Products Liability Law Reporter

Tobacco

You must be a Products Liability Law Reporter subscriber to access this content.

If you are a member of the Products Liability Section or a subscriber, log in below. Not yet a Section member? Join today!

Join the Products Liability Section

Trial court was correct to deny directed verdict on plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim

October/November 2020

A Florida appellate court held that denial of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.’s motion for directed verdict on an Engle plaintiff’s civil conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment claim was proper.

Paul Rouse brought an Engle progeny lawsuit against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., alleging strict liability, fraud by concealment, conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment, and negligence. The plaintiff asserted that he had become addicted to smoking and developed coronary artery disease as a result. He presented expert testimony regarding the defendant’s participation in a major disinformation campaign that concealed the health effects of smoking cigarettes and the addictive property of nicotine, which created doubt about whether smoking posed health hazards. The jury awarded $7.25 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court had erred in denying its motion for directed verdict on the plaintiff’s conspiracy claim.

Affirming, the court found that to prove his conspiracy claim, the plaintiff was required to show that he had relied to his detriment on a material fact that R.J. Reynolds had concealed about the health effects of smoking and that this was the legal cause of his coronary artery disease. Citing case law, the court added that the plaintiff did not have to demonstrate reliance on a particular statement from R.J. Reynolds or another co-conspirator.

The court found that the plaintiff presented evidence about a longtime advertising campaign perpetuated during the years that he had smoked cigarettes. The plaintiff also offered expert testimony regarding the defendant’s aggressive promotion of filtered cigarettes and testified that he believed that a filter made a cigarette safe. This evidence was sufficient to sustain an inference of detrimental reliance, the court said. Consequently, the court held that the trial court had properly denied the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict on the plaintiff’s conspiracy claim.

Citation: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Rouse, 2020 WL 3980749 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. July 15, 2020).

Plaintiff counsel: Alex Alvarez and Nicholas Reyes, both of Miami; and AAJ member John S. Mills and Courtney Brewer, both of Tallahassee, Fla.