Comments on: Mass. high court: use of cigarettes inherently unreasonable https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/06/mass-high-court-use-of-cigarettes-inherently-unreasonable/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Fri, 02 Jun 2006 11:59:17 +0000 hourly 1 By: Jim Collins https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/06/mass-high-court-use-of-cigarettes-inherently-unreasonable/comment-page-1/#comment-3077 Fri, 02 Jun 2006 11:59:17 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=3520#comment-3077 Doesn’t that ruling leave the State of Massachusetts open for liability as well? The State knows that tobacco is inherently dangerous and yet does not make the sale of tobacco products illegal. Even worse the State profits from the sale of tobacco through taxes.

]]> By: nevins https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/06/mass-high-court-use-of-cigarettes-inherently-unreasonable/comment-page-1/#comment-3076 Thu, 01 Jun 2006 08:09:44 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=3520#comment-3076 Still it inappropriately places the blame on the deep pocket. If, as the court states, it is “obvious… that cigarettes cannot be used safely and therefore that cigarette use is unreasonable”, then we must ask to whom do they think it is obvious. If they mean the average lay person then why isn’t the blame placed squarely on the smoker for violating the courts perception of unreasonableness?

If the courts make everything that is inherently risky (and in reality everything does carry some inherent and unmitigatable risk, however small) then is there any outcome that does not fall under this idea of strict liability? The nanny state is now complete.

]]>