Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Escambia County $23 Billion Tobacco Case

December 5, 2017

In a victory for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, the Florida Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up an Escambia case that initially involved a more than $23 billion verdict against the cigarette maker.

The estate of Michael Johnson Sr., a longtime smoker who died at age 36, asked the Supreme Court to take up the case after the 1st District Court of Appeal in February ordered a new trial. A three-judge panel of the appeals court blasted an attorney for the estate, pointing to the “depth and pervasiveness” of improper closing arguments in the Escambia County case.

The Supreme Court, as is common, did not explain its reasons for declining to take up the case, though two justices, R. Fred Lewis and Peggy Quince, disagreed with the decision, according to an order posted on the Supreme Court website.

A jury initially awarded nearly $16.9 million in compensatory damages and $23.6 billion in punitive damages to the estate. But the trial judge later tossed out the punitive-damages award as excessive and ordered a new trial for R.J. Reynolds on punitive damages.

The February ruling by the appeals court required a new trial on the overall issues in the case, not just punitive damages. A brief filed in the Supreme Court said Johnson started smoking at age 13 and was diagnosed with lung cancer at age 35.

The case is one of thousands in Florida that are known as “Engle progeny” cases. Such cases are linked to a 2006 Supreme Court ruling that established critical findings about the health dangers of smoking and misrepresentation by cigarette makers.

by The News Service of Florida


3 Responses to “Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Escambia County $23 Billion Tobacco Case”

  1. David Huie Green on December 9th, 2017 1:13 pm

    “Population control”

    If tobacco killed quicker, people would know to avoid it. As it is, most live long enough to produce full families.

    David for healthy, happy lives

  2. chad on December 5th, 2017 2:04 pm

    Population control

  3. bar on December 5th, 2017 9:12 am

    Im sorry he dies at a young age but it was his choice to smoke as millions of others. if they sue for him they should sue for everyone that smokes.why do they keep selling them if they so bad for you.just like drinking,yes it kills you but ive seen no one taking it out of the stores either.the gov.makes to much much on both to stop selling sorry but take the money and help people quit.

Have a comment on this story?

We welcome your comments on this story, but there are some rules to follow::

(1) Be Nice. No comments that slander another, no racism, no sexism, no personal attacks.

(2) No Harrassing Comments. If someone says something bad about you, don't respond. That's childish.

(3) No Libel. That's saying something is not true about someone. Don't do it.

(4) Keep it clean. Nothing vulgar, obscene or sexually related. No profanity or obvious substitutions. Period.

(5) reserves the right to remove any comments that violate our rules or we think to be inappropriate. We are not responsible for what is posted. Comments may not appear right away until they are approved by a moderator.

(6) Limit your comments to the subject in this story only, and limit comments to 300 words or less. Do not post copyrighted material. Comments will not be added to stories that are over 30 days old.

(7) No posts may advertise a commercial business or political group, or link to another commercial web site or political site of any kind.