Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided October 24, 2012No. 1D11-3724Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLewis, J.
I agree with the majority that the issues raised by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (“Reynolds”) on cross-appeal must be affirmed. I also agree with the majority to certify a question to the Florida Supreme Court. However, for the reasons that follow, I would reverse the trial court’s ruling that punitive damages can only be awarded on the intentional tort claims and remand for a new trial on the issue of Mrs. Soffer’s entitlement to punitive damages on her negligence and strict liability claims only, and, if so, the amount of punitive damages.
Mrs. Soffer, as personal representative of the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- American Pipe & Construction Co. v. UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. ParkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 2006
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. MartinDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2010
- Liggett Group, Inc. v. EngleDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2003
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.