155 So. 3d 1156
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- In Engle progeny, two tobacco defendants appeal a wrongful death judgment after Nan Buchanan's husband died from smoking-related injuries.
- Defendants ask to limit cross-examination of Mrs. Buchanan regarding brands not manufactured by them, under a stipulation about minimal smoking by the decedent of dismissed defendants' brands.
- The stipulation states that any smoking by the decedent of dismissed defendants' cigarettes was minimal and did not substantially contribute to the injury.
- The trial court restricted cross-examination on non-party brands to avoid confusion, citing Florida evidentiary relevance rules.
- Defendants challenged the ruling as an abuse of discretion and also sought a jury instruction on the statute of repose for concealment claims, arguing the law required it.
- The court affirmed, rejecting the arguments based on binding precedent and addressing the challenged jury instruction in light of existing case law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cross-examination on non-party brands was improperly limited | Buchanan argues broader cross-examination is needed to impeach inconsistencies. | Defendants contend the court properly limited non-party brand questioning to prevent confusion. | Limitation was within trial court discretion. |
| Whether the requested statute of repose instruction was correct and necessary | Plaintiffs claim the instruction is accurate law and essential for claim resolution. | Defendants argue the instruction misstates the law and burden of proof lies with the defendant. | Instruction rejected; proper legal framework cited. |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (Engle progeny framework governs claims and phase findings)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 110 So.3d 419 (Fla. 2013) (Engle Phase I findings do not violate due process)
- Hiott, 129 So.3d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (statute of repose does not begin until last act in conspiracy)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Sury, 118 So.3d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (jury award not reduced for plaintiff's fault where intentional tort understood)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (permitting inference of reliance based on pervasive concealment campaigns)
- Sotuyo v. Williams, 587 So.2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (standard for refusing or granting requested jury instructions)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Hess, 95 So.3d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (conflict acknowledged with Engle-related rulings)