The widow of a smoker sued R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR) for damages for her husband’s death. The jury found that addiction to RJR cigarettes was a legal cause of the husband’s death, as was RJR’s conspiracy to conceal information about the dangers of cigarettes, and awarded damages to the widow. This appeals court decision affirms the trial court’s decision, including that members of an earlier class action lawsuit (Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc.) may rely upon the findings from the class action in their individual lawsuits. In particular, the court ruled that individual Engle plaintiffs may rely on the jury findings in Engle to establish the asserted claims, in this case strict liability, fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy, and negligence. The plaintiff need only prove causation, that they relied on the tobacco companies’ statements to their detriment, and that they incurred damages.
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.
"The Final Judgment and Amended Omnibus Order entered in the Engle class action sets out the evidentiary foundation for the Phase I jury's findings on these claims, and demonstrates that the verdict is conclusive as to the conduct elements of the claims. The order reflects that Lucky Strike, the brand Mr. Martin primarily smoked, was one of the sixteen cigarette brands named by the class representatives and that the Phase I jury findings encompassed all the brands. Engle v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 94–08273, 2000 WL 33534572, at *1 (Fla.Cir.Ct. Nov. 6, 2000). The evidence supporting the strict liability finding
showed the tobacco companies' cigarettes contain carcinogens, nitrosamines, and carbon dioxide, among other ingredients harmful to health which, when combined with the nicotine cigarettes also contain, make the product unreasonably dangerous. Id. at *2. The jury based its findings on the fraud by concealment and conspiracy claims on evidence showing RJR and its co-conspirators agreed to conceal their own scientific research results revealing that cigarettes cause cancer and other diseases and that the nicotine in tobacco is addictive. There also was evidence the defendants had taken on the duty to disclose by promising to share their research results with the public. The evidence further showed that not only did the defendants conceal information about the dangers of smoking they also enticed people to keep smoking by creating a controversy over whether smoking indeed had deleterious health effects. Id. at *2–3. And on the negligence claim, the jury determined the defendants owed all class members a duty to prevent injury from cigarettes the defendants knew to be harmful, and they breached their duty by selling cigarettes dangerous to health without taking reasonable measures to prevent injury to smokers. Id. at *4."
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 widow of a smoker sued R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR) for damages for her husband’s death. The jury found that addiction to RJR cigarettes was a legal cause of the husband’s death, as was RJR’s conspiracy to conceal information about the dangers of cigarettes, and awarded damages to the widow. This appeals court decision affirms the trial court’s decision, including that members of an earlier class action lawsuit (Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc.) may rely upon the findings from the class action in their individual lawsuits. In particular, the court ruled that individual Engle plaintiffs may rely on the jury findings in Engle to establish the asserted claims, in this case strict liability, fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy, and negligence. The plaintiff need only prove causation, that they relied on the tobacco companies’ statements to their detriment, and that they incurred damages.