Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas

Summary

The Florida Supreme Court reviewed whether applying the Phase I findings from Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc. as res judicata in an individual tobacco-injury action violated the defendants’ due process rights. The court answered the certified question in the negative, upheld the plaintiff’s general verdict on strict liability, and held that the Engle negligence finding also established the conduct element of negligence when combined with individual causation and damages. The court approved in part and disapproved in part the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision.

Holdings

1. The Engle Phase I findings establishing the defendants' common liability for approved causes of action may be given res judicata effect in individual Engle damages actions. Individual plaintiffs need not relitigate the conduct elements established by those findings.
2. Accepting the Engle Phase I findings as res judicata does not violate the defendants' due-process rights.
3. An individual Engle plaintiff pursuing strict liability must establish membership in the Engle class, individual causation by showing that addiction to smoking the Engle defendants' nicotine-containing cigarettes was a legal cause of the alleged injury, and damages. The plaintiff need not prove a specific defect in specific cigarettes because the Engle Phase I findings establish the defendants' common conduct and that their cigarettes were defective and unreasonably dangerous.
4. The Phase I negligence finding conclusively established the defendants' failure to exercise the degree of care a reasonable cigarette manufacturer would exercise under like circumstances. An individual Engle plaintiff need only prove class membership, individual causation, and damages; a separate negligence-causation instruction and finding beyond the individual-causation finding are not required.

Questions Presented

1. Whether accepting as res judicata the eight Engle Phase I common-liability findings violated the defendants' due-process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether an Engle plaintiff pursuing strict liability must prove a specific defect in specific cigarettes and a separate causal connection between that defect and the plaintiff's injury.
3. Whether the Second District properly rejected negligence as a basis for the general verdict because the individual jury was not given a separate negligence-causation instruction and did not make a separate negligence-causation finding.
4. Whether the Florida Supreme Court should revisit its prior decision in Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc.

Disposition

approved