R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Davis
| Decision Date | 25 April 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D16–1994,3D16–1994 |
| Citation | 245 So.3d 929 |
| Parties | R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellant, v. Patsy Elaine DAVIS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Booker Terry Davis, deceased, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
Patsy Elaine DAVIS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Booker Terry Davis, deceased, Appellee.
No. 3D16–1994
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Opinion filed April 25, 2018
Jones Day, Donald B. Ayer (Washington, DC), and Charles R.A. Morse (New York, NY); Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Benjamine Reid, and Jeffrey A. Cohen, for appellant.
Freidin Brown and Philip Freidin; The Mills Firm, P.A., John S. Mills and Courtney Brewer (Tallahassee); The Alvarez Law Firm and Alex Alvarez ; David J. Sales (Jupiter), for appellee.
Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ, and LUCK, JJ.
FERNANDEZ, J.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company appeals the trial court's decision to grant a new trial in the underlying wrongful death tobacco case. We find the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a new trial. We thus reverse the trial court's order and remand the case for entry of judgment for R.J. Reynolds in accordance with the jury's verdict. In addition, we vacate the trial court's show-cause order.
The plaintiff, Patsy Elaine Davis, is the personal representative of the estate of her deceased husband, Booker Terry Davis. Davis sued R.J. Reynolds for Booker's wrongful death. Davis contended that Booker was a member of the class certified in Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006), alleging that Booker contracted lung cancer in 1994, as a result of his addiction to cigarettes manufactured by R.J. Reynolds, and that he consequently died in 1997.
At trial, Davis had to prove that Booker was a member of the Engle class; he was required to show that he was addicted to smoking and that this was a legal cause of his injuries. In order to prove this, Davis provided her own testimony, as well as the deposition testimony of an addiction expert. R.J. Reynolds countered this testimony by calling its own addiction expert, Dr. Debra Barnett, to testify that Booker was not addicted to cigarettes.
Davis claims that at trial, during an examination of Dr. Barnett, R.J. Reynolds's counsel referred to the outcome of another tobacco case, Fanali v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 50 2008 CA 000800 (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. 2015), which prejudicially affected the jury's verdict. During cross-examination, Davis's counsel questioned Dr. Barnett's credibility regarding her opinion that Booker was not addicted to nicotine because, in Fanali, Dr. Barnett testified that a smoker who smoked five packs of cigarettes per day was not addicted. This exchange took place:
Q: And in all those cases [in which you previously testified], those are cases where you found that there was no addiction; correct?
A: Yes, that is true.
...
Q: Okay. And all of them—well, what's the least amount of smoking in any of those cases?
A: I'm not sure if I could accurately recall over all of these years, but—
Q: Okay.
A: —I—I believe that in one of the cases perhaps half a pack per day.
...
Q: Okay. What's the most you have?
[Reynolds' Counsel]: Objection, Your Honor, relevance.
The Court: Overruled.
A: The most amount? Five packs per day.
Q. Five packs a day, and you found that he wasn't addicted?
A: That's correct.
Q: Wow. Five packs a day is—what is that, a hundred cigarettes a day; am I right?
R.J. Reynolds then attempted on redirect to rehabilitate Dr. Barnett after Davis's counsel attacked her credibility. Thus, on its redirect examination of Dr. Barnett, the following exchange took place:
Q: You—you were asked questions about other cases including cases in which you have analyzed smokers who smoked up to five packs a day, do you remember that?...
A: That was the highest. I was asked what was the highest. That was the highest.
Q: And, in fact, you told the jury that you actually, under a DSM analysis using your forensic psychiatry, that you concluded that smoker was not addicted; right?
A: That is correct.
Q: And you testified in the trial, a
To continue reading
Request your trial