On Friday, July 18, 2014, a jury for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida passed down a substantial verdict against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. The plaintiff, Cynthia Robinson, was awarded $16.8 billion in compensatory damages and $23.6 billion in punitive damages. Robinson brought the action after her husband, Michael Johnson Sr., died in 1996 of lung cancer at the age of 36. He began smoking Kool brand cigarettes when he was 13 years old. Johnson was a longshoreman and hotel shuttle bus driver and was married to Robinson from 1990 to 1996.

Robinson’s case was originally part of a class action suit, Engle v. Liggett Group Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006). The jury in Engle awarded damages of more than $145 billion to the class members with smoking-related diseases or the deceased smokers’ family members. However, the Engle decision was overturned by the Florida Supreme Court in 2006 on grounds that the causation of smoking-related injuries was too individualized. The Florida Supreme Court advised the plaintiffs in Engle that they could individually file suits which Robinson did.

During the four week trial, Robinson claimed that R.J. Reynolds neglected to inform consumers of the dangers of smoking tobacco. Robinson further claimed that due to this negligence, her husband became addicted to smoking tobacco which ultimately lead to his death. Willie Gary, Robinson’s attorney, stated “the jury seemed most persuaded by 1994 C-Span footage of tobacco industry executives claiming smoking did not cause cancer and was not addictive.”

After several hours of deliberation, the jury came back with one of the largest settlements for a single plaintiff in Florida state history. Gary stated “this jury sent a message and gave 23.6 billion reasons why you can’t lie to consumers.” Jeffery Raborn, the Vice President of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, said “[t]his verdict goes far beyond the realm of reasonableness and fairness and is completely inconsistent with the evidence presented.” Raborn also said that R.J. Reynolds plans to file post-trial motions to appeal the decision which they believe will be overturned.

Although it is uncertain what the appellate court may decide should R.J. Reynolds appeal the award, an award of this size emphasizes the responsibility companies like R.J. Reynolds owe to consumers when marketing their tobacco products.