dialectics Posted June 10 Report Share Posted June 10 today AP carried a story that philip morris is moving from new york to virginia. they say that virginia was chosen because it will be more cost effective.... but they don't actually say why. the reason is because virginia is one of two states in the union that does not allow class action suits - e.g. if smokers wanetd to sue philip morris they would have to do so individually, instead of being able to combine their resources. in most cases, the time and expense of a trial is usually too great for the individual plaintiff, so these cases are never brought to court. cost effective indeed the same thing happened when customers of verizon's high-speed network attempted to sue for poor service, though verizon denies that their internet HQ was based in virginia because of the class action ban, the case is still under appeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted June 10 Report Share Posted June 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
£ddie Posted June 10 Report Share Posted June 10 It's really not all that relevant as far as lawsuits go. Even if Virginia doesn't allow class actions, the federal court system does. And other states do--just because they're headquartered in VA doesn't mean they can't be sued in another state. A creative plaintiff's lawyer can easily get around this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialectics Posted June 10 Author Report Share Posted June 10 Originally posted by £ddie It's really not all that relevant as far as lawsuits go. Even if Virginia doesn't allow class actions, the federal court system does. And other states do--just because they're headquartered in VA doesn't mean they can't be sued in another state. A creative plaintiff's lawyer can easily get around this. hahaha apparently the lawyers in the verizon case (dec 2001) weren't so creative... that was exactly the reason why the suit stalled.http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,49259,00.htmlif what u say is true, they should have gone with better lawyers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddog4063 Posted June 10 Report Share Posted June 10 whats there to sue about?the true effects of smoking have been known for many years now, if you're gonna do it still then you have it coming to you.i'm sick of everyone suing over everything, like if i go buy a new knife and i stab myself with it, and i entitled to money from the company that made it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCR Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 Originally posted by reddog4063 whats there to sue about?the true effects of smoking have been known for many years now, if you're gonna do it still then you have it coming to you.i'm sick of everyone suing over everything, like if i go buy a new knife and i stab myself with it, and i entitled to money from the company that made it? agree with you 100%I love reading those warnings...always thinking that it had to be prompted by some idiot doing what he/she was not supposed to do with the product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialectics Posted June 11 Author Report Share Posted June 11 which then brings up an interesting point - how do you feel about the legalization of drugs?e.g. if a corporation can sell something and just stick a warning label on it to make it legal, it adopts a stance that americans are responsible for making their own informed decisions about what to put in their body. so why are individuals and corporations forbidden from making that choice about currently illegal narcotics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCR Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 dialectics: this is when the ideas of gov, society, public safty etc .. come into play.It is believed that certain things people just can't choose because they would make the wrong choices (drugs, DWI, reckless driving and most other laws that in fact protect the society from others as much as they protect the individual)This isn't what I believe, but what I believe is the position of those in power/elected officials/etc...maybe most people really couldn't handle all that freedom...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.