Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
 
Search 591,302 Cases and Articles on TJV!
 
Florida State Categories







R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v Martin

Case No. 1D09-4934 (FL Dist. 1 Ct. App., Dec. 14, 2010)

This is the first so-called “Engle progeny” case to reach a district court of appeal following the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006). Engle began as a smokers' class action lawsuit filed in 1994 against cigarette companies and tobacco industry organizations seeking damages for smoking-related illnesses and deaths. The class included all Florida “citizens and residents, and their survivors, who have suffered, presently suffer or who have died from diseases and medical conditions caused by their addiction to cigarettes that contain nicotine.'” Id. at 1256. The tobacco company defendants included the appellant in this case, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (“RJR”). In Engle, the supreme court decertified the class, but allowed certain jury findings from the class action to have res judicata effect in any subsequent lawsuits by individual class members seeking damages from the defendants. RJR appeals from a final judgment in one such action, seeking reversal of the compensatory and punitive damage awards.

RJR primarily contends that the trial court gave the findings approved in Engle overly broad preclusive effect and thus relieved the plaintiff below, Matilde Martin, of her burden to prove legal causation on her negligence and strict liability claims. RJR also asserts Mrs. Martin failed to prove the reliance element of her fraudulent concealment claim, and that the punitive damage award is excessive and unconstitutional. For the reasons that follow, we find the trial court correctly applied Engle and Mrs. Martin produced sufficient independent evidence to prove RJR's liability for her husband's death. We conclude further the punitive damage award is neither excessive nor violative of RJR's due process rights.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc.

The trial proceedings in the Engle class action were divided into three phases. In Phase I the jury was to consider “common issues relating exclusively to the defendants‟ conduct and the general health effects of smoking” and the classs entitlement to punitive damages. Phase II would determine whether the three class representatives received compensatory damages and the amount of class punitive damages if entitlement was established. Engle, 945 So. 2d at 1256-57. Liability to and compensatory damages for each of the estimated 700,000 class members would be decided in Phase III. Id. at 1258. Phase I concluded with a verdict finding the evidence sufficient to prove strict product liability; fraud and misrepresentation; fraud by concealment; civil conspiracy by misrepresentation and concealment; breach of implied warranty; breach of express warranty; negligence; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. at 1255. The jury also found the class entitled to punitive damages. Id. at 1256-57. In Phase II, the jury awarded $12.7 million in compensatory damages to the class representatives and $145 billion in punitive damages to the entire class. Id. at 1257. Before Phase III proceedings began, the defendants appealed the verdicts.

The appeal went first to the Third District Court of Appeal sub nom. Liggett Group, Inc. v. Engle, 853 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), then to the Florida Supreme Court which made the following rulings pertinent to the case before us. First, the court vacated the punitive damage award because, with no compensatory damage award to the class for comparison, the court could not determine whether the punitive damages were unconstitutionally excessive. 945 So. 2d at 1264-65, 1276. Second, the court decertified the class for Phase III, finding class treatment infeasible “because individualized issues such as legal causation, comparative fault, and damages predominate,” and allowed class members to file individual lawsuits within one year of the court‟s mandate. Id. at 1268, 1277. Third, the court “retain[ed] the jury‟s Phase I findings other than those on the fraud and intentional infliction of emotion [sic] distress claims, which involved highly individualized determinations,” and gave these “common core findings . . . res judicata effect” in any subsequent individual actions by class members. Id. at 1269.
 

 

Judge(s): Simone Marstiller
Jurisdiction: Florida Court of Appeals, First District
Related Categories: Civil Procedure , Damages , Torts
 
Circuit Court Judge(s)
Nikki Clark
Simone Marstiller
Kent Wetherell, II

 
Trial Court Judge(s)
Terry Terrell

 
Appellant Lawyer(s) Appellant Law Firm(s)
Gregory Katsas Jones Day
Charles Beall, Jr. Moore Hill & Westmoreland PA
Larry Hill Moore Hill & Westmoreland PA

 
Appellee Lawyer(s) Appellee Law Firm(s)
David K. Miller Broad and Cassel
Stephen Turner Broad and Cassel
Robert Loehr Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Echsner & Proctor PA
Matthew Schultz Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Echsner & Proctor PA

 

CUSTOM EMAIL ALERTS!

With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.

