Toxins... Oh Noes!

2»

Replies

  • Orphia
    Orphia Posts: 7,097 Member
    I'm pretty sure someone working in a pub in Australia successfully sued regarding secondhand smoke, and that's what helped get the laws about no smoking indoors in public places enacted here. Using my iPad which makes it harder to link.
  • Orphia
    Orphia Posts: 7,097 Member
    Kalikel wrote: »
    UltimateRBF wrote: »
    professionalHobbyist wrote: »
    Please list second hand smoke

    Every agency had tried to prove it is a health risk and failed

    I had to re read this a couple times. Um, second hand smoke is pretty well known to be harmful.

    Smoking itself is well-known to be harmful, but nobody can prove that it caused any single death. You cannot say, "This man got lung cancer because he smoked." There's never any way to know for sure. Not yet, anyway. In the 70s and 80s, there was tons of arguing about it. This scientist or doctor says "There is no proof that it caused the cancer that killed anyone!" (True dat), another one says, "So what? We still know it's bad for you! Don't be a ding-dong!"

    They finally put labels on the cigarettes saying it increases risk. There was another big lawsuit in the early 90s. I forget but what it was about, but the lawyers on the side of the cigarette people won that one.

    There's good reason not to smoke! It absolutely increases your risk of cancer. You'd be a fool to take the, "It's only a correlation, not a causation, so I'll smoke!" approach. But there is not, technically proof that it causes cancer.

    They say it now, "it causes cancer," but they can't prove this or that person died because of the smoking.

    Second-hand smoke is even harder to make a link with.

    Yes, I was fairly sure you were wrong.

    I found the court case I was thinking of:

    http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/16-3-litigation-relating-to-injury-from-exposure-t

    "In many jurisdictions the duties of employers and occupiers include both common law duties and statutory duties. In secondhand smoke cases, claims for common law negligence may therefore be brought simultaneously with claims based on other legal grounds.[4] , [5] An example is provided by the case of Sharp v Stephen Guinery t/as Port Kembla Hotel and Port Kembla RSL Club.[6] In that case, in 2001, a jury in the Supreme Court of New South Wales decided in favour of a plaintiff who had brought a claim against her employer based on common law negligence and breach of an employer's statutory duty. The plaintiff had worked as a bartender at the Port Kembla RSL between 1984 and 1995 and at the Port Kembla Hotel from 1973 to 1984. In 1995, the plaintiff discovered a lump on the side of her neck, and was diagnosed with cancer of the mouth, throat and neck. The plaintiff claimed that her cancer had been caused by exposure to secondhand smoke during the course of her employment at the Port Kembla RSL and the Port Kembla Hotel. The Port Kembla Hotel settled the plaintiff's claim against it out of court, for $160 000. The claim against the Port Kembla RSL proceeded to trial before a jury in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
    The jury in this case found that the employer's negligence had either caused or materially contributed to the plaintiff's cancer. This finding was based on a series of conclusions reached by the jury. On the balance of probabilities, the jury found that (i) on the information available to the Port Kembla RSL at relevant times, it had been reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiff would suffer physical injury; (ii) there had been a reasonably practicable means of eliminating the risk; (iii) in failing to ban smoking totally or partially or to constantly operate exhaust fans, the employer had by its conduct caused or materially contributed to the plaintiff's injury; and (iv) the employer had not acted reasonably.
    The jury awarded the plaintiff a total of $466 048 in damages, less the amount she had already received from the earlier settlement with the Port Kembla Hotel. The damages were awarded as damages for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, and past and future medical expenses, domestic assistance and loss of earnings."

This discussion has been closed.

Categories