Products Liability Law Reporter

A Florida appellate court held that a trial court had committed reversible error when it instructed a jury it could consider the Engle findings in deciding a plaintiff’s entitlement to punitive damages and the amount of punitive damages awarded to a plaintiff in a wrongful death suit.

The estate of Richard Harris sued R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., alleging wrongful death and asserting a claim for punitive damages. In phase I of the trial, the court instructed the jury that the Engle findings were binding but did not establish that R.J. Reynolds was liable to the plaintiff. The court also instructed the jury that it could consider the Engle findings when determining whether punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds were warranted. R.J. Reynolds objected, seeking an instruction that the jury could not consider the Engle findings in determining whether punitive damages were warranted. The court rejected the defense request. The jury subsequently found for the estate on all claims, awarding $4 million in compensatory damages and finding that punitive damages were warranted.

The case proceeded to Phase II, and the court repeated its instruction to jurors that it could consider the Engle findings when determining whether punitive damages were warranted, noting that the Engle findings did not, by themselves, establish that punitive damages were warranted. The defense objected, arguing that the jury should not consider the Engle findings in relation to punitive damages. The jury awarded $6 million in punitive damages. The defense moved for a directed verdict, new trial, or remittitur, but the trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff.

Reversing the portion of the judgment related to the punitive damages award, the appellate court noted that a trial court commits reversible error if it provides an erroneous instruction that reasonably may have misled the jury. Citing case law from the state high court, the court found that the res judicata effect of the Phase I findings addressed in Engle do not apply to claims for punitive damages sought by Engle progeny plaintiffs. Thus, by instructing the jury that it could consider the Engle findings when determining whether punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds were warranted, the court here ignored the state high court precedent. R.J. Reynolds, which requested an accurate statement of the law, the court found, was therefore prejudiced by the trial court’s instruction, which was also misleading in that it blended a less stringent evidentiary standard into the punitive damages determination, which requires clear and convincing evidence.

Consequently, the court remanded the case for further proceedings limited to punitive damages.

Citation: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Harris, 2022 WL 2444670 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. July 6, 2022).