Tobacco.org

Video of Larkin v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco - Trial - 01/23/12  

Session links become active around 15 minutes before scheduled start time - more...

Session Start Time Duration

Larkin v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco 2/2/12 PM (PHASE 2) 01:00 PM EST

Larkin v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco 2/01/12 (VERDICT) 05:00 PM EST

Jump to full article »

• Opening Statements Begin In Larkin v. RJ Reynolds 

In Dade County Courthouse's first Engle progeny trial of the year, jurors heard opening statements in the Larkin v. RJ Reynolds trial in front of Judge Valerie Manno-Schurr. By the end of the first day, a theme developed in the courtroom around the nature of choices, made both by individuals who smoke cigarettes, and the companies that manufacture them.

Born in 1944, Carole Larkin was a daily smoker by the age of nineteen . . .

At the close of his opening statement, Gerson asked jurors to consider "the choices that this ordinary housewife made over her lifetime compared to the choices that this large corporation that conspired with other companies to conceal the truth made just so they could make more money".

"Any smoker can quit. Three thousand quit every day" claimed defense attorney Anthony Upshaw, of McDermott Will & Emery. In addition, Upshaw contends Larkin was not a member of the Engle class since she quit in 1988, prior to the class's 1990 beginning and that she was not addicted to nicotine. In one of the more memorable lines regarding nicotine addiction, Upshaw declared "each time she decided to quit smoking she was successful". Larkin stopped smoking once for a year, resumed, then ultimately quit for good in 1988.

Picking up on the theme of personal responsibility and choice introduced by plaintiff's counsel, Upshaw asked jurors: "Mrs. Larkin accepts some responsibility for her smoking, but only some, right? Nobody but Carole Larkin could have made the choice, not ten percent, not twenty percent. A hundred percent, only she could have made that choice".

Jump to full article »

On Petitions for a Writ of Certiorari to the Florida First District Court of Appeal (PDF) 

The Campbell and Martin cases, which involve an even more extreme departure from traditional judicial procedures than did Scott, provide the Court with a more focused opportunity to consider the extent to which the Due Process Clause limits the authority of States to significantly alter those procedures in the name of increased judicial efficiency. Given the increasing frequency with which state courts have been willing to jettison traditional procedural rules in the name of litigation efficiency in the class action context, review of the decisions below is particularly warranted.

Jump to full article »

COURT URGED TO OVERTURN DECISION BARRING PRODUCT LIABILITY DEFENSES (PDF) 

The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) yesterday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review (and ultimately overturn) a Florida state court decision that prevents the nation’s major cigarette manufacturers from defending themselves against charges that they acted wrongfully in marketing their products. WLF charged that the Florida court are conducting product liability lawsuits in a manner that violates the federal constitutional due process rights of defendants.

In a brief filed in support of two petitions for review filed with the Supreme Court – Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Campbell and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin – WLF argued that the U.S. Constitution requires state courts to apply their procedural rules in a consistent manner. If those rules would permit other defendants to defend themselves fully against tort claims, then Florida must afford those same procedural protections to tobacco companies, WLF argued.

Jump to full article »

Case Detail: Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Campbell 

Case Date:

1/17/2012

Project Name:

Civil Justice Reform

On January 17, 2012, WLF filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, urging it to review a Florida state court decision that prevents the nation's major cigarette manufacturers from defending themselves against charges that they acted wrongfully in marketing their products. WLF charged that the Florida court are conducting product liability lawsuits in a manner that violates the federal constitutional due process rights of defendants.

Jump to full article »

• Plaintiffs Win Again in Engle Progeny Tobacco Cases 

On January 26, 2012, an Escambia County jury awarded Erskin Donal Ward $2.7 million against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Liggett Group, LLC Philip Morris USA, Inc., in case number 2008-CA-2135, filed in the First Judicial Circuit, in Escambia County, Florida.

The lawsuit filed in the case alleged that Erskin Ward's wife, Mattie Emma Ward, died of emphysema after nearly 50 years of smoking cigarettes made by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Liggett Group, LLC Philip Morris USA, Inc.

Erskin Ward's attorney, James Gustafson said that the jury verdict included $1.7 million in punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. . . .

"The jury's work and patience in this trial showed," Gustafson said. "The verdict is not only a tribute to a woman who was a treasure to Pensacola and the special education community, but to the hard work the jury did to understand how much things have changed in the past 50 years--and the need to punish R.J. Reynolds for its intentional outrages, what they did to a generation of Americans, including hawking cigarettes to children.'

