R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY v. BETTYE RYAN, as PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE of the ESTATE of THOMAS RYAN and BETTYE RYAN
16-1845
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Dec 13, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Thomas and Bettye Ryan) sued R.J. Reynolds (RJR) in an Engle-progeny case claiming RJR’s cigarettes caused Thomas Ryan’s COPD; a jury returned a verdict for Plaintiffs and the trial court entered final judgment.
- At trial Plaintiffs introduced and repeatedly relied on U.S. Surgeon General Reports (“the Reports”)—reading excerpts in opening, projecting Report passages on jury slides, and using them during expert testimony and closing.
- RJR challenged admission and use of the Reports as hearsay and as improper bolstering of expert opinions and of Plaintiffs’ addiction/causation theory.
- The Fourth District previously held in Pollari that the Surgeon General Reports are inadmissible hearsay and cannot be used to bolster expert testimony.
- The Fourth District here found the Reports were erroneously admitted and extensively relied upon on disputed issues (addiction and addiction-causation), concluding the error was not harmless and reversing for a new trial.
- On remand the court held Plaintiffs may seek leave to amend to add punitive damages claims on negligence and strict liability counts (per Soffer and related Fourth DCA guidance), but the trial court must consider whether Plaintiffs can proffer a reasonable evidentiary basis before granting leave.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Surgeon General Reports | Reports are authoritative and admissible to prove addiction and causation | Reports are hearsay, not public records or adoptive admissions, and improperly bolster experts | Reports are hearsay and were improperly used; admission was reversible error because reliance was extensive and not harmless |
| Use of Reports to Bolster Expert Testimony | Experts may rely on Reports; Plaintiffs used Reports to support expert opinions on addiction | Using Reports to buttress expert opinions impermissibly introduces hearsay and lends undue authority | Court barred using Reports to impermissibly bolster expert opinions; error required new trial |
| Harmless error analysis | Any error was harmless in light of other evidence | Reliance on Reports at every major stage made error prejudicial | Error was not harmless given pervasive use of Reports; reversal warranted |
| Leave to Amend for Punitive Damages on Non-Intentional Claims | If new trial ordered, Plaintiffs should be allowed to add punitive damages per Soffer | Trial court must first find Plaintiffs can proffer a reasonable evidentiary basis before permitting punitive claims | Plaintiffs may seek leave on remand to add punitive damages for negligence and strict liability; trial court to evaluate evidentiary basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (establishes framework for Engle-progeny personal-injury claims)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Pollari, 228 So. 3d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (Surgeon General Reports are hearsay and cannot be used to bolster expert testimony)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 110 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2013) (addresses importance of addiction evidence in class/individual tobacco litigation)
- Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 187 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 2016) (permitted punitive-damages theory guidance for tobacco cases)