After several named tobacco companies agreed to pay a class of non-smoking flight attendants, Lynn French, sought damages via the lawsuit's "settlement agreement" for chronic bronchitis and sinusitis, which she claimed to have developed as a result of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke during her employment with Trans World Airlines from May 1967 through the time of the lawsuit. A jury awarded French $5.5 million, and the tobacco companies challenged their liability for causing the plaintiff's injuries, as well as the process by which the jury calculated the damages owed to French. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, affirmed the liability of the defendant tobacco companies but remanded the case for new damage calculations that would consider each company independently liable for French's injuries.
Philip Morris, Inc., et al. v. French, 897 So.2d 480, District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District (2004).
United States
Dec 22, 2004
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.
Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"Although we agree with the trial court that there was no conceivable way to identify every brand of cigarette smoked on the TWA flights on which French served (or the quantity of each brand smoked), we disagree with the court's market share apportionment of damages. Florida has adopted the "Indivisible Injury Rule" to be applied when a jury cannot apportion injury. See Gross v. Lyons, 763 So.2d 276, 280 (Fla.2000). This rule provides: When the tortious conduct of more than one defendant contributes to one indivisible injury, the entire amount of damage resulting from all contributing causes is the total amount "of damages recoverable by the plaintiff[.]" Gross, v. Lyons, 763 So.2d at 280 (quoting Piner v. Sup. Ct., 192 Ariz. 182, 188, 962 P.2d 909, 915 (1998)).In this case the trial court found, and we agree, that there was no way to determine which and/or how much of the defendants' products contributed to French's injury. Thus, under the indivisible injury rule we find the defendants jointly and severally liable for all of French's damages."
"Prior to trial, the defendants filed a motion in limine seeking to preclude Dr. Persky from testifying
in this case. The motion was entertained at a non-evidentiary hearing, and denied. At trial, the defendants
failed to renew their motion and Dr. Persky was permitted to opine that second hand smoke was a
contributing cause of French's chronic sinusitis. Moreover, the defendants did not challenge the
competence of Dr. Persky's testimony at the close of all the evidence. Thus, the defendants failed to
preserve, and, in fact, waived this issue for appellate review."
"Clearly, the objective of the settlement was to eliminate issues on both sides, thereby streamlining the litigation, and putting Stage I of the flight attendants' suits to rest. The defendants' position that each individual plaintiff, over 3,000 at the time of French's trial, is required to prove and re-prove breach of duty and all other elements of their tort claims (except for general causation) defies logic. The assumption that plaintiffs would agree to end six years of litigation, including a trial that had lasted nearly four months, in favor of relitigating each common liability issue (i.e. breach of duty, duty to warn, etc.) a thousand times over is an absurd result that we will not adopt. Accordingly, we affirm the findings of the trial court on this issue and hold, as the trial court did, that the intent of the parties to the settlement agreement was to focus on the individual retained claims and determine whether a "plaintiff's disease was actually caused by exposure to second-hand smoke, and if so, what damages were sustained.""
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
After several named tobacco companies agreed to pay a class of non-smoking flight attendants, Lynn French, sought damages via the lawsuit's "settlement agreement" for chronic bronchitis and sinusitis, which she claimed to have developed as a result of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke during her employment with Trans World Airlines from May 1967 through the time of the lawsuit. A jury awarded French $5.5 million, and the tobacco companies challenged their liability for causing the plaintiff's injuries, as well as the process by which the jury calculated the damages owed to French. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, affirmed the liability of the defendant tobacco companies but remanded the case for new damage calculations that would consider each company independently liable for French's injuries.