R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Brown
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14936
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Engle began as a nationwide smokers’ class action later limited to Florida smokers; Engle III decertified the class but retained Phase I findings as res judicata/issue preclusion for later individual actions.
- Phase I determined common conduct and health effects but did not decide reliance, legal causation, or damages for individuals.
- Engle III held class decertified for Phase III, allowed class members to sue individually within one year, and preserved Phase I findings to apply to subsequent actions.
- Present case: widow sues RJR for decedent’s death; issues focus on whether Engle findings apply to negligence and strict liability claims and whether addiction proof can rely on lay testimony.
- Two-phase trial: Phase I determines class membership; Phase II proves the remaining elements of the claims, including legal causation and damages.
- Post-Engle, plaintiffs must prove more than class membership and damages; Engle findings establish conduct elements, but causation and damages require proof in Phase II.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Engle Phase I findings binding by issue preclusion in post-Engle actions? | Brown argues Engle findings should preclude relitigation of conduct elements. | RJR argues Engle findings are broader claim preclusion or not fully controlling elements. | Engle findings preclude relitigation of conduct elements; remaining elements proven in Phase II. |
| May addiction be proven by lay testimony as well as experts? | Brown asserts lay testimony supports addiction finding. | RJR contesting sufficiency of lay testimony alone. | Yes; addiction evidence may rely on both lay and expert testimony when collectively sufficient. |
| Must post-Engle plaintiffs prove legal causation and damages despite Engle conduct findings? | Brown contends Engle findings cover causation; only damages required. | RJR contends Engle findings cover causation but not all specifics. | Post-Engle plaintiffs must prove legal causation and damages; conduct elements are precluded. |
| Is two-phase trial appropriate under Engle III for post-Engle actions? | Yes; two-phase approach affirmed, with Phase I for class membership and Phase II for causation and damages. | ||
| Do Engle findings raise due process concerns regarding preclusion? | Court acknowledges due process concerns but applies Engle findings per Florida Supreme Court mandate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla.2006) (Florida Supreme Court decision addressing post-Engle preclusion of conduct findings)
- Martin v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 53 So.3d 1060 (Fla.1st DCA 2010) (Engle Phase I findings establish conduct elements; supports two-phase approach)
- Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 611 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.2010) (Engle findings limited by issue preclusion; remanded for scope of issues)