PHILIP MORRIS USA INC.
v.
THE ESTATE OF ROBERTA EISEN, ETC.
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.
The trial court properly instructed the jury on the distinction between 'resident' for Engle class membership purposes and 'legal resident' or 'domicile,' and did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for new trial based on isolated expert witness remarks that were promptly disregarded by the jury instruction.
[1] The term 'resident' for purposes of Engle class membership has a distinct meaning separate from 'legal resident' or 'domicile' and should not be equated with those statut…
[2] Isolated remarks by an expert witness warrant a new trial only when the remarks are sufficiently prejudicial to vitiate the entire trial, and prompt jury instructions to…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Being a 'resident' for Engle class membership purposes has a different meaning from 'legal resident' or 'domicile' – terms that typically arise out of a statutory context – and we decline to equate the two terms.”
Discussion of proper jury instruction on resident status in Engle class membership context
This is an appeal from a verdict in favor of the Estate of Roberta Eisen in an Engle progeny tobacco products liability case. Philip Morris USA Inc. a…
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 Mistrial Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
The Estate of Roberta Eisen, etc.,
Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge. Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., and Scott A. Chesin, Michael Rayfield (New York, N.Y.), and Melissa N. Madsen; Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, and Geoffrey J. Michael, and Frank Cruz-Alvarez (Washington, DC), for appellant Philip Morris USA Inc.; King & Spalding, L.L.P., and Drew T. Bell (Austin, TX), William L. Durham II, and Philip R. Green (Atlanta, GA), for appellant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Eaton & Wolk, PL, and Douglas F. Eaton, for appellee. Before SCALES, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Chacon v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 254 So. 3d 1172,
1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“Being a ‘resident’ for Engle class membership purposes has a different meaning from ‘legal resident’ or ‘domicile’ – terms that typically arise out of a statutory context – and we decline to equate the two terms. We conclude that the trial court properly instructed the jury regarding the distinction between ‘resident’ and ‘citizen,’ and affirm . . . .”);
see also Nolan v. Kalbfleisch, 369 So. 3d 346, 347-48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023) (concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for new trial based on an expert witness’s isolated remarks that the court promptly instructed the jury to disregard, observing that “[a] witness’s comment warrants a mistrial only when it is prejudicial enough ‘to vitiate the entire trial.’” (quoting Hamilton v. State, 703 So. 2d 1038, 1041 (Fla. 1997)));
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Cuculino, 165 So. 3d 36, 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (“Contrary to Philip Morris’s assertion, the verdict reflects that the jury was not inflamed or highly prejudiced by the improper comments because the jury did not completely find in favor of Mr. Cuculino. . . . [T]he jury found in favor of Philip Morris on Mr. Cuculino’s intentional tort claims, thereby precluding the jury from reaching the issue of punitive damages, which is often substantially more than compensatory damages in Engle-progeny cases.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. The Est. of Roberta Eisen, 369 So. 3d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…arise out of a statutory context – and we decline to equate the two terms. We conclude that the trial court properly instructed the jury regarding the distinction between ‘resident’ and ‘citizen,’ and affirm . . . .”); see also Nolan v. Kalbfleisch, 369 So. 3d 346, 347-48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023) (concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for new trial based on an expert witness’s isolated remarks that the court promptly instructed the jury to disregard, observing that “[a] witnes…
-
Jackson v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)…jury four times about the proper role of the evidence from the earlier case—twice before H.E. testified, once before O’Steen testified, and again before deliberations. The law presumes the jury followed these instructions. See Nolan v. Kalbfleisch, 369 So. 3d 346, 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023) (quoting Carter v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 778 So. 2d 932, 942 (Fla. 2000)). And the presence of these instructions reinforces our conclusion that Appellant was not unfairly prejudiced. See McLean, 934 So. 2d at 12…
-
Sloan v. Fisher (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Hamilton v. State, 703 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1997)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Cuculino, 165 So. 3d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- Chacon v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 254 So. 3d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Philip Morris USA Inc. v. The Est. of Roberta Eisen, 369 So. 3d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)