"Mrs. Ward is another tragic example of the best among us, someone who started smoking as a child decades before the warnings, and was killed by addiction to nicotine," said Gustafson.

Sources at the Searcy Denney law firm said that this verdict marks eight successive plaintiff's verdicts in Engle progeny tobacco suits

Jump to full article »

MINOR: Cigarette, anyone? Think twice  

For the last three weeks my whole world has been the inside of a courtroom, the Circuit Court of Highlands County. I was impaneled on a jury for a wrongful death case . . . .

As recently as 1999, tobacco company CEOs stood before the U.S. Congress and swore under oath that they did not believe cigarettes cause lung cancer, nor that they are addicting. But their own company documents, subpoenaed by Congress, proved the opposite.

As a jury, we deliberated a long time about fault and about damages. To reach an agreement, we all had to make some concessions. . . .

When it was all over, I was relieved. Yet when I got home that final day, I sat down and cried for four hours straight. At first I thought it was just the release of stress, but now I'm not so sure. I know I cried for the lady who died, and for her children and grandchildren who miss her. She could easily have lived 15 to 20 years longer than she did.

I also cried for all the mothers and dads around the world who still smoke and want to quit but find themselves addicted, lifetime victims of an industry that doesn't care.

I also cried for my own brother who has smoked all his life and now suffers from severe heart disease, COPD, and recurring pneumonia. It simply did not have to be this way.

Finally, I cried for the tobacco company executives and scientists, and their lawyers, who continue to make a lucrative living off the pain, suffering, and death of their fellow Americans. There is no justification for such callous, mercenary selfishness.

Shame on them all.

Jump to full article »

When it was all over, I was relieved. Yet when I got home that final day, I sat down and cried for four hours straight. At first I thought it was just the release of stress, but now I'm not so sure. I know I cried for the lady who died, and for her children and grandchildren . . . I also cried for all the mothers and dads around the world who still smoke and want to quit . . . I also cried for my own brother who has smoked all his life and now suffers from severe heart disease, COPD, and recurring pneumonia. . . . Finally, I cried for the tobacco company executives and scientists, and their lawyers, who continue to make a lucrative living off the pain, suffering, and death of their fellow Americans. There is no justification for such callous, mercenary selfishness. Shame on them all.
Hallgren juror Joyce Minor.

Verdict favors smoker estate 

On Tuesday evening, a Highlands County jury returned a $2 million verdict for the Hallgren family in a lawsuit against Phillip Morris and R.J. Reynolds tobacco companies.

The trial continued Wednesday and Thursday, said Clerk of Courts Bob Germaine, with the jury awarding $750,000 in punitive damages. . . .

"The main focus is on Florida," said Edward Sweda Jr., senior attorney with the Tobacco Products Liability Project at Northeastern University Law School in Boston.

Juries have found for the plaintiffs in two-thirds of the cases. "There is a large focus on the smoker's conduct," Sweda said. "Either they didn't listen to or follow the advice of their doctors. If the juries primarily focus on that, a defense verdict results.". . .

The Sebring jury found that Claire Hallgren was addicted to cigarettes, which was the legal cause of her lung cancer and death. Both Phillips Morris and R.J. Reynolds were negligent, and the jury found that cigarettes were defective and unreasonably dangerous.

The defendants concealed or omitted material information about the health effects or addictive nature of smoking, the jury found.

Jump to full article »

• RJ Reynolds And Phillip Morris To Pay $2.5 Million In Damages 

SEBRING, FL - The first major tobacco lawsuit of 2012 ended yesterday with RJ Reynolds (NYSE: RAI) and Philip Morris (NYSE: PM) being ordered to pay a combined $2.5 million in damages to a deceased smoker's surviving husband.

Following nearly three-weeks of trial testimony a Highlands County jury found the two tobacco companies responsible for the smoking-related lung cancer of Theo Hallgren's late wife, Claire Hallgren.

After determining Claire Hallgren was 50% responsible for her addiction and awarding $2 million to Theo Hallgren in compensatory damages, the jury went on to order RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris to pay $750,000 each in punitive damages. . . .

During closing arguments attorney T. Hardee Bass, of the firm Searcy Denny, told jurors in light of the tobacco company's current billion-dollar profits, they needed to send a strong message with a large verdict. "That's what this morning is about, punishment," said Bass. "Punishment for the harm they caused to Claire Hallgren."

