died of mouth cancer in what is believed to be the first wrongful-death settlement won from a chewing tobacco company.

A legal expert said the case could open the door for more lawsuits against makers of chewing tobacco, an industry that drew fewer legal battles during the 1990s than cigarette manufacturers.

U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co. will pay the award to the family of Bobby Hill of Canton, N.C., who began chewing tobacco at 13. He died in 2003 at 42.

Attorney Antonio Ponvert III, who represented Hill's relatives, told The Associated Press about the agreement Tuesday. Regulatory documents confirmed the deal.

Steven Callahan, a spokesman for Altria, which acquired U.S. Smokeless Tobacco last year, said the company admitted no liability and does not make any health claims about its products.

Ponvert and Mark Gottlieb, director of the Tobacco Products Liability Project at Northeastern University in Boston, both said the Hill family settlement is the first case of its kind.

Gottlieb predicted more lawsuits targeting smokeless tobacco would follow, calling the settlement "a wake-up call" to plaintiffs' attorneys "that there are a lot of victims of smokeless tobacco use out there, and it's possible these cases can be successful."


MORE



This is the dawning of the next rounds of litigations and maybe the eventual banning of all tobacco products.

So far snus has not entered the fray but the 'sue-tobacco industry' is still relatively young.

[tom502]

Why don't Roger Ebert sue?

[raptor]

Don't these lawsuits result from decades of no health warning labels? Meaning, for newer smokers they won't be able to do the same?

Ultimately it's the worst for the deceased, but I don't like how family members (and the estate's lawyer) are profiting off his death.

[tom502]

Can I sue if my teeth fall out? I could use a few mil.

[lxskllr]

I don't like it. Lawyers are never up to any good, and if they're making money, it means an innocent person/company is getting screwed. When I get in the mood to waste some time, I'll read up a bit on this case.

[Jwalker]

Exactly Tom, has anyone sued Jack Daniels and Anhauser Busch for their liver falling apart yet which is way easier to prove? Next we'll just sue food companies which is a little harder to do unless a person solely eats McDonalds. I remember who was it Sean Marsee's mom sued and U.S. Smokeless got a bunch of doctors that argued his cancer was genetic and U.S. Smokeless won. Before it was part of Altria I know they would never have settled.

[snusgetter]

Exactly Tom, has anyone sued Jack Daniels and Anhauser Busch for their liver falling apart yet which is way easier to prove? Next we'll just sue food companies which is a little harder to do unless a person solely eats McDonalds. I remember who was it Sean Marsee's mom sued and U.S. Smokeless got a bunch of doctors that argued his cancer was genetic and U.S. Smokeless won. Before it was part of Altria I know they would never have settled.

Actually, it was noted in the rest pf the story:

"Altria may have simply concluded it was cheaper to settle than risk a larger award at trial.

Callahan said the case involved unique circumstances because it was a settlement offer made before Altria acquired the company."

[Premium Parrots]

of course there was no mention of the plaintiffs massive PCP usage.

[raptor]

I don't like it. Lawyers are never up to any good, and if they're making money, it means an innocent person/company is getting screwed. When I get in the mood to waste some time, I'll read up a bit on this case.

I'd hardly call tobacco companies innocent.

of course there was no mention of the plaintiffs massive PCP usage.

[lxskllr]

I'd hardly call tobacco companies innocent.

Lawyers are licensed scam artists. They're the bottom of the barrel of professionals. They wanted the sweet title and paycheck, but didn't have the brains to be a scientist, engineer, or something useful to society. They get paid to convince people that the color blue is really red, and Bluco should pay damages because of it.

Whether right or wrong, oral tobacco has had a bad reputation for a long time, yet he chose to continue using it. He had problems that may or may not have been tobacco related, and the vultures swooped in to collect on that. It's bad all around.

[sgreger1]

Lawyers are licensed scam artists. They're the bottom of the barrel of professionals. They wanted the sweet title and paycheck, but didn't have the brains to be a scientist, engineer, or something useful to society. They get paid to convince people that the color blue is really red, and Bluco should pay damages because of it.

^^^ This paragraph should be required reading for everyone who joins law school. Let them know what they are signing up for.

[desirexe]

I just don't understand these tobacco cases. This man was not the only person who began dipping at the age of 13...so if the tobacco was truly the sole cause of his cancer and unfortunate death, shouldn't ALL people who began dipping when he did also have cancer??? I don't think the tobacco co's should have settled, I think by doing this they did indeed open the door for future cases.

[raptor]

I just don't understand these tobacco cases. This man was not the only person who began dipping at the age of 13...so if the tobacco was truly the sole cause of his cancer and unfortunate death, shouldn't ALL people who began dipping when he did also have cancer??? I don't think the tobacco co's should have settled, I think by doing this they did indeed open the door for future cases.

That's what I think about snus... if there were a cancer case, if the plaintiff ever used another tobacco product then it should be enough reasonable doubt.

This settlement could just be to avoid bad publicity or there is something USST knew that we don't.

[snusgetter]

That's what I think about snus... if there were a cancer case, if the plaintiff ever used another tobacco product then it should be enough reasonable doubt.

This settlement could just be to avoid bad publicity or there is something USST knew that we don't.

"The family's case also was stronger because Hill was a longtime user of chewing tobacco who did not drink or smoke cigarettes, factors tobacco companies point to as causing the cancer, Ponvert said."


ALSO

"Ponvert said his case was bolstered by previously undisclosed letters from the 1980s that the company sent to minors thanking them for their business and offering free samples. The company even sent a can opener to one child to help open the chewing tobacco, he said.

"It was just this unbelievable trail of incredibly damning documents," Ponvert said."

[raptor]

Yep, this case is definitely an exception. Pre-90s tobacco policy & exclusive dip user.

The US government got out of a lot of Agent Orange lawsuits because the troops in Vietnam had a steady diet of cheap cigarettes.