 



Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
evidence does not render the amount of punitive damages assessed out of all fraudulent concealment claim, and that the punitive damage award is excessive and martin was required to prove legal causation, and she produced sufficient evidence individually, and as successors to the american tobacco are relevant to this litigation. otherwise, the florida supreme courts statement in they expressly state, and you must not speculate or guess 2010. physiological satisfaction derived from nicotine and perhaps other active nov. 6, 2000). the evidence supporting the strict liability finding showed the death.2 conspiracy, concealed or omitted material information, action are binding upon you, the court and the parties. under the circumstances of this case, offend due process. neither the united states conspiracy to conceal the specified information. by his individual nicotine dosage requirements . . . ." at the time, the evidence file motion for rehearing and 611 f.3d at 1334-35. this they can do by pointing to relevant parts of the class addictive nature, or both, of smoking cigarettes; (5) [civil conspiracy-concealment] the two or to define what the supreme court meant by "res judicata" to conclude lung cancer which in turn caused his death. the record thus demonstrates mrs. four, is that r.j. reynolds tobacco company placed liability. finally, the 7.58 to 1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages does not, prove that benny martin was addicted to r.j. reynolds rjr also argues that mrs. martin failed to prove the reliance element of her presumed to be excessive and the defendant is entitled to and the other engle defendants. more importantly, we do not agree every engle thomas recused himself, judge t. kent wetherell, ii, was assigned to the panel to matilde c. martin, as 1187, 1203 (d. kan. 2002) (jury could infer plaintiffs reliance where evidence addiction was the legal cause of his death. . . . and compensatory damages for each of the estimated 700,000 class members 2 the award of punitive damages, the florida statutory cap of 3 to 1 is inapplicable." [defendants] conduct and the [plaintiffs] resulting injury . . . commonly known * * * 20 differ[ed] from due process review because the case [arose] under federal maritime means, an overt act was done to further the conspiracy, and the plaintiffs were nicotine cigarettes also contain, make the product unreasonably dangerous. id. at in the district court of appeal showed that as early as 1935 it was technically possible to remove nicotine from which punitive damages awards must adhere. rjr asserts the supreme court did users injuries or damage." siemens energy & automation, inc. v. medina, 719 plaintiff must trot out the class action trial transcript to prove applicability of the rely upon the findings from the class action when she individually pursues one or a. engle v. liggett group, inc. strike because sales would decrease, and collusion with other tobacco industry martin. in order to be a legal cause of death, plaintiff negligence; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. id. at 1255. the jury cigarettes containing nicotine, and, if so, that his addiction is a legal cause of death if it directly and in a punitive damages, the due process clause of the material fact; the companies knew or should have known the material fact should c. punitive damages companies to conceal or omit information regarding the either r.j. reynolds tobacco company or any of the establish the elements of her claims? the claimant demonstrates to the court by clear and damages are warranted. the jury awarded mrs. martin $5 million in compensatory we find the $25 million award here is not out of proportion with what the scientific research results revealing that cigarettes cause cancer and other diseases smokers and the public would rely to their detriment; (6) [breach of implied * * * relevant to mr. martins claims. in so doing, rjr urges an application of the applicability of the engle findings to their claims. it determined the supreme court, and concealment; breach of implied warranty; breach of express warranty; peripheral vascular disease, pharyngeal cancer, and stomach cancer; (2) 1269. disposition thereof if filed lucky strike cigarettes, every lucky strike cigarette he smoked contained (11th cir. 2010) ("the phase i approved findings . . . do establish some facts that the second question to be answered is whether the award violates and that the phase i jury findings encompassed all the brands. engle v. r.j. reasonable proportion to the malice, outrage, or wantonness of the tortious the class, were the "conduct" elements of the claims asserted by the class, and not florida law to pass constitutional muster are: (1) "the manifest weight of the cigarettes or their addictive nature or both made at any containing nicotine, the death would not have occurred. of the claims. the order reflects that lucky strike, the brand mr. martin primarily court and the parties. the findings may not be denied or respectively 66% and 34% responsible for mr. martins death; and punitive i. background 768.73, the facts and circumstances in this case are significantly similar to those in not otherwise known or available, knowing that material so excessive as to violate concepts of due process." we review the trial courts a jury trial proceeded on five claims: strict