Thelma Aycock v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, 769 F.3d 1063

Background

Thelma Aycock brought a Florida wrongful-death action claiming her husband Richard’s lung cancer and death were legally caused by his addiction to cigarettes manufactured by R.J. Reynolds (Reynolds). The case proceeded as an Engle-progeny action, so certain Phase I Engle findings had preclusive effect.
Richard had a long history of heavy smoking (up to four packs/day) and also a documented history of alcohol abuse (including cirrhosis); Thelma’s pre-trial deposition and family testimony gave conflicting impressions of how alcohol affected the marriage.
Medical records from Richard’s final hospitalization were disputed: hospital records and Thelma’s expert indicated lung cancer with brain metastasis, but there was no pulmonary biopsy and Reynolds’ experts pointed to alternative causes (e.g., other cancers, severe pneumonia) and said more data was needed.
The district court granted Thelma’s motion in limine precluding evidence tying Richard’s alcohol abuse to causation, allowing alcohol evidence only in limited, general form for damages/relationship context.
The jury found Reynolds 72.5% at fault and Richard 27.5% at fault, awarding $5.9 million in compensatory damages; Reynolds moved for a new trial, challenging exclusion of alcohol evidence and denial of a continuance to secure lead counsel.
The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the district court abused its discretion by excluding the alcohol-causation evidence under Rule 403 and by effectively shifting the burden on causation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of evidence linking decedent’s alcohol abuse to cause of death	Alcohol evidence was irrelevant to causation and highly prejudicial; should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 403	Alcohol use was relevant to alternative causation, comparative fault, and damages; exclusion improperly hampered defense	Court reversed: exclusion under Rule 403 was an abuse of discretion because the evidence was highly probative and not unfairly prejudicial
Standard/burden for proving causation and admissibility of rebuttal evidence	Plaintiff bears burden to prove smoking more likely than not caused death; defendant’s evidence must meet reasonable medical certainty to be admissible	Defendant may present alternative-cause evidence without proving it to medical certainty; burden remains on plaintiff	Court held district court applied wrong legal standard and impermissibly shifted burden to defendant; alternative-cause evidence need not meet plaintiff’s higher standard
Limitation of alcohol evidence to damages/relationship (not causation)	Limiting alcohol evidence to marital effects was appropriate to avoid prejudice	Limitation prevented rebuttal on causation and comparative fault, and hindered accurate damages presentation	Court held the limitation unduly restricted meaningful defense and was reversible error
Denial of continuance to permit chosen lead counsel to try case	Not addressed in detail on appeal; plaintiff opposed delay	Reynolds argued denial infringed its right to counsel of choice and prejudiced trial preparation	Court did not decide due to reversal on evidentiary issue (remanded for new trial)

Key Cases Cited

United States v. King, 713 F.2d 627 (11th Cir.) (Rule 403 is an "extraordinary remedy" and balance favors admissibility)
United States v. Alfaro-Moncada, 607 F.3d 720 (11th Cir. 2010) (in applying Rule 403, courts must view evidence in light most favorable to admission)
United States v. Smith, 459 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2006) (district court discretion to exclude under Rule 403 is narrowly circumscribed)
Wilder v. Eberhart, 977 F.2d 673 (1st Cir.) (defendant need not prove alternate cause with certainty; may persuade jury that plaintiff’s theory is not the legal cause)
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Mack, 92 So.3d 244 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.) (excluding alternative-causation evidence based on its experts’ inability to testify to reasonable medical probability improperly shifts burden)
Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (class decertified; certain Phase I findings given res judicata effect in later individual suits)
Walker v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 734 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir.) (holding Engle preclusive effect does not violate defendant’s due process)