Barbara Reider v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12144
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Barbara Reider sued Philip Morris under Florida law for claims arising from her husband’s tobacco-related death and sought wrongful-death damages for loss of companionship and mental pain and suffering.
- After a four-day trial the jury found Philip Morris 5% liable and Mr. Reider 95% liable, but awarded Ms. Reider zero damages.
- Immediately after the verdict, Reider told the district court the verdict was "inconsistent with liability... with the zero damages" and that the jury disregarded instructions on apportionment; she asked the court to send jurors back to re-deliberate damages.
- The district court denied relief, concluding the verdict could reasonably reflect a finding of no damages and was not inconsistent; Reider moved for a mistrial but did not articulate a compromise-verdict theory or ask for reconsideration.
- On appeal Reider abandoned the inconsistent-verdict theory and argued for the first time that the zero-damages award reflected an unlawful compromise verdict; the Eleventh Circuit held that claim was forfeited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation: whether Reider preserved a compromise‑verdict claim | Argued post-trial that jury verdict was inconsistent and ignored instructions; contends this put court on notice of compromise theory | Court below treated objection as an inconsistent‑verdict claim; defendant relied on forfeiture | Held: compromise‑verdict claim not preserved — Reider expressly raised inconsistent‑verdict, not compromise, and never corrected court’s understanding |
| Legal distinction: inconsistent verdict vs. compromise verdict | Implied both are similar and that inconsistent‑verdict objection covered compromise theory | Distinct doctrines; compromise requires additional indicia and different remedy | Held: doctrines are legally distinct; inconsistent verdict = irreconcilable jury answers; compromise = jury trades liability for low/zero damages |
| Appropriate remedy | Reider sought further deliberation on damages | Defendant argued further deliberation was proper if inconsistent but not if compromise; remedy for compromise is new trial on liability and damages | Held: further deliberation is available for inconsistency; if compromise proven, complete new trial required; Reider asked for the wrong remedy for a compromise claim |
| Reviewability and standard | Reider urged appellate review of compromise theory raised for first time | Defendant argued claim forfeited for failure to raise adequately below | Held: appellate courts generally refuse to consider new theories first raised on appeal; abuse‑of‑discretion standard applies to new‑trial rulings but claim forfeited here |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 749 F.3d 951 (11th Cir. 2014) (defines compromise verdict and remedy)
- Etienne v. Inter‑County Sec. Corp., 173 F.3d 1372 (11th Cir. 1999) (issues raised first on appeal are forfeited)
- Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (appellate court may decline to consider new theories first raised on appeal)
- Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480 (11th Cir. 1983) (district court must adopt any view making jury answers consistent)
- Mekdeci ex rel. Mekdeci v. Merrell Nat’l Labs, 711 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir. 1983) (compromise verdict concept described)
- Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153 (1988) (a litigant must put the court on notice of the nature of an objection to preserve it)
- Atl. & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Ellerman Lines, Ltd., 369 U.S. 355 (1962) (if a view makes jury answers consistent, court must adopt it)