R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Jewett
106 So. 3d 465
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- This Engle-progeny wrongful death case arises from a jury award to the Estate for Barbara Jewett's COPD-related death.
- Defendants R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Lorillard Tobacco Co. appeal on three issues, two of which are summarily affirmed.
- The central issue is whether the trial court should have given Tobacco’s proposed special jury instruction on its statute of limitations defense.
- Jewett was diagnosed with COPD in 1995, but had symptoms since as early as 1979, raising whether she knew or should have known before May 5, 1990 that COPD could be smoking-related.
- The trial court gave standard Jury Instruction 402.14(a) and rejected Tobacco’s proposed instruction about when the COPD first manifested itself.
- The jury asked for clarification on “exercise of reasonable care,” indicating confusion about the standard instruction’s application to the limitations issue; the court ultimately proceeded with only the standard instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not giving Tobacco’s special statute of limitations instructions | Estate contends the instructions were legally accurate, factually supported, and necessary to prevent jury confusion. | Tobacco argued standard instruction was sufficient and the proposed instructions were unnecessary or prejudicial. | Remand for a new trial; error in not giving the instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (central Engle principles: ‘critical event’ is when disease first manifested, not when diagnosed)
- Carter v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 778 So.2d 982 (Fla. 2000) (knew or should have known when effects manifested and related evidence of causation)
- Murphy v. Int’l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 2000) (closing arguments cannot replace a legally adequate instruction)
- Schweikert v. Palm Beach Speedway, Inc., 100 So.2d 804 (Fla. 1958) (juror questions can show prejudice requiring instruction)
- Cruz v. Plasencia, 778 So.2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (concurrent cause instruction prejudicial when jury inquired undergoing deliberations)