Representing Philip Morris, attorney William Geraghty of Shook Hardy Bacon told the jury the company had made massive, systemic changes since the 1950's, when tobacco products were marketed more aggressively. FDA regulation and Philip Morris' own practices meant they had already taken enough corrective action. Dal Burton of Womble Carlyle, representing RJ Reynolds, said his client had also eliminated practices from the "1930's and 40's that are today an anathema."

Jump to full article »

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY v. EARLINE ALEXANDER (PDF) 

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

Jump to full article »

IN RE: ENGLE PROGENY CASES TOBACCO LITIGATION (PDF) 

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

Jump to full article »

• Big Tobacco trial in Sebring  

Tobacco companies are appealing all the awards. However, in a July 20 decision, the Florida Supreme Court declined to hear R.J. Reynolds' appeal of a $28.3 million verdict in the death of a Panhandle smoker. That could strip R.J. Reynolds and other tobacco companies of a key defense to Florida lawsuits filed by sick smokers or their survivors. . . .

* * * * *In the closely watched July 20 decision, R.J. Reynolds challenged the way lower courts applied the Engle decision, arguing the widow of Benny Martin was not forced to prove the company's liability. The cigarette maker had used the same strategy in defending other cases, such as a $15.75 million verdict in the death of an Alachua County smoker.

"Today, the Florida Supreme Court said, 'No, we're done hearing this,'" said Matt Schultz, a Pensacola attorney who represents the widow, Mathilde Martin.

R.J. Reynolds vowed to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Benny Martin, who died of lung cancer in 1995, was a longtime smoker of Lucky Strike cigarettes . . .

Tobacco company lawyers insist the process is rigged. "We believe the trial courts have used trial plans that are so fundamentally unfair they violate due process and Florida law," said Murray Garnick of Altria Client Services, a subsidiary of Philip Morris USA. "Each case must be judged on its own facts."

Now tobacco companies are losing other types of cases. In Connecticut, U.S. Smokeless Tobacco, maker of Skoal and Copenhagen, agreed to pay $5 million to the family of a man who died of mouth cancer in what was believed to be the first wrongful-death settlement won from a chewing tobacco company.

Jump to full article »

• Reynolds selects case to take to high court  

According to the legal website Law360, Reynolds has filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to overturn a $28.3 million jury verdict in Florida in favor of Mathilde Martin, whose husband, Benny, died of lung cancer after decades of smoking unfiltered Lucky Strike cigarettes.

Reynolds spokesman Bryan Hatchell said Monday that the company did not have a comment about the filing. The Florida Supreme Court declined to accept Reynolds' appeal of the jury verdict.

Reynolds said in the petition that the jury verdict was reached without the respondent "either proving essential elements of her claims or demonstrating that a prior jury had actually decided those elements in her favor."

Because there have been several victories by plaintiffs and manufacturers at lower court levels, Reynolds is confident the U.S. Supreme Court will agree to the request.

Reynolds said it has placed a combined $63 million into accrual for the four Engle cases that have advanced through the appellate court. Reynolds' profit has been affected by significant legal fees for two consecutive quarters.

Jump to full article »

Video of Junious v. R.J. Reynolds - Trial - 10/05/11 to 10/20/11  

Jury trial in Engle progeny tobacco litigation.

Sessions Recording Disclaimer: This proceeding was recorded in full.

October 20 - AM Session Closings

Description Attorney Witness Presence

Jump to full article »

• RJ Reynolds Takes $28.3M Liability Verdict To High Court ($$) 

RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. asked the U.S. Supreme Court last week to overturn a $28.3 million jury verdict in Florida in favor of a woman whose husband died of lung cancer after decades of smoking unfiltered Lucky Strike cigarettes.

In a petition for writ of certiorari filed Dec. 16 and obtained Thursday, the tobacco company asked the Supreme Court to reconsider the jury verdict after the Supreme Court of Florida declined to accept the appeal in July.

RJ Reynolds argues that the lower court's decision to preclude litigation based on the idea that a prior jury reasonably could have decided the issues involved violated the doctrine of issue preclusion, which is limited to issues that have been “actually litigated and resolved in a valid court,” and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“As a result, respondent obtained a $28.3 million judgment without either proving essential elements of her claims or demonstration that a prior jury had actually decided those elements in her favor,” the petition said.

The Martin suit, initiated by Mathilde Martin, whose husband, Benny, died in 1995, stemmed from the so-called Engle class action . . .

Also on Dec. 16, Philip Morris USA Inc. and Liggett Group LLC asked the Supreme Court to overturn a $3.4 million jury verdict in Florida in favor of a man whose wife died of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, citing similar concerns about due process.

Jump to full article »