Gee, I hate self-serving hypocrites who kill people through ignorance. Even when they kill their own relatives.

No one killed anyone. This is very simple. Person A tells person B that it is person A's belief that if X is done, Y will happen. Person B, considering other options, chose option X. Y didn't happen, but this was person B's free choice. And, the fact it is, that Y may not have happened even had another choice been made.

GOOD. I hope they get a large judgement.

Based on what, exactly? It is not the job of the courts to make people feel better, or to enable windfall payoffs as result of someone's free will decision deemed unwise by those intervening after the fact.

Well GD,
The televangelist misrepresented herself by saying she was cured by God of her breast cancer. Then she admits no doctor diagnosed her with the disease. Then she writes in a book that this man was "cured" of his throat cancer even though he passed away a year and a half ago. That's lying to the public to sell her book, using this man's name as a part of the lie and that should be compensable. She is definitely exploiting what actually happened to this man for financial gain.

Debbyski is right on. Whether or not Person B had free will is not the issue. It is whether or not he exercised his free will based on bad information provided to him for self-serving reasons. Proving that may be difficult, but that's another issue.

Sometimes I could greatly benefit by reading beyond the headline.

I've done the same thing myself GD.