R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY and PHLIP MORRIS USA, INC. v. RICHARD MAHFUZ
19-2236
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Richard Mahfuz (personal representative of Rita Mahfuz) sued R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris for harms related to decedent's smoking; case tried to jury in Broward County circuit court.
- During closing arguments plaintiff's counsel used repeated inflammatory metaphors and literary passages (including an Orwell 1984 excerpt and a Dorian Gray comparison) equating the tobacco companies with evil entities.
- Defendants objected at trial to several comments; the trial court overruled many objections and sustained at least one objection after the comment was made.
- Jury awarded compensatory damages of $12,005,500 (matching plaintiff's Phase I request of $12 million plus funeral expenses) and punitive damages of $15 million against Reynolds and $10 million against Philip Morris (plaintiff had asked $15 million against each defendant).
- The Fourth District held the closing-argument comments were improper and prejudicial and reversed and remanded for a new trial, dismissing remaining appellate issues as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel's inflammatory closing arguments warranted reversal | Metaphors and literary references are permissible rhetorical devices to describe wrongdoing and justify punitive damages | Comments (Orwell, Dorian Gray, "rotten to the core," etc.) were unrelated to evidence and intended to inflame the jury | Court: comments were improper and prejudicial; reversal required |
| Use of George Orwell 1984 passage equating defendants to "Big Brother" | Used to urge jury to preserve decedent's memory and condemn corporate misconduct | Passage had no evidentiary connection and equated defendants to totalitarian evil to inflame jurors | Court: improper under controlling precedent and here prejudicial |
| Literary/metaphorical comparisons (Dorian Gray, "soulless enterprise of death") | Allowed as vivid description of defendant's character to support punitive damages | Served only to vilify defendants, beyond permissible argument | Court: improper in context and overruled trial-court rulings permitting them |
| Whether the improper comments were harmless error | Plaintiff pointed to prior decision where verdict was lower than requested and was affirmed | Defendants noted here jury awarded almost exactly what plaintiff requested, so comments likely caused the result | Court: not harmless—verdict matched requests; reversal and new trial ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Calloway, 201 So. 3d 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (establishing limits on inflammatory closing arguments in tobacco/punitive-damages contexts)
- Cohen v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 203 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (addressing improper prejudicial argument in tobacco litigation)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Tullo, 121 So. 3d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding certain argumentative comparisons and themes may be improper in closing)
- Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Grp., Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001) (describing punitive damages as a form of private fines and an expression of moral condemnation)