R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin

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.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So.3d 1060 (Fla.1st Dist.Ct.App.) 2011.

  • United States
  • Dec 14, 2010
  • District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Parties

Plaintiff Matilde C. Martin, as personal representative of the estate of Benny R. Martin, as surviving spouse and on behalf of the estate

Defendant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"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."