R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Ballard
163 So. 3d 541
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Engle progeny case; Reynolds appeals a Ballards-vs-Reynolds verdict on negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, and conspiracy.
- Issue concerns whether Mr. Ballard is an Engle class member for res judicata effects.
- Trial evidence included Dr. Henningfield on nicotine addiction and Ballard’s smoking history via lay testimony.
- Court denied Reynolds’ directed verdict/a new trial on improper arguments; ruling preserved for class membership.
- Court adopts Brown reasoning that lay evidence plus expert testimony can prove addiction and support Engle findings.
- Court affirms without relief on other issues; appeals focused on class membership and counsel conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Directed verdict on class membership | Ballard showed addiction evidence | Evidence insufficient to prove addiction | Denied; sufficient evidence supports class membership |
| Improper closing/rebuttal arguments | Arguments were not prejudicial | Arguments denied fair trial | Denied; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (Engle Phase I findings govern res judicata in post-Engle actions)
- Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 70 So.3d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (Sufficiency of addiction evidence in post-Engle actions may be met by combined expert and lay testimony)
- USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 110 So.3d 419 (Fla. 2013) (Engle conduct findings monitoring and post-Engle action framework)