158 So. 3d 732
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Shirley Baker sued R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. for Elmer Baker's death, asserting negligence, strict liability, concealment, and conspiracy.
- The jury found Reynolds was not a legal cause of Baker's death; Baker sought a new trial arguing the verdict was internally inconsistent.
- Engle I findings were later given res judicata effect in Engle III, with the class-certified findings tied to conduct elements of liability.
- At trial, the court instructed that Engle findings could bind if Baker was an Engle class member, and provided a verdict form linking class findings to causation questions.
- The verdict form asked whether Baker was addicted and whether addiction and other Engle findings were legal causes; the jury answered yes to addiction but no to all causation questions, prompting the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the verdict was internally inconsistent | Baker argues Engle class membership required causation findings against Reynolds. | The inconsistency results from invited error and the plaintiff's instructions. | Waived; no reversible error due to invited-error doctrine. |
| Whether post-Engle/Douglas changes apply retroactively | Douglas requires addiction-based causation to be established once Engle class is found. | Douglas not retroactive absent timely trial objection. | Not retroactive; Douglas not applied due to lack of preservation. |
| Whether plaintiff preserved the issue for appellate review | Plaintiff preserved error by requesting Engle-based instructions. | Failure to object estops appellate review of the alleged inconsistency. | Waived; plaintiff failed to preserve the issue; invited error doctrine applies. |
| Impact of Engle findings on post-Engle liability framework | Engle findings should establish conduct and causation elements for Engle progeny claims. | Remaining elements must be proven post-Engle; the jury was properly instructed. | Not dispositive; the issue was forfeited by lack of preservation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Group, 672 So.2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (Engle I: phase I findings later restrained by Engle III)
- Engle v. Liggett Group, 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (Engle III: res judicata effect of phase findings)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (Engle findings as conduct elements; causation implications)
- Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 611 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2010) (scope of Engle Phase I findings; issue preclusion concerns)
- Douglas v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 110 So.3d 419 (Fla. 2013) (legal causation in Engle-progeny cases; addiction as causation element)
- Fuller v. Palm Auto Plaza, Inc., 683 So.2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (invited error rule; waiver of objections)
- Gupton v. Village Key & Saw Shop, Inc., 656 So.2d 475 (Fla. 1995) (waiver when party invites error)
- Jenkins v. State, 380 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (objection timing requirement in trial court)
- Insko v. State, 969 So.2d 992 (Fla. 2007) (waiver and invited error considerations)
- Dial v. State, 922 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (invited error and waiver principles reiterated)
- Papcun v. Piggy Bag Disc. Souvenirs, Food & Gas Corp., 472 So.2d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (waiver for defects in verdict forms not fundamental)