Walker v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

734 F.3d 1278 (2013)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Walker v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
734 F.3d 1278 (2013)

Facts

Alvin Walker and George Duke (plaintiffs) sued R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (R.J. Reynolds) for the deaths of their parents due to smoking-related illnesses. Prior to the Walker and Duke cases, R.J. Reynolds and other cigarette manufacturers were defendants in a class-action lawsuit filed by smokers and survivors in Florida state court. In that case, Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., , common issues regarding the defendants’ conduct and the damaging effects of smoking were tried in front of a jury, which found that the tobacco companies, including R.J. Reynolds, manufactured cigarettes, concealed material information, breached a duty of care, and that smoking causes diseases and cancer. The tobacco companies appealed, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the jury’s verdict and indicated that the jury’s core findings regarding tortious-conduct would have res judicata effect for future tobacco litigation in Florida. The Florida Supreme Court further found in Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, that the Engle jury’s findings were specific enough to establish relevant elements of claims brought by future Engle class-plaintiffs and that the preclusive effect of those findings did not violate R.J. Reynolds’s due-process rights because the findings were made after R.J. Reynolds had ample opportunity to argue and appeal its case. Walker’s and Duke’s cases were tried, and the jury entered verdicts partially in favor of Walker and Duke after being instructed that R.J. Reynolds marketed defective and dangerous cigarettes and was negligent, per the findings in Engle. R.J. Reynolds appealed on the grounds that its due-process rights were violated by the application of res judicata to the Walker and Duke lawsuits because the Engle jury did not make sufficiently specific findings.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Pryor, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 734,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership