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).
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.
A violation of the right to procedural fairness. For example, a party may claim that a government agency did not consult with public or stakeholders when issuing regulations.
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.
The tobacco industry may have perpetrated a fraud upon the public or the courts by presenting false information or deliberately hiding known-facts.
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.
"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)."
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.
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.