By Timothy S. Donahue

Top Takeaways:

• A Florida jury heard closing arguments in a lawsuit seeking $14 million from R.J. Reynolds over a smoker who later required a lung transplant.
• The case is part of Florida’s Engle progeny litigation, which allows individual smokers to pursue damages while juries decide causation and compensation.
• R.J. Reynolds disputes liability, arguing the smoker understood the risks and continued smoking despite public health warnings.

A Florida jury heard closing arguments Monday in a lawsuit seeking $14 million in compensatory damages from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. over the pain and suffering of a former smoker who later required a lung transplant, according to court proceedings.

Plaintiff’s attorneys told jurors that years of cigarette smoking caused severe, progressive lung disease, leading to respiratory failure and the eventual transplant. They argued that the smoker endured more than a decade of debilitating health consequences attributable to smoking-related illness and that R.J. Reynolds should be held financially responsible.

R.J. Reynolds disputed the damages claim, arguing that the plaintiff was aware of the health risks of smoking and continued smoking despite decades of public warnings. Defense counsel said the evidence does not support holding the company legally liable for the full scope of the plaintiff’s injuries or for the amount sought.

The case is part of Florida’s long-running Engle progeny litigation, a category of lawsuits stemming from the Florida Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc. That ruling decertified a statewide class action but allowed former class members — or their survivors — to file individual cases based on certain findings already established against tobacco companies, including that cigarettes are addictive and can cause disease.

Under the Engle framework, juries must still decide whether smoking caused the plaintiff’s illness, whether the defendant’s conduct was a legal cause of injury, and the amount of damages, if any. Defendants may also argue comparative fault, which can reduce damage awards if jurors find the smoker bears responsibility for continuing to smoke.

Engle progeny cases have produced thousands of verdicts against major tobacco companies over the past decade, with outcomes varying widely depending on the facts of each case and the level of fault assigned by juries.

The jury in the current case is expected to begin deliberations after closing arguments and jury instructions are delivered.