Products Liability Law Reporter

Kenneth Ryals, who smoked cigarettes, including the Winston brand, developed lung cancer and died at the age of 49. He had worked in the air conditioning industry and is survived by his wife and three children, including two minors.

Ryals’s daughter, as representative of his estate, brought an Engle progeny suit against R.J. Reynolds, alleging negligence, strict liability, fraud by concealment, and conspiracy to commit fraud by concealment. Among other things, the plaintiff asserted that Ryals’s lung cancer resulted from his addiction to cigarettes. The plaintiff sought noneconomic damages only.

The jury awarded over $5.5 million, including approximately $2.5 million in punitive damages.

Citation: Leidinger v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 53 2010CA003731 0000-00 Sec. 4 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Polk Cty. Dec. 13, 2021).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ member Gary Paige, Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.; AAJ member James Gustafson, Tallahassee, Fla.; David J. Sales, Sarasota, Fla.; AAJ member Cassandra Lombard, Davie, Fla.; and AAJ members Laurie Briggs and T. Hardee Bass III, both of West Palm Beach, Fla.

Comment: In R.J. Reynolds v. Gloger, 2022 WL 301608 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2022), defense counsel asked prospective jurors during voir dire whether they believed that someone who smokes daily is addicted to cigarettes. One of the prospective jurors replied that a person who smoked every day had a habitual, regular, or chemical addiction. The defense challenged the prospective juror for cause, arguing that the juror had stated it was the defendant’s burden to disprove addiction. The court disagreed with the defense characterization of the juror’s statements and denied the defendants’ for-cause challenge. The defense then used a peremptory challenge to strike the prospective juror. The jury later awarded the plaintiff $42.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, the intermediate appellate court reversed and remanded for new trial. The court found that the prospective juror’s responses during voir dire created at least a reasonable doubt about her ability to be impartial and follow the law if selected to serve on the jury.