R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. (Jimmie Lee) Brown

The widow of a smoker sued R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR) seeking damages for her husband’s death. The appeals court upheld a jury verdict finding RJR 50% responsible for the smoker’s death. The appeals court found that the trial court properly applied the findings from the earlier class-action lawsuit (Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc.), which determined that RJR was negligent by failing to exercise reasonable care in the manufacture of its cigarettes and that it was strictly liable by selling defective and unreasonably dangerous cigarettes. Therefore, the appeals court ruled that the widow in this case was only required to prove the remaining elements of legal causation and damages. Because the jury was asked to decide each of those questions individually (e.g., that the plaintiff was addicted to RJR cigarettes, that this addiction caused his death, that the unreasonably dangerous cigarettes caused his death, and that RJR’s negligence was a legal cause of his death), the appeals court found that the trial court properly applied the findings from the class-action decision in Engle.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Brown, 70 So.3d 707 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2011).

  • United States
  • Sep 21, 2011
  • District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Parties

Plaintiff Jimmie Lee Brown, as Personal Representative to the Estate of Roger Brown

Defendant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"We hold the eighth Engle finding established that: (1) RJR had a duty to exercise reasonable care which a reasonable cigarette manufacturer would exercise under like circumstances in the manufacture of the brands of cigarettes smoked by the decedent; and (2) RJR breached that duty. As with the strict liability claim, post- Engle plaintiffs are not required to reprove specific tortious conduct, i.e. that Tobacco committed particular negligent acts when asserting a negligence claim... Mrs. Brown was required to prove legal causation, comparative fault, and damages. The trial court correctly instructed the jury and submitted the questions of legal causation as it related to the negligence claim and damages to the jury. The jury then found that RJR's negligence was a legal cause of Mr. Brown's death; that Mr. Brown was 50% at fault, and determined damages. We find no error."
"We hold that the third Engle finding conclusively establishes the conduct portion of a strict liability claim in post- Engle actions, i.e. that RJR placed defective and unreasonably dangerous cigarettes on the market. Post- Engle plaintiffs need not reestablish that cigarettes manufactured by an Engle defendant are defective as that conduct element was determined. Moreover, the defective cigarettes manufactured by RJR were the same brands smoked by Mr. Brown... Here, Mrs. Brown was required to prove the remaining elements of her strict liability claim, i.e. legal causation and damages. Moreover, the trial court correctly instructed the jury on legal causation as it related to the claim, and submitted the relevant question to the jury. The jury found that the defective and unreasonably dangerous cigarettes manufactured by RJR were a legal cause of Mr. Brown's death. Accordingly, we find no error on the strict liability claim."
"After viewing the expert and lay testimony collectively, we hold sufficient evidence existed for a jury to conclude Mr. Brown was addicted to RJR cigarettes containing nicotine, and that this addiction was the legal cause of his death."