Florida Cigarette Case Could Affect Other Products, Warn Business Groups

A tobacco lawyer has asked the Florida Supreme Court to reverse a $545,000 product liability verdict because the smoker who won wasn’t required to prove the company could have made a safer cigarette.

The case could affect what have been classified as “inherently dangerous” products, said Alvin B. Davis, representing cigarette maker Liggett Group Inc.

“Products many Floridians enjoy, such as convertible automobiles, motorcycles, personal watercraft, and a cold beer on a hot day could all be legally condemned,” lawyers for business groups wrote in a court brief.

An appellate panel had said there’s no requirement for an injured party to establish an alternative design.

The jury found the cigarettes that cancer patient Beverly Davis smoked were not just inherently dangerous but “unreasonably dangerous.” Plaintiff Davis’ lawyer, John Venable, told the justices there are no safe cigarettes but there are safer ones. His client, though, did not offer an alternative design at trial.

Unless injured parties are required to prove an alternative design would be safer, manufacturers can be required to pay damages whether or not they did anything wrong, Alvin Davis argued.

“Cigarettes are unreasonably dangerous, and we don’t dispute that,” he said. “The question is whether that alone is a sufficient basis to hold the manufacturer liable.”

Venable argued that’s too great a burden to put on injured consumers. He said the appellate judges got it right by deciding “a safer alternative is one factor to be considered among many” but that it’s not a must.

Topics Florida