Products Liability Law Reporter

A Florida appellate court held that the manufacturer of a product containing synthetic marijuana was not liable to motorists after a driver who had become intoxicated from the product collided with them.

After smoking the synthetic marijuana product DOWN2EARTH Climaxxx, Christopher Generoso drove his SUV and rear-ended a stopped vehicle occupied by Vince Duron Vickers; his wife, Shakelia Vickers; their minor son, Vincent; and his friend, Tyler Biggins. Shakelia and Vincent were killed. Tyler suffered a head injury and later died.

Vickers, individually and on behalf of his wife and son, and Tyler’s parents, individually and on behalf of his estate, sued DZE Corp., which manufactured and distributed the marijuana product, alleging that the product failed to include an adequate warning. The plaintiffs claimed that although DZE’s packaging stated that the product did not contain dangerous synthetic cannabinoid compounds, the product did in fact contain AM-2201, a synthetic cannabinoid that can cause an altered mental state when smoked or ingested. Additionally, the plaintiffs asserted that the product’s packaging, which stated that it was not intended for human consumption, had an inadequate warning.

At trial, DZE moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the plaintiffs could not prove proximate cause in that Generoso’s intoxication was the sole proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries. The trial court denied the motion, and the jury later awarded approximately $37 million, apportioning liability at 65% to DZE and 35% to Generoso.

Reversing, the appellate court found that the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict is warranted unless no proper view of the evidence could sustain a plaintiff’s verdict. Here, the court found, the defense has met this standard. Citing case law, the court noted that where an individual’s conduct creates a dangerous situation, a jury may not find proximate cause where injuries result from an unforeseeable, intervening act. The conclusion that the defendant’s failure to warn was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries is based on speculation that the defendant could foresee that Generoso would disregard the defendant’s warning not to smoke the product, causing him to become intoxicated and cause a collision. Moreover, the court said, state law does not allow a jury to consider proximate cause where the person responsible for the alleged injuries is voluntarily impaired or intentionally misusing a product. In this case, Generoso voluntarily consumed the product, became intoxicated, and made the illegal decision to drive in that condition. Therefore, the court found, Generoso’s conduct, not the defendant’s, was the superseding proximate cause of the collision that injured the plaintiffs.

Consequently, the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.

Citation: DZE Corp. v. Vickers, 2020 WL 3042031 (Fla. Ct. App. June 8, 2020).