Read Blog
related attorneys
Julie Reese began smoking cigarettes in 1939, at age 10. She soon became addicted to nicotine, and by age 16, she was smoking about one pack per day. In 1994, at age 65, Reese was diagnosed with Stage II squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx. She underwent radiation treatment but faces the possibility of a recurrence. In 2003, at 74, Reese was diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which has become severe. Her prognosis is poor.
Reese sued R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., which manufactured the brands she smoked, alleging that the company sold a defective and unreasonably dangerous product, failed to warn of the health risks and addictiveness of its cigarettes, and intentionally concealed and conspired to conceal the health risks from the public.
The defendant argued, among other things, that Reese did not seriously attempt to quit and continued to smoke even after warnings began appearing on cigarettes packs in the 1960s. The defense also argued that Reese’s throat cancer could have resulted from the human papilloma virus and/or alcohol use, and that her COPD might have been caused by asthma.
The jury determined that the plaintiff was entitled to rely on the findings in Engle v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 18 PLLR 138 (Aug. 1999). Although the Engle class was later decertified, the Florida Supreme court ruled that the findings on general causation, cigarettes’ addictiveness, strict liability, and certain other findings would have res judicata effect in individual lawsuits. Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006), 25 PLLR 149 (Aug. 2006).Thus, the trial court here instructed the jury on the Engle findings.
The jury found that Reese was addicted to the nicotine in the defendant’s cigarettes; that her addiction had caused her smoking-related illnesses; and that the defendant’s negligence, defective and unreasonably dangerous product, concealment of the health risks, and conspiracy to conceal were legal causes of her injuries. It apportioned responsibility at 70 percent to Reese and 30 percent to R.J. Reynolds. The jury then awarded about $3.55 million in compensatory damages. After allocation of fault, the award totals just under $1.07 million.
The trial court has denied the defendant’s motions for a new trial or remittitur, and it has filed an appeal.
Citation: Reese v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 2007-030296-CA-24 (Fla., Miami-Dade Co. Cir. posttrial motions denied Sept. 8, 2011.)
Plaintiff counsel: Jeffrey H. Sloman and Allan B. Kaiser, both of Miami.
Plaintiff expert: Robert Proctor, tobacco industry history, Palo Alto, California.
Featured Articles
our attorneys
Client Experiences
When individuals and families face the challenges of mesothelioma and asbestos exposure—coping with complex treatments, escalating costs, and emotional strain—they turn to Ferraro Law for clarity, guidance, and steadfast support. Through meticulous case preparation, empathetic counsel, and strategic representation, our attorneys build compelling cases that secure meaningful settlements to cover medical expenses, provide financial relief, and offer a path toward stability during difficult times.
To the general public searching for a competent aggressive law firm, I must recommend The Ferraro Law firm. After my first consultation with this firm, it was clear this was the right firm to handle my case.
I had tried a few others but was not impressed. In fact, the others made me feel like just a number. I’m a licensed general contractor with many years of experience. The main thing in my business success is, and has been, communication.
Ferraro Law has given me the very best communication I could ask for. As we all know, things don’t always happen overnight. This is where communication comes in.
My thanks to the Ferraro Law firm for transparency and diligent attention to all the details in my case.
I recommend them highly with a five star rating. 10 if I could.
Mark D.
I had a truly positive experience working with Ferraro Law Firm, especially Berta, who supported me every step of the way. From the beginning, she was kind, patient, and very clear in her communication. She set realistic expectations and checked in with me often, which made a big difference during a time that felt overwhelming in my personal life.
Receiving a settlement sounds like it should be simple, but it can actually be a lot to process. Berta made everything feel manageable. The process of signing documents and receiving my settlement was smooth and stress-free, and I always felt reassured that everything was being handled properly.
What stood out to me the most was how considerate and understanding she was of me as a person, not just a case. As a mother, that meant a lot. I truly felt supported throughout the entire experience.
I’m very grateful for the help I received and would absolutely recommend Ferraro Law Firm to anyone looking for professionalism, guidance, and genuine care during a legal process.
Ebony C.
Mrs. Berta, thank you for being the best part of Ferraro Law Firm.
Regina H.
I am very pleased with Ferraro law firm and their employee Berta. She was very helpful and she kept me informed about the entire process. I would definitely recommend this company!
Roger T.
Free Case Consultation
Our Trial and Appellate Attorneys Are Ready to Fight for You
If you were seriously injured, remember that it is crucial to choose the right law firm to represent your interests. We have been doing this for more than three decades, and have the resources you need to challenge any opponent!