liability; fraud by justification in the record to undo the jurys decision to award mrs. martin $25 established the conduct elements of mrs. martins strict liability, fraudulent the degree, if any, to which r.j. reynolds tobacco martin, nor do they establish whether benny martin was finally, rjr challenges the $25 million punitive damage award arguing it is on evidence showing rjr and its co-conspirators agreed to conceal their own fact concerning the health effects or addictive nature of prove that benny martin was addicted to r.j. reynolds smoking; and rjr and several other entities agreed to conceal said unspecified companys product was the sole or contributing cause of the evidence showed that between 2005 and 2008 it had shareholder equity of in giving the phase i findings res judicata effect in subsequent lawsuits by engle judicata effect" in any subsequent individual actions by class members. id. at 7 smoked, was one of the sixteen cigarette brands named by the class representatives the health risks from smoking cigarettes, refusal to take nicotine out of lucky substantially to such loss, so that it can reasonably be continuous sequence produces or contributes otherwise known or available, knowing the material was false or misleading, or * * * approximately $8 billion and net annual earnings of $1 billion. we recognize, as applied engle and mrs. martin produced sufficient independent evidence to prove person entitled thereto by the trier of fact, except as award is neither excessive nor violative of rjrs due process rights. highly ritualized and stylized segment of the pharmaceutical industry. tobacco sold lucky strike at that time. misrepresentation; fraud by concealment; civil conspiracy by misrepresentation parties filed a joint pretrial memorandum admitting several facts which required 775, 792 (cal. ct. app. 2008) (plaintiff was not required to prove actual reliance nicotine, and mr. martin did not smoke any brand of cigarettes other than lucky estate of benny r. martin, as evidence from which the jury could infer mr. martins reliance on pervasive makes the eighth amendment's prohibition against 3 smoking cigarettes or both. reynolds tobacco company, in furtherance of that court "retain[ed] the jurys phase i findings other than those on the fraud and the conduct showed such an entire lack of care that the precedent). see also, brown v. r.j. reynolds tobacco co., 611 f.3d 1324, 1335, conspiracy to withhold health information or information with prejudice. claims, and demonstrates that the verdict is conclusive as to the conduct elements 17 tobacco companies cigarettes contain carcinogens, nitrosamines, and carbon * * * damaged as a result of the conspiracy. see charles v. fla. foreclosure placement cancer, pregnancy complications, oral cavity/tongue cancer, pancreatic cancer, support of her claim included, among other things, a 1972 internal rjr document also named as defendants were philip morris usa, inc.; lorillard tobacco unreasonably dangerous. finding five, is that r.j. the jury found that addiction to rjr cigarettes was a legal cause of mr. in the class action establish nothing relevant to any individual class members determined them yourselves. the established findings unspecified brand of cigarette containing an undefined defect; rjr committed one iii. conclusion information about the health effects of smoking and the addictive nature of first, the court vacated the punitive damage award because, with no compensatory cigarettes the defendants knew to be harmful, and they breached their duty by determined specific matters related to the defendants conduct. because the those established findings are: finding three, is that r.j. r. j. reynolds tobacco questioned, and they must carry the same weight they filed in 1994 against cigarette companies and tobacco industry organizations "apparent indifference" to the safety of those who were exposed to kaylo, the damages. the punitive damage award overcomes the presumption of improperly based on the engle findings and excessive in light of the $3.3 million in iii proceedings began, the defendants appealed the verdicts. regarding addiction and the acts proven in furtherance of benchmarks that a punitive damages award may not surpass," but "[s]ingle-digit trials involving former class members would be meaningless.") no matter the case no. 1d09-4934 opinion filed december 14, 2010. the exception to the statutory cap." id. at 488-89. the evidence in the instant case infeasible "because individualized issues such as legal causation, comparative jury awarded $12.7 million in compensatory damages to the class representatives martin, of her burden to prove legal causation on her negligence and strict liability material information concerning the health effect [sic] of rjr primarily contends that the trial court gave the findings approved in knew to be harmful and misleading the public about the health risks of smoking 9 an action, 17:1 (2009-2010 ed.). the civil conspiracy claim required proof that imposes substantive limits on that discretion. that clause 2 [engle] that the phase i approved findings were to have ,,res judicata effect in representatives received compensatory damages and the amount of class punitive rjrs liability for her husbands death. we conclude further the punitive damage must carry the same weight they would have if you had plaintiffs had to prove the tobacco companies concealed or failed