R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Calloway
201 So. 3d 753
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Decedent began smoking at 15, became heavily addicted, and later developed bladder cancer; plaintiff (survivor/estate) sued multiple tobacco companies for strict liability, negligence, fraudulent concealment, and conspiracy to conceal, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- Trial was trifurcated: Phase I (Engle class membership), Phase II (causation, comparative fault, compensatory damages, punitive entitlement), Phase III (punitive amounts). Jury found Engle membership, fraudulent concealment and conspiracy caused death, assessed non‑economic damages, found entitlement to punitive damages, and apportioned fault (decedent ~20.5%).
- Plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly made inflammatory, sympathy‑evoking, and responsibility‑attack arguments during opening and closing; many objections were sustained and curative instructions were given, but defense motions for mistrial were denied.
- The trial court refused defendants’ proposed detrimental‑reliance instruction for fraud claims and instructed that comparative fault would not reduce compensatory awards because plaintiff prevailed on intentional torts.
- Appellate court (en banc) reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding counsel’s preserved improper arguments were cumulatively prejudicial, the jury instructions omitted the detrimental‑reliance element for fraudulent concealment, and comparative negligence should apply to the substance of the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff counsel’s inflammatory, preserved comments required a new trial | Counsel’s comments were proper advocacy relevant to punitive damages and defendants’ refusal to accept responsibility | Comments were inflammatory, repeatedly objected to, and their cumulative effect deprived defendants of a fair trial | Reversed: preserved improper comments were cumulatively prejudicial; new trial ordered |
| Whether the jury should have been instructed on detrimental reliance for fraudulent concealment claims | Instruction given sufficiently covered causation and reliance element; defendants’ instruction would confuse jury | Detrimental reliance is an essential element of fraudulent concealment and must be instructed | Reversed: omission of detrimental‑reliance instruction prejudiced defendants; instruction required on remand |
| Whether comparative negligence should reduce compensatory (and intentional‑tort) awards | Plaintiff: intentional tort findings (fraud) preclude reduction by comparative fault | Defendants: substance of claims is products‑liability/negligence and comparative fault should reduce awards | Reversed guidance: apply Schoeff — comparative negligence applies based on substance; decedent’s fault should reduce awards (and under Schoeff, applies even if intentional claims retried) |
| Whether punitive awards should be adjusted/credited or final judgment entered jointly and severally given Engle findings/settlement issues | Plaintiff defended judgment; some defenses to offsets sustained at trial | Defendants sought credits and argued misuse of Engle findings violated due process; sought remittitur/strike of punitive awards | Court did not reverse on punitive quantum solely here but addressed that other instructional and trial errors require retrial; remand for new trial includes retrial of issues including punitive damages (some motions denied below) |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (establishes framework for Engle‑progeny claims against tobacco companies)
- Special v. W. Boca Med. Ctr., 160 So.3d 1251 (Fla. 2014) (adopts "no reasonable possibility" harmless‑error test placing burden on error beneficiary)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Schoeff, 178 So.3d 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holds comparative negligence applies based on substance of claims in tobacco cases)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Marotta, 125 So.3d 956 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (improper closing arguments disparaging defendant for defending case can warrant reversal)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Buonomo, 138 So.3d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (reiterates detrimental‑reliance requirement for fraudulent concealment in Engle progeny)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Kayton, 104 So.3d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (fraudulent concealment and conspiracy require detrimental reliance)
- Intramed, Inc. v. Guider, 93 So.3d 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (reversed for improper argument; condemns "punish for defending" rhetoric)
- Murphy v. Int'l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 2000) (sets test limiting argument designed to inflame passion over logical analysis)