How E-Cigarettes Featured in a $42.5 Million South Florida Tobacco Verdict
"These same companies are still in business, still selling nicotine and children are still at risk," said Stuart Ratzan, who told jurors R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris are targeting children through their involvement in e-cigarette companies.
December 09, 2019 at 09:00 AM
6 minute read
Stuart Ratzan and Stuart Weissman of the Ratzan Law Group in Miami teamed with Edward Zebersky of Zebersky & Payne in Fort Lauderdale and John Crabtree of Crabtree & Auslander in Key Biscayne to obtain a $42.5 million verdict for a Florida man who blamed tobacco behemoths R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Philip Morris USA Inc. for the death of his wife.
Irene Gloger was 47 when she died of lung cancer. But she was just 14 when she picked up her first cigarette in 1963, which Ratzan argued was exactly what Big Tobacco wanted.
"She was right inside their target age range at the time they were advertising their products on 'The Flintstones' and 'The Beverly Hillbillies,' and showing pictures of young, glamorous women and men and young movie stars and young athletes," Ratzan said.
Her brand of choice was Newports, whose slogan was "Alive with pleasure!" But Gloger didn't love cigarettes, according to Ratzan. She was dependent on them, as were more than half the women her age.
When her father-in-law was diagnosed with emphysema in 1985, Gloger tried to quit, but ultimately switched to low-tar and low-nicotine cigarettes, believing they would be better for her health.
But instead, they caused her to inhale more deeply, so that smoke reached the farthest edges of her lungs. When Gloger did quit smoking in 1994, it was too late, according to court pleadings. She died two years later, of a cancer that began at the edges of her lungs.
The trial featured testimony from Gloger's husband, daughter, and the best friend with whom she had smoked her first cigarette.
Though e-cigaretes didn't exist in Gloger's era, they featured heavily in the damages portion of the trial, when the defendants had the chance to argue their companies had changed since the days of manipulating the addictive properties of their products, concealing health risks and targeting children.
Ratzan and his team claimed that instead of marketing the electronic version as a way for cigarette smokers to quit nicotine altogether, the defendants had been promoting such flavors as mixed berry, and cream and mint, and using images aimed at youngsters.
"In 2018 the Surgeon General and the CDC [Center for Disease Control and Prevention] declared an epidemic in this country for American youth, kids in middle school and high school on e-cigarettes, and the defendants had their hands right in that," Ratzan said.
Philip Morris owns a major stake in Juul Labs Inc., while R.J. Reynolds owns the Vuse Digital Vapor Cigarette.
"This Engle litigation is now proving to be extremely important as a method for making a difference in the world we live in right now, even though this conduct occurred in 1953 to 1999, these same companies are still in business, still selling nicotine and children are still at risk," Ratzan said.
R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris denied any liability, and denied they targeted children and used misleading adverts. Their attorneys—Jennifer Kane of King & Spalding in Atlanta, and Benjamine Reid, Douglas Chumbley and Amy Hurwitz of Carlton Fields in Miami—did not respond to requests for comment by deadline.
The plaintiff's team submitted evidence that the defendants have fought bans against flavored e-cigarettes, and pointed to a rise of e-cigarette usage among high school children. It also presented research suggesting they caused lung cancer and bladder lesions in lab mice.
"While a lot of health officials say that e-cigarettes are safer than cigarettes, they're not safe," Ratzan said. "The motivations are still to addict as many people as possible, as young as possible, because the younger you addict them the more likely they're going to be lifetime customers."
|Trial take two
The biggest obstacle for Ratzan and his team was having to try the case again, after having already won a $17.5 million verdict in 2018.
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed that, finding the lower court should have limited Kenneth Gloger's testimony about discussions he had with his wife's doctors. This time around, the plaintiff's team couldn't ask Gloger what doctors told him and his wife about her diagnosis.
Jurors more than doubled the prior award, finding Gloger was just 10% at fault for her death because of the defendants' omissions and misrepresentations about the dangers of smoking. They awarded $15 million in compensation, $11 million in punitive damages from Philip Morris and $16.5 million from R.J. Reynolds.
Ratzan said he urged jurors to exercise caution during deliberations, reminding them that the law won't allow a gigantic, billion-dollar verdict against the defendants, "even if that's what it would take to make them really notice."
"It's one case at a time," Ratzan said. "The degree of wrongdoing combined with the degree of responsibility that the jury must have felt regarding this case in this time, given this epidemic could lead a jury to a verdict that's out of proportion to the one family that we're talking about here," Ratzan said.
The point of punitive verdicts against tobacco companies, in Ratzan's view, should be to send a collective message to other businesses that might seek to defraud or conspire to defraud American consumers.
Read the verdict:
Case: Kenneth Gloger v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Case no.: 2011-023377-CA-01
Description: Product liability, tobacco litigation
Filing date: July 27, 2011
Verdict date: Nov. 8, 2019
Judge: Miami-Dade Circuit Judge David C. Miller
Plaintiffs attorneys: Stuart Ratzan and Stuart Weissman, the Ratzan Law Group, Miami; Edward Zebersky, Zebersky & Payne, Fort Lauderdale; John Crabtree of Crabtree & Auslander, Key Biscayne
Defense attorneys: Jennifer Kane of King & Spalding, Atlanta; Benjamine Reid, Douglas Chumbley and Amy Hurwitz, Carlton Fields, Miami
Verdict amount: $42.5 million
More verdicts:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Tampa Jury Returns $5.8M Verdict Against Insurer Who Denied Coverage
2 minute readEven the Chief Judge Noted the Cost of This Broward Case
Marriott's $52M Data Breach Settlement Points to Emerging Trend
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250