Florida court upholds $30 million tobacco award

Related Topics

MIAMI | Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:51pm EDT

MIAMI (Reuters) - The Florida Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a jury's order that the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co pay nearly $30 million to a woman whose husband died of lung cancer after decades of smoking its cigarettes.

The court issued a brief ruling saying it would not review the product liability award nor entertain any further motions for rehearing. The tobacco company, a unit of Reynolds American Inc, argued the award was excessive.

The ruling could affect thousands of pending cases.

In 2009, a state court jury in Pensacola, Florida, ordered Reynolds to pay more than $3.3 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages to Mathilde Martin. Her husband, Benny Martin, died in 1995 of lung cancer that she blamed on his long-time smoking of Reynolds' "Lucky Strike" cigarettes.

The jury said Reynolds was 66 percent responsible for Benny Martin's death and that Martin, who started smoking in the 1940s before health warnings were added to cigarette packages, was 34 percent responsible.

The award was the by far the largest to date among the "Engle progeny" cases filed against tobacco companies by sick Florida smokers or their relatives. The cases stem from a landmark 1994 class-action lawsuit filed by a pediatrician, the late Dr. Howard Engle, that produced a $145 billion judgment against cigarette makers six years later.

The Florida Supreme Court overturned the Engle award in 2006 and ruled that Florida's ailing smokers could not sue as a class, or group.

But it made it easier for them to sue individually by upholding the trial jury's findings that smoking causes disease, that nicotine is addictive, that cigarettes are defective and dangerous, and that tobacco companies concealed the health effects of smoking. Thousands of individual cases are still pending in Florida.

The case is R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company vs Mathilde Martin, etc, No. SC11-483.

(Editing by Steve Orlofsky)

Related Quotes and News

Company
Price
Related News
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
GaryMarshall2 wrote:
At what point does one take responsibility for ones own actions?

As an ex-smoker I’m aware exactly how difficult it is to quit the habit, but we’re all aware (and have been for many years now) of the multitude of potential health complications brought on by smoking.

Those who continue to smoke have every right to do so, and when their health fails, they should also have access to full and proper medical treatment (I’m sure many would argue against – but that’s part of living in a modern, socially responsible society).

Those who smoke (or their relatives) should not however be able to shift the culpability for their actions and sue for millions. No one can argue these days that they were ignorant of the health consequences and are therefore not (or are only partially) responsible for the actions.

If you’re worried about the negative health effect, quit. It can be done!

Jul 19, 2011 6:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Marla wrote:
I would agree with the previous comment if cigarette tobacco was not intentionally manipulated to make it MORE addicting. This guarantees that more smokers will fail their attempts to “kick the habit,” and the revenue stream will continue for big tobacco. They should be held accountable.

Jul 19, 2011 11:49pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Tomper wrote:
Absolutely stupid. Lawyers will kill America.

Jul 19, 2011 12:03am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.