$______ VERDICT - TOBACCO - PLAINTIFF CLAIMS DECEDENT DIED OF COPD AFTER SMOKING CIGARETTES MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY DEFENDANTS WHO COMMITTED FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT, CIVIL CONSPIRACY CONCEALMENT, BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY, BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY, STRICT LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE - CASE ON APPEAL.

• Pages: 2-3

Summaries with Trial Analysis

$2,540,915 VERDICT – TOBACCO – PLAINTIFF CLAIMS DECEDENT DIED OF COPD

AFTER SMOKING CIGARETTES MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY DEFENDANTS WHO

COMMITTED FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT, CIVIL CONSPIRACY CONCEALMENT, BREACH

OF IMPLIED WARRANTY, BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY, STRICT LIABILITY AND

NEGLIGENCE – CASE ON APPEAL.

Palm Beach County, FL

In this product liability case, the plaintiff asserted

that the defendant tobacco company was liable

for the plaintiff’s decedent’s’ addiction to

cigarettes, the resulting health issues and his

ultimate death due to the defendants’ fraud by

concealment, civil conspiracy concealment, breach

of implied warranty, breach of express warranty,

strict liability, and negligence. The defendants

asserted that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision

in Engle contained several errors and denied the

defendants their due process rights.

The plaintiff cited Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., et al.,

945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) for purposes of approved

certification of liability for a class, including all Florida

citizens and residents, who had suffered, or died from

diseases and medical conditions caused by their ad-

diction to cigarettes that contained nicotine. The

plaintiffs were Florida citizens or residents who suffered

from diseases and medical conditions caused by

their addiction to cigarettes that contained nicotine.

The plaintiffs or their decedents purchased and

smoked and were addicted to cigarette products

containing nicotine which were the subject of Engle.

The cigarette products containing nicotine were de-

signed, manufactured, advertised, and marketed by

the defendants at all material times. The Council for

Tobacco Research U.S. A., and the Tobacco Institute,

were involved in promotion, lobbying, medical re-

search, legislative, and political activities or related

ventures on behalf of the defendants.

The plaintiff asserted the jury findings from the Phase I

Engle trial which were given res judicata effects by

the Florida Supreme Court including: smoking ciga-

rettes causes aortic aneurysm, bladder cancer, cere-

bral vascular disease, cervical cancer, chronic

obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart dis-

ease, esophageal cancer, kidney cancer, laryngeal

cancer, lung cancer, complications of pregnancy,

oral cavity/tongue cancer, pancreatic cancer, pe-

ripheral vascular disease, pharyngeal cancer, and

stomach cancer. The plaintiff argued that nicotine in

cigarettes is addictive; that all the defendants

placed cigarette products on the market that were

defective and unreasonably dangerous; that the de-

fendants concealed or omitted material information

not otherwise known or available, knowing the mate-

rial was false or misleading, or failed to disclose ma-

terial facts concerning the health effects or addictive

nature of smoking cigarettes; that the defendants

agreed to conceal or omit information regarding the

health effects of cigarettes or their addictive nature

with the international that smokers and the public

would rely on this information to their detriment; and

that the defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that,

at the time of sale or supply, did not conform to

representations of fact made by the defendants.

The plaintiff claimed that, as a direct and proximate

result of smoking cigarettes manufactured and sold

by the defendants, her husband, the decedent, suf-

fered from COPD, one of the diseases cited, and that

the medical conditions suffered by the decedent

were a result of his addiction to cigarettes that con-

tained nicotine. The decedent’s diseases or medical

conditions manifested during the class period and

caused injury to the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that

the decedent bore some measure of fault, but less

than 100% of the applicable fault, for causing his

respective smoking related injuries.

The defendants maintained that no subsequent court

or fact finder could determine whether any product,

brand, type or design used by a particular plaintiff

was found defective by the Engle jury or whether any

such design characteristic found defective by the

Engle jury caused these plaintiffs’ injuries. The defen-

dants further argued that the Phase I findings of Engle

as to breach of implied warranty did not establish the

existence of privity between the plaintiffs and defen-

dants and the plaintiffs in the subject action were still

required to prove privity. As to the findings of Fraud by

Concealment and Civil Conspiracy did not identify

what information was found to have been misrepre-

sented or concealed or the date(s) that such infor-

mation was misrepresented or concealed, therefore

no subsequent court or fact finder could determine

whether a particular plaintiff relied upon a statement

or omission found tortious by the Engle jury or whether

any statement or omission found to be tortious by the

Engle jury was a legal cause of injury to the plaintiff.

Further, the defendants argued, the plaintiffs could

2

Volume 37, Issue 5, May 2022

Reproduction in any form without the express permission of the publisher is strictly prohibited by law.

Subscribe Now