Products Liability Law Reporter

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that an Engle plaintiff who was awarded compensatory damages against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. was entitled to a new trial on the issue of punitive damages. The court also held that this new trial did not necessitate a relitigation of the first jury’s liability and compensatory damages determinations.

Mary Sowers sued R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., alleging strict liability, negligence, fraudulent concealment, and conspiracy to fraudulently conceal. The plaintiff claimed damages for the losses she suffered after her husband, a long-term smoker, died of lung cancer. After a weeklong trial, the jury found for the plaintiff on her negligence and strict liability claims, awarding $4.25 million in compensatory damages and finding that the plaintiff’s husband was 50% at fault for his injuries.

The defense appealed, and the plaintiff cross-appealed on punitive damages, which the jury was prevented from considering pursuant to an intermediate appellate court decision limiting recovery of punitive damages to plaintiffs who succeed on intentional tort claims.

Affirming in part and reversing in part, the Eleventh Circuit noted that after the plaintiff’s jury trial ended, the Florida high court reversed the intermediate appellate court decision the trial court had relied on and held that Engle progeny plaintiffs could pursue punitive damages on all successful claims properly raised in their individual causes of action. Thus, the court remanded, holding that the plaintiff should have been allowed to seek punitive damages after succeeding on her negligence and strict liability claims.

The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the new trial should not be limited to the punitive damages issue but must encompass a reconsideration of all the liability issues in the case. The issues that were decided in the first trial, including class membership and comparative fault, are distinct and separable from the punitive damages issues to be considered here, particularly the nature of the defendant’s conduct. Moreover, the court said, because the first trial was an Engle progeny lawsuit, the jury did not decide whether the defendant had committed negligence, as negligence and strict liability are decided as a matter of law where an Engle plaintiff shows class membership, individual causation, and addiction to nicotine. The court added that it must and did assume that the jury had followed their instructions and did not award additional compensatory damages to compensate for the plaintiff’s then-lack-of-entitlement to punitive damages, as suggested by the defense.

Noting that the plaintiff had been litigating the case for approximately a quarter century, the court concluded that when the plaintiff’s compensatory judgment became final, she was entitled to the compensatory award plus interest, notwithstanding the resolution of any remaining punitive damages issues.

Citation: Sowers v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 975 F.3d 1112 (11th Cir. 2020).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ member Richard M. Heimann, AAJ member Robert J. Nelson, AAJ member Kevin R. Budner, AAJ member Elizabeth J. Cabraser, AAJ member Sarah Robin London, Martin D. Quinones, and AAJ member Todd A. Walburg, all of San Francisco; AAJ member Frederick C. Baker, Sara O. Couch, Rebecca M. Deupree, AAJ member Robert T. Haefele, AAJ member James W. Ledlie, AAJ member Patrick G. Maiden; AAJ member Lance V. Oliver, AAJ member Joseph F. Rice, AAJ member Lisa M. Saltzburg, and AAJ member Elizabeth S. Smith, all of Mount Pleasant, S.C.; AAJ member Donald A. Migliori, Providence, R.I.; AAJ member Charles E. Farah Jr., Stephanie Hartley, Richard Lantinberg, and Norwood Wilner, all of Jacksonville, Fla; AAJ member Nathan D. Finch, Washington, D.C.; AAJ members Andrew R. Kaufman and John T. Spragens, both of Nashville; and AAJ members Michael J. Pendell and Mathew Jasinski, both of Hartford, Conn.