to disclose a the market that were defective and unreasonably dangerous; (4) [fraud by appellee. award does not financially devastate the company. accordingly, we affirm the other companies involved in the conspiracy that omitted owens-corning fiberglas corp. v. ballard, 749 so. 2d 483 (fla. 1999), in which martins death; rjrs conspiracy to conceal and actual concealment of defendant must have been consciously indifferent to the surviving spouse and on behalf of an intentional violation of those rights. persons exposed to the effects of such conduct; or, two, action. for that reason, we find the trial court in mrs. martins case correctly evidence to prove causation, detrimental reliance, and entitlement to punitive 21 applicable to the states. the due process clause of its manufactured and sold by rjr, who contracted lung cancer and died in 1995.1 an appeal from the circuit court for escambia county. damages, which the court later reduced to $3.3 million based on the jurys findings from the class action to have res judicata effect in any subsequent lawsuits attempts to diminish the preclusive effect of the findings by claiming, based on the 24 not final until time expires to entities to affirmatively mislead the public into thinking cigarettes indeed may not section 768.73(1) in determining that the punitive damages award . . . fell within benny martins death. the findings establish only what 11 health effect [sic] of cigarettes or their addictive nature or finding the evidence sufficient to support a finding of "flagrant disregard" and 3d 1006, 1008 (fla. 1st dca 2009). the evidence mrs. martin produced in are: finding one, is that cigarettes are addictive. finding both. those companies include phillip morris, leggett, that r.j. reynolds tobacco company is liable to mrs. supreme court concluded the trial court "acted properly and responsibly under the punitive-to-compensatory ratio here is 7.58 to 1. yet the trial court denied in question, the defect and unreasonably dangerous condition of the product, and group, inc. v. engle, 853 so. 2d 434 (fla. 3d dca 2003), then to the florida and involving willful, wanton, or gross misconduct, the finding the evidence sufficient to prove strict product liability; fraud and negative health consequences from smoking remains an ,,open question."). reasonably be said that, but for the addiction to cigarettes and sold. the jury awarded $1.8 million in compensatory damages and $31 was required to prove lucky strike brand cigarettes contained a specific defect ii. analysis addiction to cigarettes that contain nicotine." id. at 1256. the tobacco company gregory g. katsas of jones day, washington, d.c., pro hac vice, for appellant. (citations omitted). the three criteria a punitive damages award must satisfy under [addiction/dependence] that cigarettes containing nicotine are addictive or for a jury to find that mr. martins addiction to rjrs cigarettes was the legal as a corollary to its argument on the preclusive effect of engle, rjr asserts kaylo, advertising it as "non-toxic." id. at 487. further, the company refused-- in support of its argument, rjr points out the eleventh circuits decision in chose not to do so because it would result this is the first so-called "engle progeny" case to reach a district court of 25 jury that conduct . . . " but not "whether any class members relied on tobaccos (b) if any award for punitive damages exceeds the engle and the burden individual plaintiffs in federal court must carry in proving so. 2d 80, 87 (fla. 1976)). to prevail on the fraud by concealment claim, the to mr. martin; rjr concealed particular information which, had it been disclosed, contained nicotine, nicotine in cigarettes is addictive, and smoking cigarettes rjr points out, there are thousands of engle progeny cases pending in the trial remittitur of the amount in excess of the limitation unless demonstrates with similar import rjrs disregard for the safety of benny martin supreme courts decision that would essentially nullify it. we decline the 1165, 1166 (fla. 4th dca 2003); gutter v. wunker, 631 so. 2d 1117, 1118 (fla. replace judge thomas. judge wetherell has considered the record and briefs on the misinformation); burton v. r.j. reynolds tobacco co., 208 f. supp. 2d action against owens-corning alleging he contracted mesothelioma after 30 years 1276-77. the supreme court noted, however, that the phase i jury did not consider wayne frier home ctr. of pensacola, inc. v. cadlerock joint venture, l.p., 16 so. compensatory damages award. there the plaintiff brought a products liability strike and camel (another rjr brand). at trial mrs. martin produced evidence eschsner & proctor, p.a., pensacola, for appellee. products uniquely contain and deliver nicotine, a potent drug, with a variety of the existence of a proximate causal connection between such condition and the 4 damage award to the class for comparison, the court could not determine whether no proof at trial, including that every lucky strike benny martin smoked the question is to what extent could mrs. martin use the engle findings to the court then explained what it believes are the scope of the preclusive effect of entire lack of care that the defendant must have wantonly constitutional due process principles. the findings may not be denied or questioned, and they farm mut. auto. ins. co. v. campbell, 538 u.s. 408, 425 (2003). we find no 23 conduct;" (2) the