Odom v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., SC17-563
Decision Date | 20 September 2018 |
Docket Number | No. SC17-563,SC17-563 |
Citation | 254 So.3d 268 |
Parties | Gwendolyn E. ODOM, etc., Petitioner, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rosalyn Sia Baker-Barnes, Mariano Garcia, and T. Hardee Bass of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., West Palm Beach, Florida; and Daniel R. Hoffman and David J. Sales of David J. Sales, P.A., Jupiter, Florida, for Petitioner
William L. Durham II and Val Leppert of King & Spalding LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Jeffrey S. Bucholtz of King & Spalding LLP, Washington, D.C.; and Jeffrey A. Cohen of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Miami, Florida, for Respondent
John S. Mills and Courtney Brewer of The Mills Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, for Amicus Curiae Florida Justice Association
Kansas R. Gooden of Boyd & Jenerette, PA, Jacksonville, Florida; and Elaine D. Walter of Gaebe Mullen Antonelli & DiMatteo, Coral Gables, Florida, for Amicus Curiae Florida Defense Lawyers Association
William W. Large of Florida Justice Reform Institute, Tallahassee, Florida; and Jason Gonzalez and Amber Stoner of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Tallahassee, Florida, for Amicus Curiae Florida Justice Reform Institute
The Fourth District Court of Appeal overturned a multimillion dollar noneconomic damages award to an adult child whose mother died of lung cancer
after the jury found through special interrogatories that the decedent's addiction to cigarettes was a legal cause of her death. See
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Odom , 210 So.3d 696, 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). The conflict issue before us arises from the Fourth District's misapplication of the abuse of discretion standard to the trial court's denial of a motion for remittitur and creation of a bright-line cap on the amount of noneconomic damages a financially independent adult surviving child may be awarded for the wrongful death of his or her parent.1 Instead of properly applying the abuse of discretion standard and this Court's well-established precedent, which entitles both a jury's verdict and a trial judge's ruling on a motion for remittitur to great deference, the Fourth District relied on four district court of appeal decisions to hold that the trial court erred in denying the motion for remittitur in this case.2 In reaching this holding, the Fourth District made the sweeping statement that "no matter" what the evidence shows, "an adult child who lives independent of the parent during the parent's smoking related illness and death is not entitled to [a] multi-million dollar compensatory damages award." Odom , 210 So.3d at 701.
For the reasons that follow, we hold that the Fourth District misapplied the abuse of discretion standard when reviewing the trial court's denial of the motion for remittitur. When the abuse of discretion standard is properly applied, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion by scrupulously following the standard for determining whether a remittitur is appropriate. We further hold that the Fourth District erred in creating a cap on the amount of noneconomic damages a financially independent adult child may be awarded for the wrongful death of his or her parent in conflict with this Court's precedent. Neither the Legislature nor this Court has established a cap on the amount of noneconomic damages a survivor may recover in a wrongful death action, and we decline to do so today. Accordingly, we quash the Fourth District's decision and remand for reinstatement of the judgment.3
Petitioner Gwendolyn Odom brought this Engle4 progeny action against Respondent R.J. Reynolds, alleging that her mother, Juanita Thurston, died from lung cancer
caused by her addiction to cigarettes manufactured by R.J. Reynolds. Odom , 210 So.3d at 698. Thurston was fifty-eight years old when she died and had never married. Odom, who was forty-two years old when Thurston died, sought noneconomic damages as Thurston's surviving daughter under Florida's wrongful death statute.5
The uncontroverted evidence presented at trial established "a very close and unique relationship" between Odom and Thurston that endured until Thurston's untimely death. Odom , 210 So.3d at 701. Thurston was just sixteen years old when Odom was born; Odom's biological father was not in the picture. Odom and Thurston were so close that they were described as "more like sisters."
Throughout Odom's life, Thurston was a constant support to her. After leaving home and moving to South Carolina for college, Odom returned home several months later and moved back in with Thurston. Even after marrying her first husband, Odom continued to live with Thurston for a time. And when Odom's first marriage began to deteriorate, while she was pregnant with her first son, Odom moved back in with Thurston. Odom explained what Thurston's support during this time meant to her:
My mother was always there for me. Without my mother, I think I would have been lost at that point. I was going through a troubled marriage, I was pregnant, and she was the one who I could count on.
