NORTH CAROLINA - R.J. Reynolds, the North Carolina-based tobacco company, was slapped with a record-breaking $23 billion verdict after a Florida jury found that the company was responsible for neglecting to inform the plaintiff’s now-deceased husband that smoking causes lung cancer and about the highly addictive properties of nicotine. Cynthia Robinson, the plaintiff in the suit, will be awarded more than $16 million in compensatory damages and $23 billion in punitive damages. 

Christopher Chestnut, one of the attorneys representing Robinson, said, “The jury wanted to send a statement that tobacco cannot continue to lie to the American people and the American government about the addictiveness of and the deadly chemicals in their cigarettes.”

What does this astonishing settlement say about where a company’s social concern should lie – is it just about making a profit, or ensuring that its marketing isn’t misleading? What’s stopping juries from hitting companies with $30 or even $40 billion in damages, if their only objective is to send a message? Keep in mind that this substantial amount is being awarded to an individual.

Thanks to a 2006 ruling, it’s easier than ever for individuals to sue tobacco companies. Eight years ago, the Florida Supreme Court overturned a class action verdict after the jury in the Engle v. Liggett Group suit awarded damages of more than $145 billion to a group of people with smoking-related diseases and family members of deceased smokers, according to USA Today. Though the verdict was overturned, the state Supreme Court said that individual plaintiffs could file suits against tobacco companies using the jury’s unprecedented findings on the addictive, sometimes fatal characteristics of cigarettes. Lawsuits adding up to tens of millions of dollars in punitive damages against other tobacco companies soon followed the original class action lawsuit – all of which have been upheld by appeals courts, according to The Associated Press.

Robinson’s husband, Michael Johnson Sr., a longtime smoker, contracted and later died of lung cancer in 1996. Chestnut claimed that R.J. Reynolds “knew its product was addictive, but it didn’t market it correctly. The company lied and marked cigarettes as safe, yet they contained countless harmful chemicals.”

R.J. Reynolds has vowed to fight the verdict, claiming it “goes far beyond the realm of reasonableness and fairness, and is completely inconsistent with the evidence presented,” said J. Jeffery Raborn, company vice president and assistant general counsel. He added that the damages were “grossly excessive and impermissible under state and constitutional law.”

Since 1998, R.J. Reynolds, along with three other large tobacco companies in the U.S., have agreed to change their marketing practices to better inform consumers about the health risks of using their products and to compensate states for medical expenses of smoking-related illnesses, according to International Business Times. 

Despite such efforts, Vince Willmore, spokesman for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, says the liability risk is still “far greater than Wall Street analysts would lead investors [to] believe.”

Whether or not this settlement establishes a legal precedent, what will this case say about a corporation’s liability? Consider the 79 lawsuits GM is facing for its faulty ignition switches – those suits seek up to $10 billion in damages. Can we expect to see more individuals tackle these mega companies in the future? 

Stay tuned to AndNowUKnow for more comments and opinions.