award "bears some relationship to the defendants ability to pay 1256 (emphasis added). the common issues, which the jury decided in favor of revealed rjr in 1993 remained concerned that if it were to remove nicotine from *2. the jury based its findings on the fraud by concealment and conspiracy claims the crux of this appeal is the extent to which an engle class member can punitive damages are warranted if you find by clear and the eleventh circuit, we conclude the phase i findings establish the conduct 5 two, is that cigarettes cause lung cancer. dioxide, among other ingredients harmful to health which, when combined with the member. id. at 1263. as does the eleventh circuit, we interpret the supreme courts ruling in mr. martin primarily smoked lucky strike, but he also smoked camel, another a. application of engle supreme court which made the following rulings pertinent to the case before us. health effects of smoking intending that current and potential smokers would rely phase i verdict form, that the findings "facially" prove nothing specifically consequences; or, three, the conduct showed such an effects of cigarette smoking or the addictive nature of cigarettes intending that compensatory damages awarded mrs. martin. section 768.72(2), florida statutes, accordingly entered a final judgment for mrs. martin. prevent injury to smokers. id. at *4. 8 transactions, professional liability, or breach of warranty, b. martin v. r.j. reynolds tobacco co. entitlement to punitive damages. phase ii would determine whether the three class the final judgment and amended omnibus order entered in the engle class states goals of deterrence and retribution, than awards with" higher ratios. state stating, "in a sense, the tobacco industry may be thought of as being a specialized, action for damages, and thus the trial court applied engle too broadly in mrs containing nicotine, the death would not have occurred. as . . . ,,proximate cause[;]" and damage to the plaintiffs. curd v. mosaic the first issue for your determination . . . is whether disseminating misleading information and creating a controversy over the adverse and the tobacco institute. finding six, is that r.j. ctr., 988 so. 2d 1157, 1159-60 (fla. 3d dca 2008). and the four elements of the martins reliance on such statements to his detriment is a invitation. see hoffman v. jones, 280 so. 2d 431, 434 (fla. 1973) (district courts information. thus, rjr argues, notwithstanding the engle findings mrs. martin personal representative of the lawsuits within one year of the courts mandate. id. at 1268, 1277. third, the reasonably be said that, but for the addiction to cigarettes consequences of smoking," but despite evidence of cigarettes harmful effects light of the facts and circumstances which were presented florida. the plaintiff in brown appealed a pretrial order ruling that "the engle the trial judge instructed the jury, in pertinent part, as follows: construed engle and instructed the jury accordingly on the preclusive effect of the rendering the brand unreasonably dangerous; rjr violated a duty of care it owed upon themselves to investigate and determine whether there were health m. stephen turner, and david k. miller of broad and cassel, tallahassee, and 19 the trial court did not require mrs. martin to prove legal causation on her findings are common to all class members, mrs. martin, under the supreme courts phase i findings. had deleterious health effects. id. at *2-3. and on the negligence claim, the jury american tobacco company, to which rjr is successor in interest, made and the class defendants agreed to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful cigarettes. neither does the award place rjr in a precarious financial position as and refused to warn the public of the cancer risk from exposure to asbestos. cigarettes in general, and on the false controversy created by the tobacco industry is within the boundaries of due process. see engle, 945 so. 2d at 1263. determined the defendants owed all class members a duty to prevent injury from would have if you had determined them yourselves. during the years he smoked aimed at creating doubt among smokers that cigarettes v. convincing evidence that . . . one, the conduct causing rjr brand. character and appeal." that business decision endured, as industry documents natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes including rjr were not only actively concealing their own research results of appeal do not have the prerogative to overrule florida supreme court 13 15 evidence the defendant is guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence. see so. 2d 312, 315 (fla. 3d dca 1998) (quoting west v. caterpillar tractor co., 336 seeking damages for smoking-related illnesses and deaths. the class included all company, the council for tobacco research, usa, inc., were defective; (7) [breach of express warranty] that the tobacco company tobacco company defendants failed to exercise the degree of care which a limitation specified in paragraph (a), the award is turning first to whether remittitur was appropriately denied under section florida ",,citizens and residents, and their survivors, who have suffered, presently substantially to producing such death . . . so that it can pensacola, for appellant. benny martin was a member of the engle class. in order terry d. terrell, judge. the appeal went first to the third district court of appeal sub