Topics: Engle Progeny, Tobacco Litigation
R.J. Reynolds Prevails in Engle Progeny Lawsuit as Jurors Find Against Plaintiff on Addiction and Causation Question
Posted by Arlin Crisco on Sep 11, 2014 2:58:26 PM
Jacksonville, FL—Jurors took less than six hours to find in favor of tobacco manufacturer R.J. Reynolds in an Engle progeny tobacco suit by the son of a 57-year-old smoker who died from lung cancer. Ken Ellis v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
The six jurors answered "no" to the question of whether Betty Owens, who died after more than 40 years of smoking, was addicted to cigarettes and whether her addiction was the legal cause of her lung cancer. Ken Ellis, Owens's son, had sued R.J. Reynolds in the Engle progeny proceeding, claiming that the tobacco manufacturer had concealed the dangers of smoking while furthering Owens's addiction to cigarettes.
R.J. Reynolds made the issues of addiction and causation, fundamental elements to prevail in an Engle progeny suit, a focus of its defense. In closing statements yesterday, Steven Geise, counsel for R.J. Reynolds, argued that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Owens's adenocarcinoma cancer was caused by smoking. Geise reminded jurors in that there were no official medical records linking Owens's cancer to smoking. Geise also noted that Dr. Ronald Wright, Ellis's expert witness, had never examined Owens personally and had given conflicting answers over the years regarding the link between adenocarcinoma and smoking.
Geise also told jurors Ellis failed to carry his burden of proving Owens was addicted to cigarettes because Owens had never received that diagnosis from a physician who treated her. "I don't know what you do with that. You can't put that on a scale because it doesn't exist. It's a burden they have, that they can't prove," Geise said.
Instead, Geise characterized Owens as someone who smoked out of enjoyment and who freely complied with her children's request that she not smoke in their houses or around her grandchildren. "Mrs. Owens told her children she enjoyed smoking, it relaxed her, and she liked to smoke. Those are the reasons she offered, for smoking. She didn't say she was addicted. She didn't say she was unable to quit," Geise said.
By contrast, Ellis's attorney Laura Shamp reminded jurors that Dr. Tonia Werner, a psychiatrist and expert on addiction, considered Betty Owens addicted to cigarettes based on a review of Owens's history and the criteria established by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Shamp then criticized the testimony of defendant's witness, Jill Hayes, and the reasoning behind her opinion that Owens was not addicted to cigarettes. "(Hayes) said she thought (Owens) could quit. That was one of the reasons she told you," Shamp said. "If that's the standard, she could quit, no one is addicted. Nobody. Everybody who testified said addicted people can quit."
R.J. Reynolds's win in the case is the second Engle progeny win in a row for the tobacco manufacturer. Last week, a Dade County jury found in favor of R.J. Reynolds in an Engle suit brought by the family of a smoker who died after suffering from years respiratory problems. Baum v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
Topics: Negligence, Tobacco Litigation
In Vehicle Rollover Trial, Expert Criticizes Ford's Roof Safety Testing for Its Excursion SUV
Posted by Arlin Crisco on Sep 10, 2014 2:29:18 PM
The first day of trial in a wrongful death suit against Ford Motor Co. over its Excursion SUV saw a safety expert call Ford “irresponsible” for failing to physically test the Excursion's roof prior to a 2009 fatal rollover crash involving one of the vehicles.
Brian Herbst, a vehicle roof safety expert, described multiple structural failures in the roof of a 2000-model-year Ford Excursion, causing it to crush during a rollover crash that killed Rafael Trejo. During testimony Tuesday, Herbst said that Ford typically performed physical safety testing on its vehicles' roofs. Herbst testified that such tests would have revealed the likelihood the Excursion’s roof would be crushed in a rollover, but “for whatever reason (Ford) chose not to do any physical testing on this particular” model's roof."
Trejo’s wife Teresa Trejo is suing Ford for $27 million, claiming the vehicle’s defective design and the company’s failure to properly test the vehicle caused her husband’s death when the roof collapsed.
In opening statements Tuesday, Teresa Trejo’s attorney Jody Mask told jurors that even Ford's simulated testing of the Excursion's roof showed that it could only support 1.12 times the vehicle’s weight, while company design criteria required that lighter vehicles support at least 1.725 times their own weight. “The Excursion failed, and failed miserably,” in its simulated testing, Mask said.
However, Ford’s attorney Vaughn Crawford argued in opening statements that physics, rather than the vehicle's roof design, caused Rafael Trejo’s death. Using a vehicle model to demonstrate, Crawford told jurors in opening statements that the “forces and violence of (the Trejos’) two-and-a-half rollover crash” threw Rafael Trejo inside the SUV, fatally injuring him before the roof collapsed. “That’s physics, and it’s real engineering,” Crawford said.
Ford produced the Excursion, the largest and heaviest SUV in North America during its production run, from 2000 through 2005. It stopped selling the model in the U.S. in 2005 and completely ceased sales one year later.
Topics: Products Liability, Wrongful Death
Engle Trading Card Tuesday Series 2, #1: Howard Acosta
Posted by Arlin Crisco on Sep 9, 2014 1:00:08 PM
In the nearly eight years since the Florida Supreme Court decertified Engle v. Liggett Group Inc., CVN has broadcast more than 100 Engle progeny proceedings. We first introduced our Engle Trading Cards in 2011 as a light-hearted yet useful way to track some of the key individuals and trials in the ongoing litigation. Because those cards were so popular, and because Engle progeny cases continue to play a key role in tobacco litigation, we're introducing Series 2 of our the trading cards. Each Tuesday, we'll issue a new card featuring a case or attorney that has made a significant impact in this landmark litigation.