R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Hiott
129 So. 3d 473
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Hiott sued Reynolds for the wrongful death of her husband (died 1996 of lung cancer) and asserted strict liability, negligence, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy to conceal; Engle class membership was found for Hiott.
- Trial was bifurcated: Phase I determined Engle class membership, liability, comparative fault, compensatory and punitive damages; Phase II determined punitive damages amount.
- Evidence showed Reynolds had previously challenged graphic tobacco warnings in federal court (though the warned graphics were not admitted at trial); the court admitted limited discussion of that federal litigation to punitive-damages context.
- Jury findings: Hiott prevailed on negligence, strict liability, and fraudulent concealment; Reynolds prevailed on conspiracy; ratio of fault was 60% Hiott, 40% Reynolds; punitive damages awarded in Phase I but zero in Phase II.
- Hiott sought full compensatory damages, arguing §768.81 bars applying comparative fault to an intentional tort; Reynolds argued waiver due to pleadings and that the Engle-based claims could support reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admitting evidence of Reynolds’ federal challenge to warnings was reversible error | Hiott argues admissible to show misconduct and pattern; Reynolds contends prejudicial. | Reynolds asserts error but harmless. | Harmless error; no miscarriage of justice; verdict unaffected. |
| Whether the trial court erred by denying a jury instruction on the statute of repose | Hiott or Reynolds? (driver) seeks to limit fraud-based claims to post-1982 conduct. | Reynolds contends repose bars pre-1982 conduct. | Conflict certified with Hess; Webb controls; issue preserved for review. |
| Whether application of Engle findings to establish liability and damages violates due process | Hiott relies on Engle findings; argues due process requires specific issues decided. | Reynolds argues no due-process violation per Douglas. | No due-process violation; affirmed. |
| Whether the trial court properly reduced Hiott’s damages based on Mr. Hiott’s comparative fault | Hiott argues no reduction where intentional tort occurred; waiver argument considered. | Reynolds argues waiver and misrepresentation of pleadings; Foreline guide. | Waiver of the comparative-fault reduction affirmed; full damages not awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meeks, 560 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1990) (harmless error standard in civil cases; no miscarriage of justice)
- Blackmon, 754 So.2d 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (harmless-error analysis for improper admission of evidence)
- Foreline Security Corp. v. Scott, 871 So.2d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (avoid misleading jury by informing about comparative fault)
- Sury, Inc. v. Reynolds, 118 So.3d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (precludes reduction where case is essentially based on intentional misconduct)
- Webb, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webb, 93 So.3d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (statute of repose interpreted to trigger by last act in conspiracy)
- Hess, Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Hess, 95 So.3d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (conflicts with Webb on statute of repose)
- Douglas, Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 110 So.3d 419 (Fla.2013) (Engle findings; due-process considerations reaffirmed)
- Morsani, Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So.2d 1071 (Fla.2001) (waiver definitions and standards for affirmative defenses)
- Kissimmee Utility Authority v. Better Plastics, Inc., 526 So.2d 46 (Fla.1988) (waiver and affirmative defenses delimitations)