nom. liggett product liability, had to ",,establish the manufacturers relationship to the product phase i jury determined "common issues relating exclusively to the defendants to the trier of fact. judge bradford l. thomas heard oral argument in this case. after judge defendants had taken on the duty to disclose by promising to share their research prove up the following matters found by the phase i jury ("engle findings"): (1) phase i findings may not be used to establish any element of an individual engle over it; mr. martin was diagnosed by a physician as being addicted to nicotine; his the supreme court upheld a punitive damages award that was nearly 18 times the robert m. loehr and matt schultz of levin, papantonio, thomas, mitchell, final judgment in all respects. as pertinent to mrs. martins claims, the class plaintiffs, to prove strict martin relied on information put out by the tobacco companies omitting scientific selling cigarettes dangerous to health without taking reasonable measures to multipliers are more likely to comport with due process, while still achieving the negligence claim were "[a] duty . . . requiring the [class defendants] to conform to effect in federal courts it would have in state courts. brown, 611 f.3d at 1331. fault, and damages predominate," and allowed class members to file individual information was a legal cause of mr. martins death; rjr and mr. martin are habit forming alkaloid" and notes the "confirmed" tobacco user "primarily seek[s] dependence producing; (3) [strict liability] that the defendants placed cigarettes on 3 individualized determinations," and gave these "common core findings . . . res 18 because it would not be profitable--to correct the defect either by removing million in punitive damages. id. at 484-85. the evidence in the case showed that addiction was the legal cause of his death. . . . liability, products liability, misconduct in commercial reynolds tobacco co., no. 94-08273, 2000 wl 33534572, at *1 (fla. cir. ct. the trial proceedings in the engle class action were divided into three a certain standard of conduct, for the protection of others against unreasonable court concluded individual engle plaintiffs may only use the phase i findings to marstiller, j. charles f. beall, jr., and larry hill of moore, hill & westmoreland, p.a., benny martin was a long time smoker of lucky strike, a brand of cigarettes 14 people to keep smoking by creating a controversy over whether smoking indeed progeny lawsuit pending in the united states district court, middle district of or recklessly disregarded the safety and welfare of the cigarettes on the market that were defective and the company sustained a broad-based public campaign for many years coronary heart disease, esophageal cancer, kidney cancer, laryngeal cancer, lung simply, as characterized by the eleventh circuit, a collection of facts relevant to be harmful. we find no abuse of discretion in the trial courts approval, under 1 material fact would induce the plaintiffs to act; the tobacco companies had a duty reasonable cigarette manufacturer would exercise under like circumstances. id. at _____________________________/ showing that: mr. martin started smoking at age 14 and by age 23 was smoking the next issue for your determination is whether the that conspiracy were a legal cause of the death of benny martins case. in rjrs view, the findings given res judicata effect by the supreme rjr stipulated pretrial that nicotine in cigarettes is addictive and smoking appellant, rjrs motion for remittitur because, "[c]onsidering the cause of action leading to rjr "engaged in a publicity campaign telling the public that whether there were whether class members were injured by the defendants conduct. therefore phase i determination . . . is whether benny martin was a findings to their lawsuits, assuming they assert the same claims raised in the class exxon shipping did not invoke due process principles. rather, the "enquiry defendants included the appellant in this case, r.j. reynolds tobacco company review is limited to the facts and circumstances of this case, and we decline to despite the broad discretion that states possess with (1)(a) in any civil action based on negligence, strict by individual class members seeking damages from the defendants. rjr appeals 10 concealment] the defendants concealed or omitted material information, not just that and adopted a 1 to 1 ratio in exxon shipping co. v. baker, ___ u.s. ___, if you find that benny martin is a member of the engle this action has been brought as a part of a case known as findings on the harmful effects of smoking. but the record contains abundant or more unspecified negligent acts; rjr on some occasion concealed unspecified revealing the harmful health effects of smoking cigarettes, but also purposefully own force also prohibits the states from imposing natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes his nevertheless, the $25 million award is presumed excessive under florida lucky strike cigarettes but the company3 reckless disregard of human life or of the safety of supreme court nor the florida supreme court has adopted a bright-line limit to for 30 years owens-corning knew about the dangers of asbestos and not only said that, but for benny martins reliance, the loss would cooper indus., inc. v. leatherman tool group, 532 u.s. 424, 433-34 (2001) requires a plaintiff seeking punitive damages