Supreme Court Rejects Big Tobacco Apeals, Including Escambia Case

March 27, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to take up appeals of four Florida lawsuits that will force R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. to pay tens of millions of dollars to the families of dead smokers.

The cases, part of a flood of tobacco litigation moving through Florida’s courts, were the first of their kind to reach the Supreme Court. One of the cases involved a $28.3 million judgment in an Escambia County case, while another totaled $15.75 million in an Alachua County case.

John Mills, an attorney who worked on the $15.75 million case stemming from the death of Arthur Hall, described R.J. Reynolds’ appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court as a “last gasp.” While the company could seek a rehearing, Mills said that has little chance of success.

“As to whether these judgments have to be paid, it’s over, it’s final,” he said.

Robert Peck, a Washington attorney who represented plaintiffs in the Supreme Court in two of the cases, said justices did not explain their reasons for turning down the appeals.

That leaves questions about how the decisions could affect thousands of other Florida sick-smoker cases that have become known as the “Engle progeny” cases.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that such cases should be heard individually instead of as a class action. But the ruling also established critical findings that could be used in the cases — such as establishing that cigarettes cause a wide range of diseases, that nicotine in cigarettes is addictive and that tobacco companies concealed information about the health effects of smoking.

Tobacco companies have argued that the Engle findings are not being applied properly to individual cases. For example, R.J. Reynolds argued in state court that plaintiffs’ attorneys in the $28.3 million judgment were not required to prove that dead smoker Benny Martin relied on deceptive advertising about the dangers of smoking.

“The Supreme Court’s decision today does not represent a ruling on the merits of Reynolds’ constitutional argument,” Jeff Raborn, vice president and assistant general counsel for R.J. Reynolds, said in a prepared statement Monday. “We remain confident in our position that the Florida courts’ use of general findings in one case to establish specific claims in subsequent cases violates our bedrock constitutional rights.”

Jim Gustafson, a Tallahassee-based attorney whose firm has filed more than 400 lawsuits against tobacco companies, said he expects the industry to continue appealing Engle-progeny cases to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“They are genetically incapable of taking their medicine,” said Gustafson, whose firm, Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, represented the surviving husband of smoker Betty Jean Campbell in one of the cases decided Monday.

R.J. Reynolds last year included what is known as an “accrual” in its third-quarter financial statement to account for the possibility of having to pay $53 million in damages in the lawsuits and another $11 million in attorneys’ fees and interest. That came after the Florida Supreme Court also turned down its appeals in the cases.

The most closely watched of the cases has been the $28.3 million judgment for Mathilde Martin, the widow of Lucky Strike smoker Benny Martin who died of lung cancer in 1995. The judgment includes $3.3 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages.

While an Alachua County jury approved the $15.75 million judgment for Amanda Jean Hall, the widow of smoker Arthur Hall, the other two cases stemmed from Escambia County.

In one, R.J. Reynolds, was ordered to pay $6.2 million to Carolyn Gray, the widow of Charles Robert Gray. The company also would have to pay most of the $3.35 million verdict in an Escambia County case filed by Franklin Campbell in the death of his wife, Betty Jean. Cigarette makers Philip Morris USA and Liggett Group also would have to pay small parts of that judgment.

By The News Service of Florida

Comments

7 Responses to “Supreme Court Rejects Big Tobacco Apeals, Including Escambia Case”

  1. 429SCJ on March 28th, 2012 3:01 pm

    Smoke! Smoke! Smoke! that cigarette. Puff! Puff! Puff! it till you Puff! yourself to death! Tobacco Free 25+ years.

  2. A smoker on March 27th, 2012 10:29 pm

    I am a smoker and I am well aware of the risks and complications that come from smoking. No one held me down and forced me to start smoking. It was my choice. And furthermore there are warning labels on the cigarette packages, and there are always commercials on tv and radio as well as newspaper or magazine articles telling of the risks of smoking. It’s a shame that people will find anything they possibly can to put the blame on others and not fess up and say it was my fault not theirs. If I was to get lung cancer or blood clots or any other disease as a result of smoking i’m not about to sue the cigarette companies because it was my decision to light up in the first place! Come on people, really?! Take responsibility for your own actions! This is my opinion, Just saying…..

  3. chris1 on March 27th, 2012 4:34 pm

    Agree with JM. The lawyers snuck one in on our “its someones elses fault ” society.
    30 to 40 years ago warnings were on cigs. Thats one reason i quit.
    Really tobaccos companies are being sued for lying.
    But in all other court cases lying is not punished and in many ways encouraged.
    Sit in on a court case sometime , its free and very educational.

  4. David Huie Green on March 27th, 2012 9:26 am

    REGARDING:
    “If I chose to jump off a bridge, is it my fault or the bridge’s fault?”

    The bridge’s, of course. It presented you with the temptation and opportunity. The only problem is that bridges don’t got no money so you got to go after the builder of the bridge and you may have to cross over the bridge to get to the builder. Further, if the bridge was paid for with your taxes, you may wind up finding you’re the owner of the bridge in the first place.

    David for blaming the tempter
    not the yielder

  5. JM on March 27th, 2012 8:03 am

    The only people who get anything in a class action are the lawyers.
    Class action should be illegal. They just make deals behind the backs of all the litigants and there is nothing you can do if they want to pay you $9,000.00 for destroying your health (thus your life).

    As to tobacco issues it’s a choice, nobody shoves them down your throat
    or forces them into your hands. You have to buy them, pick them up into your hands, get out a lighter and light them up. You had plenty of time to stop and say NOPE. I don’t thing you should be able to sue anybody.

  6. mmmmm on March 27th, 2012 7:00 am

    How do you mis-use tobacco?

  7. Jane on March 27th, 2012 4:03 am

    Shall we blame the indians who first introduced tobacco to the settlers in North America before it became the United states? This practice was then introduced to Europe and England. The problem doesn’t seem to be so much the use of tobacco as the additives and mis-use/over-use of tobacco. If I chose to jump off a bridge, is it my fault ot the bridge’s fault? Just another perspective on the issue…not saying who is right or wrong here.

Written by William Reynolds · Filed Under News