R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Lauren Levine, etc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: April 17, 2024
• Docket: 2022-1803
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed April 17, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________

No. 3D22-1803 Lower Tribunal No. 16-29336 ________________

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Appellants,

vs.

Lauren Levine, etc., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jennifer D. Bailey, Judge.

King & Spalding L.L.P. and Drew T. Bell (Austin, TX); Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P, Scott A. Chesin, and Michael Rayfield (New York, NY); King & Spalding L.L.P. and William L. Durham II (Atlanta, GA); Shook, Hardy, & Bacon L.L.P. and Melissa N. Madsen; Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, David M. Menichetti, and Frank Cruz-Alvarez (Washington, D.C.), for appellants.

Law Offices of William J. Wichmann, P.A., and William J. Wichmann; Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhardt & Shipley, P.A., and T. Hardee Bass, III (West Palm Beach); Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A. and Bard D. Rockenbach (West Palm Beach), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Ledoux, 230 So. 3d 530, 536 (Fla.

3d DCA 2017) (“We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion

in permitting Plaintiff to introduce evidence and present argument regarding

the number of deaths caused by smoking . . . .”); Philip Morris USA Inc. v.

Garcia, 352 So. 3d 404, 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“[T]he conduct complained

of, if improper, was not ‘so highly prejudicial and inflammatory that it denied

the opposing party its right to a fair trial.’”); R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v.

Schleider, 273 So. 3d 63, 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“[The jury] found in favor

of R.J. Reynolds on the question of punitive damages and concealment;

awarded less than the compensatory amount requested for the daughter;

and attributed a higher percentage of comparative negligence to [the

decedent] than what Plaintiffs' counsel argued for in closing. These actions

by the jury strongly indicate the jury was not inflamed, prejudiced, or

improperly mislead by closing arguments.”).