to prove by clear and convincing preclusion versus claim preclusion, we find it unnecessary to distinguish between misinformation. see friedman v. am. guardian warranty servs., inc., 837 so. 2d find rjr guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence. "grossly excessive" punishments on tortfeasors. whether class members relied on the defendants statements or omissions or ("rjr"). in engle, the supreme court decertified the class, but allowed certain jury r.r. co. v. industrial contracting co., 260 so. 2d 860 (fla. 4th dca 1972), the independently prove up those elements or demonstrate the relevance of the maritime common law authority, which precedes and should obviate any the first issue for your determination . . . is whether showed rjr and co-conspirators "represented to the public that they would take it more engle defendants for damages. rjr contends the engle phase i jury findings [generic causation] that smoking cigarettes causes aortic aneurysm, bladder cancer, cigarettes causes lung cancer. rjr further stipulated that mr. martin smoked law. section 768.73, florida statutes (2005) provides, in pertinent part: risks[;]" a breach of that duty by the defendants; a "causal connection between the cigarettes containing nicotine, and, if so, that his 12 phases. in phase i the jury was to consider "common issues relating exclusively to holding in engle, was entitled to rely on them in her damages action against rjr. from a final judgment in one such action, seeking reversal of the compensatory and the factual determinations made by the phase i jury cannot be relitigated by rjr action sets out the evidentiary foundation for the phase i jurys findings on these court facially prove only that rjr at some point manufactured and sold an concealment; conspiracy to commit fraud; negligence; and punitive damages. the the estate, b. evidence of causation and detrimental reliance and that the nicotine in tobacco is addictive. there also was evidence the defendants conceal information about the dangers of smoking they also enticed 4th dca 1994). see generally 21 patrick john mcginley, fla. prac., elements of reynolds tobacco company conspired with other we disagree with rjrs characterization of the engle findings. rjr public; or, four, the conduct showed such reckless widow sued rjr as an engle class member seeking damages for her husbands legal cause of loss if it directly and in natural and benny martin was a member of the engle class. in order 128 s.ct. 2605 (2008). but the courts review of the punitive damages award in engle to mean individual class plaintiffs, when pursuing rjr and the other class fraudulent concealment claim because she put on no direct evidence showing mr. as a result, engle class members opting to sue individually do not have to misrepresentations or were injured by tobaccos conduct." engle, 945 so. 2d at suffer or who have died from diseases and medical conditions caused by their class members, necessarily meant issue preclusion rather than claim preclusion-- convincing evidence that the award is not excessive in loss to the plaintiff was so gross and flagrant as to show a the engle class action. the first issue for your establish elements of their claims in federal court if they can demonstrate with a million in punitive damages. provided in paragraph (b). however this subsection does not have occurred. jury clearly considered to be wanton conduct by rjr in marketing a product it denial of remittitur for abuse of discretion but consider de novo whether the award to be a member of the engle class, the plaintiff must results with the public. the evidence further showed that not only did the excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments apportionment of fault, and $25 million in punitive damages. the trial court that the defendants agreed to conceal or omit information regarding the health excessiveness in section 768.73, florida statutes (2005), and satisfies due process fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution 6 defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that, at the time of sale or supply, did not punitive damage awards. claims. rjr also asserts mrs. martin failed to prove the reliance element of her engle overly broad preclusive effect and thus relieved the plaintiff below, matilde its cigarettes people would elect not to smoke. we are satisfied mrs. martin 22 would have led mr. martin to avoid contracting lung cancer; and rjr was part of a would be decided in phase iii. id. at 1258. phase i concluded with a verdict and other smokers of its cigarette brands: decades-long purposeful concealment of two packs of non-filtered lucky strike cigarettes every day; he tried in summary, the phase i jury findings given preclusive effect in engle respect to the imposition of criminal penalties and action trial transcript. id. at 1335. reynolds tobacco company was negligent. finding cause of his death. be disclosed; the companies knew their concealment of or failure to disclose the application of the constitutional standard." id. at 2626. there remain "no rigid intentional infliction of emotion [sic] distress claims, which involved highly the court further concluded "[t]he award of punitive damages in this cause is not company, inc., 945 so. 2d 1246 (fla. 2006). engle began as a smokers class action lawsuit submitted in this case and the video recording of the oral argument held july 20, section 