R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
PAUL R. LARKIN, JR., AND CARYN O. NEWBORN, ETC., APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company appeals a jury verdict and final judgment in favor of the husband and daughter of the late Carole Larkin on claims for fraudulent concealment and conspiracy to fraudulently conceal. The court affirms the jury verdict on fraudulent concealment claims and reverses the trial court's grant of a new trial on the product liability claim, holding that the trial court's use of the risk-utility jury instruction was proper.
The court affirmed the jury verdict and judgment on the fraudulent concealment and conspiracy claims, finding no merit to RJR's appeal arguments. On cross-appeal, the court reversed the trial court's grant of a new trial on the product liability claim because the risk-utility test was one of two permissible legal theories and the plaintiffs properly elected to proceed under it.
[1] A trial court's order granting a new trial on product liability is reversed and remanded with directions to reinstate the jury verdict when the court did not have the ben…
[2] A party who proposes jury instructions that include features of both the consumer expectations test and the risk utility test cannot later claim error based on the trial…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Mr. Larkin and his daughter elected to proceed under the "risk utility" test, one of the two permissible legal theories and jury instructions for proving their product liability claim.”
Establishes that the plaintiffs validly chose the risk-utility test, making the trial court's instruction proper.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarole Larkin died, and her husband Paul Larkin and daughter Caryn Newborn brought claims against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company for fraudulent conceal…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Consumer Expectations Test cases and more on FLexlaw
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco. Company (“RJR”) appeals a jury verdict and final judgment in favor of the husband and daughter of the late Carole Larkin regarding their claims for fraudulent concealment and conspiracy to fraudulently conceal, and the denial of RJR’s motion for new; trial on those claims. Mr. Larkin and his daughter cross-appeal the trial court order granting in part RJR’s post-trial motion for new trial. The trial court’s order, limited to the claim of product liability for a defective product and any damages regarding that claim, was based on the court’s use of the product liability “risk utility” jury instruction.
We affirm without further elaboration the issues raised by RJR in its appeal, finding no merit to ’RJR’s arguments. On the cross-appeal, we reverse the trial court’s order granting a new trial to RJR and remand with instructions to reinstate the jury verdict on the product liability claim and damages.1 Font v. Union Carbide Corp., 199 So.3d 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).2
RJR itself proposed non-standard jury instructions (Nos. 17 and 19) which included features of both the “consumer expectations” test, Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (Am. Law Inst. 1965), and the “risk utility” test, Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 2 (Am/ Law Inst. 1998). RJR also proposed a special instruction (No. 10) stating that consumer *888expectations regarding RJR’s cigarettes were expressly preempted by federal law. Mr. Larkin and his daughter elected to proceed under the “risk utility” test, one of the two permissible legal theories and jury instructions for proving their product liability claim. In re Std. Jury Instructions in Civil Cases—Report No. 13-01 (Products Liability), 160 So.3d 869, 874 (Fla. 2015). On such a record, the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the consumer expectations test exclusively has not been shown to have “resulted in a miscarriage of justice,” or to have been “calculated to confuse or mislead the jury,” Font, 199 So.3d at 326.
The final judgment and the order denying the motion for new trial as to the claims for fraudulent concealment and conspiracy to fraudulently conceal are, affirmed in all respects; the order granting the motion for new trial on product liability for a defective product is reversed and remanded with directions to reinstate the jury verdict on that claim.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
Authorities Cited
- Huntley Johnson v. Thigpen, 788 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- In re Standard Jury Instructions IN Civil Cases-Report NO. 13-01 (Products Liability), 160 So. 3d 869 (Fla. 2015)
- Font v. Union Carbide Corp., 199 So. 3d 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)