Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas
110 So. 3d 419
| Fla. | 2013Background
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc. Phase I found, among other things, that smoking causes certain diseases and nicotine is addictive.
- Engle class actions used Phase I findings to bind later individual damages actions via res judicata.
- Douglas sued for Mrs. Douglas’ death, jury returned general verdict allocating fault and damages under multiple theories.
- Second District applied Engle Phase I findings to affirm strict liability but rejected negligence as an additional basis due to causation instruction issues.
- This Court granted review to decide (1) correct application of Phase I findings and (2) due process implications of res judicata in this context.
- The Court holds that Phase I findings support strict liability and do not violate due process, but negligence cannot be foreclosed and requires proper causation analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Engle Phase I findings res judicata for individual actions? | Douglas contends Phase I findings bind all claims, including causation. | Defendants argue Phase I findings are too general and violate due process if applied as res judicata. | Yes, Phase I findings may have res judicata effect; however, negligence requires additional causation analysis. |
| May Phase I findings establish strict liability in a later action without brand-specific defect proof? | Phase I findings show defects and health effects, enabling strict liability without re-proving defect per plaintiff. | Need for individualized causation and explicit defect proof beyond Phase I findings. | Phase I findings, including defect/unreasonably dangerous, support strict liability when coupled with addiction as general causation; individual causation still required. |
| Does applying Phase I findings to support negligence as a basis for liability violate due process? | Engle findings should bind subsequent actions for negligence as well. | Negligence requires separate causation proof not provided by Phase I. | Disapproved as to negligence; Phase I does not foreclose but requires separate causation instructions consistent with Engle. |
| Does due process require a separate causation instruction for the negligence claim? | Phase I negligence finding suffices for causal link to injury. | A separate causation finding is required for negligence. | Yes, due process requires individual causation proof for negligence beyond Phase I findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (Phase I findings approved; res judicata effect in subsequent damages actions)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (individual class plaintiffs can rely on Phase I findings to establish conduct elements)
- Kimbrell v. Paige, 448 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 1984) (definition of res judicata in Florida context)
- Fayerweather v. Ritch, 195 U.S. 276 (U.S. 1904) (distinction between claim preclusion and issue preclusion; due process implications)
- Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1940) (due process notice and opportunity to be heard in context of res judicata)