Products Liability Law Reporter

Lois Stucky regularly smoked cigarettes manufactured by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. In 1997, at the age of 51, she was diagnosed as having pneumonia and later, lung cancer. Despite chemotherapy and radiation, she died of her disease approximately a year after her diagnoses. She is survived by her three children and her sister.

Stucky’s sister, individually and on behalf of her estate, sued R.J. Reynolds, alleging the defendant’s cigarettes were defectively designed. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant’s products, when used as intended, were highly likely to cause or contribute to lung and other cancers, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cardiovascular disease. Additionally, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant’s cigarettes lacked sufficient filters and marked vent holes and delivered an excessive amount of nicotine. Moreover, the plaintiffs asserted, the defendant failed to sell smaller cigarettes, list the ingredients in its cigarettes, and provide fewer cigarettes per pack.

Suit did not claim lost income or past medical expenses.

The jury awarded $300,000 in compensatory damages, finding Stucky 50 percent at fault. In the second phase of trial, the jury awarded $16 million in punitive damages.

Citation: Coates v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 1997-CA-004541-O (Fla. Cir. Ct. Orange Cnty. Mar. 28, 2019).

Plaintiff counsel: William Ogle and Parama Liberman, both of Daytona Beach, Fla.; and Joshua Gale, DeLand, Fla.

Comment: In Philip Morris USA v. Gloger, 2019 WL 1271659 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2019), an intermediate appellate court reversed a final judgment entered after a jury verdict for the plaintiff, the husband of a deceased smoker. 37 PLLR 61 (Aug./Sept. 2018). The appellate court found that a new trial was warranted based on the trial court’s abuse of discretion in allowing the husband to testify without limitation about his initial out-of-court conversations with his wife’s treating oncologists, who opined that she had primary lung cancer that was caused by smoking cigarettes. The appellate court concluded that although the oncologists’ statements were not hearsay and were therefore admissible, the trial court should have given a stronger limiting instruction to prevent the jury from conflating its dual determinations of whether the plaintiff’s wife had died of lung cancer and whether the plaintiff was entitled to pain and suffering damages.