Florida Lawsuit Over Smoker’s Death Results in $80M Award

The daughter of a former smoker who died of lung cancer has been awarded $80 million by a Florida jury in a lawsuit brought against R.J. Reynolds. 

The Florida smoker’s lawsuit was brought by the daughter of James Cayce Horner, who died in 1996 after 60 years of smoking. Following trial, a Levy County jury found that R.J. Reynolds was 90% at fault for Horner’s death.

Dianne Webb, Horner’s daughter, was awarded $8 million in compensatory damages and an additional $72 million in punitive damages. Because Horner was found to be 10% responsible for his own death, R.J. Reynolds will only have to pay 90% of the compensatory damages. However, it will have to pay the full punitive damages amount if the verdict holds up on appeal.

The decision breaks an 8-case winning streak for the tobacco industry, which followed a $300 million verdict against R.J. Reynolds in November 2009 in a lawsuit brought by Cindy Naugle, who accused the company of causing her emphysema and ill health because it concealed the negative side effects of smoking decades before. However, even the victorious cases will likely have to undergo an appeals process that could last years.

The case was one of about 8,000 smoker lawsuits filed against tobacco companies in Florida, known as Engle Progeny lawsuits. The individual claims stem from a 2006 decision by the Florida Supreme Court, in Engle v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., to vacate a class action verdict from 2000, which awarded $145 billion to an estimated 700,000 smokers. Although the appeals court overturned the award, plaintiffs were allowed to file individual claims and use the liability findings from the class action trial.

The ruling does allow juries in current cases to see previous jury findings that determined cigarettes are defective and dangerous products. Tobacco companies have called the ruling unfair and unconstitutional, because it allows juries to look at a previous jury’s findings. However, plaintiffs have pointed out that they must still prove that the addiction caused the damages, as opposed to the damage being caused by the choice of the smoker to start smoking.