Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas

The estate of a smoker filed a lawsuit against tobacco companies for her smoking-related death and the jury awarded her estate $2.5 million in damages. The Florida Supreme Court found that it was appropriate for the lower court to apply the findings from an earlier class action lawsuit (Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc.) to this case. In particular, the court found that plaintiffs do not have to reprove elements of their claim that were decided in the first phase of Engle, such as strict liability and negligence. The court ruled that applying these findings did not violate the tobacco companies’ due process rights because the companies had a full opportunity to dispute the class claims in the year-long Engle trial and because injured smokers must still prove their individual case against each tobacco company. Specifically, the court found that each plaintiff must establish (1) membership in the Engle class (i.e., they were addicted to cigarettes); (2) that addiction to smoking was a legal cause of their injuries; and (3) damages.

Philip Morris United States, Inc. v. Douglas, 110 So.3d 419 (Fla., 2013).

  • United States
  • Mar 14, 2013
  • Supreme Court of Florida

Parties

Plaintiff James L. Douglas

Defendant

  • Liggett Group LLC
  • Philip Morris, USA
  • R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"However, the Second District misapplied our decision in Engle when it required a separate causation instruction and finding for the negligence claim. Like the strict liability claim, the Phase I jury already determined that the defendants' conduct subjects them to liability to Engle class members under this negligence theory. Therefore, under Engle, the Second District should have applied the Phase I finding regarding the negligence claim in the same manner that it applied the strict liability finding—to conclusively establish that the defendants failed to exercise the degree of care a reasonable cigarette manufacturer would exercise under like circumstances. The negligence Phase I finding coupled with the Douglas jury's finding that Mrs. Douglas' addiction to smoking the defendants' cigarettes containing nicotine was a legal cause of her death amounts to negligence. In other words, to prevail on either strict liability or negligence Engle claims, individual plaintiffs must establish (i) membership in the Engle class; (ii) individual causation, i.e., that addiction to smoking the Engle defendants' cigarettes containing nicotine was a legal cause of the injuries alleged; and (iii) damages. See Engle, 945 So.2d at 1254 (recognizing that Engle plaintiffs are required to prove ―individual causation‖ in their damages actions); see also Martin, 53 So.3d at 1069 (holding that the plaintiff proved legal causation for her negligence and strict liability claims by producing ―sufficient evidence for a jury to find that [the deceased's] addiction to [the Engle defendant's] cigarettes[, stipulated to contain nicotine,] was the legal cause of his death‖). Contra R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Brown, 70 So.3d 707, 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)."