Breaking News English

A USA court has ordered the tobacco awardcampaignscompanycourageousdamagesdaydecadesdecisionevidencefairnessgiantjurorslawsuitlegallylethallungnegligentpublicverdict R.J. Reynolds to pay a woman $23.6 billion in awardcampaignscompanycourageousdamagesdaydecadesdecisionevidencefairnessgiantjurorslawsuitlegallylethallungnegligentpublicverdict. Cynthia Robinson filed her awardcampaignscompanycourageousdamagesdaydecadesdecisionevidencefairnessgiantjurorslawsuitlegallylethallungnegligentpublicverdict in 2008 and fought the awardcampaignscompanycourageousdamagesdaydecadesdecisionevidencefairnessgiantjurorslawsuitlegallylethallungnegligentpublicverdict for six years. Her husband Michael died of awardcampaignscompanycourageousdamagesdaydecadesdecisionevidencefairnessgiantjurorslawsuitlegallylethallungnegligentpublicverdict cancer in 1996. He started smoking when he was 13 and died two awardcampaignscompanycourageousdamagesdaydecadesdecisionevidencefairnessgiantjurorslawsuitlegallylethallungnegligentpublicverdict later. Mrs Robinson said the company was awardcampaignscompanycourageousdamagesdaydecadesdecisionevidencefairnessgiantjurorslawsuitlegallylethallungnegligentpublicverdict in not telling her husband that nicotine is addictive and can lead to awardcampaignscompanycourageousdamagesdaydecadesdecisionevidencefairnessgiantjurorslawsuitlegallylethallungnegligentpublicverdict cancer. Tobacco companies knew in the 1950s that smoking could be awardcampaignscompanycourageousdamagesdaydecadesdecisionevidencefairnessgiantjurorslawsuitlegallylethallungnegligentpublicverdict. Mrs Johnson's lawyer said of her husband: "He couldn't quit. He was smoking the awardcampaignscompanycourageousdamagesdaydecadesdecisionevidencefairnessgiantjurorslawsuitlegallylethallungnegligentpublicverdict he died."

An R.J. Reynolds lawyer said the damages awardcampaignscompanycourageousdamagesdaydecadesdecisionevidencefairnessgiantjurorslawsuitlegallylethallungnegligentpublicverdict was way too high, "grossly excessive" and awardcampaignscompanycourageousdamagesdaydecadesdecisionevidencefairnessgiantjurorslawsuitlegallylethallungnegligentpublicverdict "impermissible". He added: "This awardcampaignscompanycourageousdamagesdaydecadesdecisionevidencefairnessgiantjurorslawsuitlegallylethallungnegligentpublicverdict goes far beyond the realm of reasonableness and awardcampaignscompanycourageousdamagesdaydecadesdecisionevidencefairnessgiantjurorslawsuitlegallylethallungnegligentpublicverdict and is completely inconsistent with the awardcampaignscompanycourageousdamagesdaydecadesdecisionevidencefairnessgiantjurorslawsuitlegallylethallungnegligentpublicverdict presented." Mrs Robinson's lawyer said awardcampaignscompanycourageousdamagesdaydecadesdecisionevidencefairnessgiantjurorslawsuitlegallylethallungnegligentpublicverdict looked at R.J. Reynolds' aggressive marketing. It particularly looked at awardcampaignscompanycourageousdamagesdaydecadesdecisionevidencefairnessgiantjurorslawsuitlegallylethallungnegligentpublicverdict aimed at young people. He said: "[R.J. Reynolds] lied to Congress, they lied to the awardcampaignscompanycourageousdamagesdaydecadesdecisionevidencefairnessgiantjurorslawsuitlegallylethallungnegligentpublicverdict, they lied to smokers and tried to blame the smoker." He added that the jury's awardcampaignscompanycourageousdamagesdaydecadesdecisionevidencefairnessgiantjurorslawsuitlegallylethallungnegligentpublicverdict was " awardcampaignscompanycourageousdamagesdaydecadesdecisionevidencefairnessgiantjurorslawsuitlegallylethallungnegligentpublicverdict".