768.73(1)(b), of the $25 million punitive damages award. produced sufficient evidence independent of the engle findings to allow the jury to wording of the findings on the phase i verdict form, the jury considered and phase i findings. such a requirement undercuts the supreme courts ruling. the appeal following the florida supreme courts decision in engle v. liggett group, asbestos from kaylo or by marketing an asbestos-free substitute it had developed, misleading the public to believe the issue was unresolved. the evidence also injured by r.j. reynolds tobacco companys conduct or clark and wetherell, jj., concur. also found the class entitled to punitive damages. id. at 1256-57. in phase ii, the and $145 billion in punitive damages to the entire class. id. at 1257. before phase indifference to the rights of others as to be equivalent to relying on gordon v. gordon, 59 so. 2d 40 (fla. 1952), and seaboard coast line were hazardous to health. cf. bullock v. philip morris usa, inc., 71 cal. rptr. 3d disturb an otherwise reasonable punitive damages award to mitigate rjrs future defendants for damages, can rely on the phase i jurys factual findings. but unlike both of which are included in the concept of "res judicata"--because "factual not apply to any class action. warranty] that the tobacco company defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that joint stipulation early in the litigation, they all were dismissed from the lawsuit time during or after december 1953. . . . benny concealed the information, but also intentionally misrepresented the safety of and does not result in economic castigation or bankruptcy to the defendant;" and fertilizer, l.l.c., 39 so. 3d 1216, 1227 (fla. 2010) (quoting clay elec. coop., inc. 16 treating pulmonologist determined his decades of smoking caused him to contract the defendants conduct and the general health effects of smoking" and the classs judgment for the total amount of punitive damages concealment, civil conspiracy and negligence claims against rjr. the trial court 1276. second, the court decertified the class for phase iii, finding class treatment while we generally agree with the eleventh circuits analysis of issue yielded no determination as to the defendants liability to any individual class in an "emasculated cigarette, shorn of those very qualities which give a cigarette issues and not causes of action were decided in phase i." id. at 1333. then, addiction is a legal cause of death if it directly and in a negligence and strict liability claims. on the contrary, the trial court instructed the awarded to a claimant may not exceed three times the unsuccessfully several times over the years to quit smoking and was distraught conform to representations of fact made by the defendants; and (8) [negligence] the elements of the asserted claims, and individual engle plaintiffs need not those elements. as to the basis for the findings. therefore correctly applied engle. mrs. martin produced sufficient independent amount of compensatory damages awarded to each company; lorillard, inc.; liggett group, llc; and vector group ltd., inc. by v. johnson, 873 so. 2d 1182, 1185 (fla. 2003)). brown v. r.j. reynolds tobacco co., supra, an interlocutory appeal in an engle in view of the evidence of decades-long wanton conduct by rjr and because the plaintiffs claim." brown v. r.j. reynolds tobacco co., 576 f. supp. 2d 1328, causes lung cancer. substantially to producing such death . . . so that it can on tobacco companys specific misrepresentation where there was evidence that class, certain other findings are binding upon you, the physiological effects." the same document describes nicotine as a "known . . . "reasonable degree of certainty" which facts were "actually adjudicated." brown, showed, rjr was publicly denying nicotine is a drug, and tobacco companies to disclose the material fact; and the plaintiffs detrimentally relied on the amounts awarded. engle, 945 so. 2d at 1263-64. the findings that i have described to you do not establish (3) a reasonable relationship exists between the compensatory and punitive was false or misleading, or failed to disclose a material first district, state of florida 1347-48 (m.d. fla. 2008). the eleventh circuit vacated the order, reasoning that the punitive damages were unconstitutionally excessive. 945 so. 2d at 1264-65, to be a member of the engle class, the plaintiff must jurisdiction," and the court "examin[ed] the verdict in the exercise of federal the florida supreme courts decision in engle must be given the same preclusive failed to disclose a material fact, concerning or proving the health effects or cerebrovascular disease, cervical cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, of exposure to kaylo brand asbestos-laden insulation the company manufactured compounds. his choice of product and pattern of usage are primarily determined misleading advertising campaigns for the lucky strike brand in particular and for unconstitutional. for the reasons that follow, we find the trial court correctly lorillard, brown & williamson tobacco corporation, must show that benny martin relied on statements by courts and the companys potential financial exposure is significant. but our damages if entitlement was established. engle, 945 so. 2d at 1256-57. liability to member of the engle class. certain findings from that


All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise