Court Opinion

ID: 9960868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 15:04:00.113119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:57.669236
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                         Opinion filed April 17, 2024.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
                             ________________

                             No. 3D22-1803
                       Lower Tribunal No. 16-29336
                          ________________

             R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al.,
                                 Appellants,

                                     vs.

                          Lauren Levine, etc.,
                                  Appellee.

      An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jennifer D.
Bailey, Judge.

     King & Spalding L.L.P. and Drew T. Bell (Austin, TX); Shook, Hardy &
Bacon L.L.P, Scott A. Chesin, and Michael Rayfield (New York, NY); King &
Spalding L.L.P. and William L. Durham II (Atlanta, GA); Shook, Hardy, &
Bacon L.L.P. and Melissa N. Madsen; Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer
LLP,    David      M.     Menichetti,     and      Frank     Cruz-Alvarez
(Washington, D.C.), for appellants.

     Law Offices of William J. Wichmann, P.A., and William J.
Wichmann; Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhardt & Shipley, P.A., and T.
Hardee Bass, III (West Palm Beach); Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A.
and Bard D. Rockenbach (West Palm Beach), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.
      PER CURIAM.

      Affirmed. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Ledoux, 230 So. 3d 530, 536 (Fla.

3d DCA 2017) (“We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion

in permitting Plaintiff to introduce evidence and present argument regarding

the number of deaths caused by smoking . . . .”); Philip Morris USA Inc. v.

Garcia, 352 So. 3d 404, 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“[T]he conduct complained

of, if improper, was not ‘so highly prejudicial and inflammatory that it denied

the opposing party its right to a fair trial.’”); R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v.

Schleider, 273 So. 3d 63, 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“[The jury] found in favor

of R.J. Reynolds on the question of punitive damages and concealment;

awarded less than the compensatory amount requested for the daughter;

and attributed a higher percentage of comparative negligence to [the

decedent] than what Plaintiffs' counsel argued for in closing. These actions

by the jury strongly indicate the jury was not inflamed, prejudiced, or

improperly mislead by closing arguments.”).

                                      2