Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Ledoux
230 So. 3d 530
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Roland Ledoux, as personal representative of Patricia Ledoux’s estate, sued Philip Morris USA and R.J. Reynolds alleging Patricia’s lung cancer and death were caused by nicotine addiction to defendants’ cigarettes; claims included strict liability, fraud by concealment, conspiracy, and negligence under an Engle-progeny theory.
- Trial proceeded in two phases: Phase I (liability, causation, compensatory damages, and whether punitive damages were warranted); Phase II (amount of punitive damages).
- Plaintiff introduced and argued nationwide smoking-death statistics (e.g., >500,000 deaths/year; ~20–25 million deaths since 1964) and made dramatized closing-argument scenarios about the plaintiff’s loss; defendants objected to these and sought exclusions and mistrial/new trial postverdict.
- Jury found defendants caused Patricia’s addiction and death, awarded $10 million compensatory (allocated 47% to each defendant, 6% to Patricia), found intentional torts proven and punitive damages warranted, and awarded $12.5 million punitive damages against each defendant.
- Trial court denied defendants’ post-trial motions (new trial/remittitur, setoff/credit against punitive damages, reduction of compensatory damages by comparative fault). Defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of population-level smoking-death statistics for punitive-damages/reprehensibility | Statistics relevant to reprehensibility and thus admissible for punitive-damages determination | Statistics were irrelevant and unduly prejudicial; required new trial | Evidence and argument about deaths was admissible; trial court did not abuse discretion and gave limiting instruction consistent with Williams |
| Closing-argument dramatizations ("magic wand/button"/burial hypotheticals) — Golden Rule or improper argument | Arguments illustrated limits of money awards; not a Golden Rule appeal properly preserved for some comments | Arguments were Golden Rule and inflammatory, requiring mistrial/new trial | Comments were improper and ill-conceived, but not reversible: two comments waived (no contemporaneous objection) and not fundamental error; preserved objection was not so prejudicial to require mistrial |
| Excessiveness of $10 million compensatory award; motion for remittitur | Award supported by evidence of pain and suffering and comparable Engle-progeny awards | Award excessive; remittitur should be granted | Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying remittitur; award within reasonable range of jury verdicts in similar cases |
| Whether compensatory award must be reduced for plaintiff’s comparative fault | No reduction because case is "based upon an intentional tort" at its core (statutory exception to comparative-fault reduction) | Reduction appropriate because negligence/product-liability elements warrant proportional reduction | On de novo review court held case is grounded in intentional tort; §768.81 inapplicable, so no reduction for comparative fault |
Key Cases Cited
- Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346 (2007) (harm to nonparties may be considered for reprehensibility but jury must not punish defendants for strangers)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (limits on punitive damages and factors for excessiveness)
- Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (class findings given res judicata effect for Engle-progeny claims)
- Salazar v. State, 991 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for trial-court evidentiary rulings)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Townsend, 90 So. 3d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (deference to jury and trial court on damages review)