Tobacco.org

• BROWN v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY 

The bottom line, then, is that the Phase I approved findings may be given effect to the full extent of, but no farther than, what the jury found. The disagreement is about what the jury actually did find. The defendants, taking a narrow view, insist that the only facts found by the jury are those framed by the specific factual issue set out in the questions posed to them on the verdict form. The plaintiffs, by contrast, take a broader view of what facts the jury decided, arguing that the language of the questions, and hence the jury’s answers, can and should be fleshed out using the record as a whole and apparently by going outside the record.

For example, Question 3 on the verdict form asked the jury: “Did one or more of the Defendant Tobacco Companies place cigarettes on the market that were defective and unreasonably dangerous?” The jury answered “yes,” for every time period for every defendant except Brooke Group, Ltd., Inc. 8 Under the defendants’ view, the only fact that the jury found was that they sold some cigarette that was defective and unreasonably dangerous during the time periods listed on the verdict form. That would mean that the finding may not establish anything more specific; it may not establish, for instance, that any particular type

8 The jury found that Brooke Group, Ltd., Inc., sold cigarettes that were defective and unreasonably dangerous after July 1, 1974, but not before that date. of cigarette sold by a defendant during the relevant time period was defective and unreasonably dangerous. . . .

We leave it to the district court to apply Florida law as we have outlined it and decide in the first instance precisely what facts are established when preclusive effect is given to the approved findings. . . .

Jump to full article »