R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Townsend
90 So. 3d 307
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Engle progeny case; RJR appeals after jury verdict for Townsend estate awarding $10.8M compensatory and $80M punitive for Townsend's death.
- Jury apportioned 51% fault to RJR; final judgment around $46.808M (approx. $5.5M comp, $40.8M punitive) after apportionment.
- Townsend, a longtime smoker of RJR cigarettes, died of lung cancer; evidence focused on non-economic damages (pain, suffering, loss of consortium).
- RJR challenged: (1) closing argument comments; (2) Engle findings as elements; (3) reliance on RJR statements; (4) excessiveness of compensatory damages; (5) excessiveness and due process of punitive damages.
- Trial court denied remittitur/new trial; appellate court affirmed compensatory damages, reversed punitive damages, and remanded for choice between new punitive-trial or remittitur.
- Concurrence by Wetherell would also reduce compensatory damages, arguing $5M at most is appropriate given the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of closing-argument error | Townsend | RJR | Issue not preserved; no abuse of discretion on denial of new trial for closing argument. |
| Use of Engle findings as elements | Townsend | RJR | Martin controls; Engle findings admissible as evidence of misconduct; proper for proof. |
| Reasonable reliance on RJR statements | Townsend | RJR | Evidence supports reliance; no error in upholding verdict for intent/wrongdoing. |
| Compensatory damages excessive | Townsend | RJR | Compensatory award affirmed; within reasonable range under §768.74; not abuse of discretion. |
| Punitive damages excessive and due process | Townsend | RJR | Punitive award reversed and remanded for new punitive-trial or remittitur; ratio deemed constitutionally excessive given $10.8M compensatory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (Engle progeny framework and standards)
- Martin v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 53 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (punitive damages framework and ratio considerations)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (three Gore factors for punitive damages and ratio guidance)
- Boulder v. Touchette, 349 So.2d 1181 (Fla. 1977) (excessiveness standard for damages; 'maximum limit of reasonable range')
- Gore v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 517 U.S. 559 (1996) (guiding principles for punitive damages due process)
- Rowlands v. Signal Const. Co., 549 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 1989) (remittitur and excess amount must be apparent in record)