Even after Odom got remarried and Odom and Thurston no longer lived together, they continued to spend a lot of time together.
In addition to providing unconditional support to Odom, Thurston was very involved with Odom's children. Thurston was present at the birth of Odom's firstborn son, Ahmad. Thurston was always there for Ahmad's football and baseball games, even traveling to different cities to watch him play. She was his biggest fan. Odom described Thurston's relationship with Ahmad as "extremely close." Thurston considered Ahmad to be her son.
Just as Thurston was there to support Odom and Odom's children, Odom was there to support Thurston. Odom was there for Thurston each time Thurston attempted to quit smoking. Odom was also there when Thurston was diagnosed with lung cancer
, and supported Thurston through every step of her treatment.
Odom was also there when Thurston's cancer
returned. Although Odom felt as if she had been "punched in [the] stomach" and "hit over the head with a hammer all at one time," she remained strong for Thurston. Odom explained the pain she experienced as she witnessed Thurston's body transform from chemotherapy:
As she had always been, Odom was there when Thurston was admitted to the hospital for the last time. As part of her typical routine, Odom went to Thurston's house and knocked on the door. After Thurston did not answer, Odom called several times. Finally, Thurston made it to the door. It became clear to Odom that Thurston was having a stroke. Odom called 911 and Thurston was taken to the hospital.
At the hospital, the doctor informed Odom that Thurston was on life support. Thurston never woke back up.
Odom described how she felt while Thurston spent her last days in the hospital:
Odom further explained how she felt after her mother passed away:
I think at one point, I was depressed. I don't know that—the definition of depression, but knowing she wasn't there, I didn't want to do anything. I—it was just a bad time for me because I knew that my mother was no longer with me, and I could not call her, I couldn't see her, we couldn't talk on the phone anymore, it was just—it was very difficult.
Odom described an instance when she picked up the phone to call Thurston only to remember that Thurston was not there.
During closing arguments, Odom requested that the jury award Odom $5 million in noneconomic damages. R.J. Reynolds, on the other hand, did not suggest a number to the jury. Instead, R.J. Reynolds told the jury: On the issue of comparative negligence, R.J. Reynolds argued that the jury should find Thurston 100% at fault for her death, while Odom argued that the jury should allocate "no more than 25%" fault to Thurston. The jury awarded $6 million to Odom, which was later reduced to $4.5 million in accordance with the jury's finding that Thurston was 25% at fault. See Odom , 210 So.3d at 698.
R.J. Reynolds moved for a new trial or remittitur, arguing that the jury's verdict was grossly excessive and "could only have been the result of passion and prejudice." R.J. Reynolds requested that the trial court vacate the judgment and order a new trial, "or at a minimum substantially reduce the [noneconomic] damages award to the $400,000 to $500,000 range."
After a hearing, the trial court denied R.J. Reynolds' motion. In doing so, the trial court first considered this Court's relevant precedent and the factors set forth in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Schleider
...judgment and everyday life experiences, is in the best position to make a fair assessment of these damages." Odom v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 254 So.3d 268, 276 (Fla. 2018) (quoting Angrand v. Key, 657 So. 2d 1146, 1149 (Fla. 1995) ). As the Supreme Court has further explained:Jurors know......
-
Bavelis v. Doukas
...be ‘measured in the light of the circumstances peculiar to it’ " R.J. Reynolds , 308 So.3d at 1072 (quoting Odom v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. , 254 So. 3d 268, 276 (Fla. 2018) ). A review of cases involving fraudulent conduct where punitive damages were awarded supports this award. In Bill ......
-
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Chadwell
...controversy created by the tobacco industry during the years she smoked"), disapproved of on other grounds by Odom v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 254 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 2018).8 The special jury instructions provide that, if the jury decides Mr. Chadwell is an Engle class member, then they must......
-
Goodloe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
...jury should have allowed." Ashcroft v. Calder Race Course, Inc. , 492 So. 2d 1309, 1314 (Fla. 1986) ; see also Odom v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. , 254 So. 3d 268, 276 (Fla. 2018) ("[T]his Court has recognized that measuring noneconomic damages is inherently difficult" and "has determined th......