Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 410 S.W.3d 623

Survivors of Barbara Smith sued Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (B&W) for wrongful death and punitive damages after Mrs. Smith died of a heart attack; claims included negligent design, negligent failure to warn, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, and conspiracy.
Trial was bifurcated under § 510.263, with the first stage determining compensatory liability and aggravating damages, then a second stage for punitive damages.
On remand after Smith I (Mo.App. 2008), the circuit court retried only punitive damages for the strict liability product defect claim against B&W, limiting first-stage evidence to the original trial but allowing new evidence in the second stage.
The Court of Appeals’ mandate was a general remand for retrial on punitive damages against B&W; it did not specify admissible evidence, and evidence regarding RJ Reynolds’s conduct was admitted to mitigate punitive damages.
On the Smiths’ challenge, the circuit court’s rulings on scope of remand and juror nondisclosure were upheld, and the judgment of $1.5 million punitive damages against B&W was affirmed.
The case finally held that Smith I did not determine evidentiary scope for remand, and B&W remained the defendant on retrial with RJ Reynolds not substituted as a defendant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of the appellate mandate	Smiths contend remand limited evidence to Smith I scope; RJ Reynolds evidence exceeded mandate.	B&W maintains circuit court could admit relevant mitigation evidence.	Remand was general; evidence on RJ Reynolds admissible for mitigation but not substitution.
Submissible case for punitive damages on strict liability	Smiths offered clear and convincing evidence of aggravating conduct.	Evidence did not show aggravating conduct beyond liability findings.	Evidence again sufficient to submit punitive damages on strict liability claim.
Preemption by federal law	Claims preempted by federal law; evidence should be barred.	Law of the case prevents relitigation; not preempted.	Law of the case governs; preemption not bar to punitive-damages retrial.
Juror nondisclosure and new trial	Jurors failed to disclose biases; new trial warranted.	No specific, timely preservation of nondisclosure; rulings proper.	No abuse of discretion; nondisclosure claims not preserved or proven.

Howard v. City of Kansas City, 332 S.W.3d 772 (Mo. banc 2011) (requirements for submissible punitive damages case)
Call v. Heard, 925 S.W.2d 840 (Mo. banc 1996) (aggravating/mitigating evidence in punitive damages)
Wingate by Carlisle v. Lester E. Cox Med. Ctr., 853 S.W.2d 912 (Mo. banc 1993) (juror testimony to impeach verdict generally admissible; cannot reveal juror thought processes)
Maugh v. Chrysler Corp., 818 S.W.2d 658 (Mo.App.1991) (limits on admissibility of evidence in punitive-damages trials)
Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 275 S.W.3d 748, 275 S.W.3d 748 (Mo.App. 2008) ( Smith I; punitive-damages submissibility and scope of remand)
Frost v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 813 S.W.2d 302 (Mo. banc 1991) (remand scope and mandate considerations)