Collar v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 4D15–3893
Decision Date | 05 July 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 4D15–3893,4D15–3893 |
Citation | 222 So.3d 581 |
Parties | Fannie COLLAR, Appellant, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY and Philip Morris USA, Inc., Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Celene H. Humphries, Maegen Peek Luka and Thomas J. Seider of Brannock & Humphries, Tampa, and Jonathan R. Gdanski, Steven Hammer and Brittany Chambers of Schlesinger Law Offices, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
William P. Geraghty and Rachel A. Canfield of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Miami, Geoffrey J. Michael, David M. Menichetti, and Daphne O'Connor of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP, Washington, D.C., David Northrip of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Kansas City, Missouri, and Charles R.A. Morse of Jones Day, New York, New York, for appellees.
We reverse the final judgment for the defense in an Engle progeny case, where the jury answered "No" to the question "Was [Plaintiff] addicted to cigarettes containing nicotine and, if so, was her addiction a legal cause of her lung cancer
and/or COPD?" The trial court made two inconsistent evidentiary rulings that favored the defense, which exploited those rulings as a theme of closing argument.
The court ruled that the plaintiff's treating pulmonologist was not qualified as an expert to testify that the plaintiff was addicted to nicotine.1 On cross-examination, however, over the plaintiff's objection, the court allowed the pulmonologist to testify that the plaintiff was able to quit smoking when "sufficiently motivated to do so."
During closing argument, the defense skillfully exploited the notion that the plaintiff's own treating doctor, not some hired expert, believed she could quit any time she wanted. The defense equated the plaintiff's motivation to quit with an absence of addiction in spite of the fact that the plaintiff resumed smoking 13 years after having a cancerous lung removed.
On closing, the defense theorized that the plaintiff smoked because she wanted to and the Counsel instructed the jury to ask who was in control of the plaintiff's efforts to quit smoking and who controlled her motivation to quit? "The truth [wa]s [plaintiff] could have quit smoking any time she wanted to." The plaintiff's own pulmonologist, who treated her since 1993, testified that "[i]f a smoker is not well motivated," it is much less likely the smoker will successfully quit smoking. Her pulmonologist agreed that the plaintiff could "quit when she was sufficiently motivated to do so."
The defense argued that the pulmonologist "Her own doctor ... said she quit when she was motivated to do so."
Defense counsel continued along the same theme. The Counsel argued to the jury that if they decided the plaintiff "could have quit smoking whenever she was truly motivated to do so, then addiction [wa]s not a legal cause of her disease." The plaintiff objected, insisting this was not the legal standard. The objection was sustained. Defense counsel maintained he was simply responding to the plaintiff's arguments and the legal cause in this case was the plaintiff's decision to continue smoking. The plaintiff objected that defense counsel was mischaracterizing her statement, which was overruled.
Defense counsel continued, urging that the legal cause was the plaintiff's decision to smoke, despite all the warnings. The legal cause was the plaintiff's "decision not to make a committed and determined and motivated effort to quit."
Defense counsel replayed the video of the pulmonologist's deposition testimony that the plaintiff quit when sufficiently motivated, arguing:
Defense counsel likened the situation to a movie about a runaway train, where "you can't steer, you can't brake, that crash is inevitable." The evidence in this case was that the plaintiff was not Defense counsel concluded that none of the plaintiff's experts told the jury "that her addiction or her habit or her behavior was such that she was prevented from quitting at any time."
A smoker's motivation and ability to quit smoking is deeply intertwined with the smoker's addiction to nicotine; they are two sides of the same coin. This interlocking relationship was recognized by a federal court which found an expert's testimony regarding the smoker's differing levels of motivation to quit was "entirely...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Schlefstein, 4D18-1150
...to quit smoking as a component of the larger question regarding the smoker's alleged addition. See Collar v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. , 222 So. 3d 581, 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ("A smoker's motivation and ability to quit smoking is deeply intertwined with the smoker's addiction to nicotine;......