Carter v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
2000 WL 1726779, 778 So. 2d 932 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a product liability action for a latent or 'creeping' disease, the statute of limitations accrues only when the accumulated effects of the deleterious substance manifest themselves to the claimant in a way that provides some evidence of a causal relationship to the manufactured product. The determination of this moment is generally a question of fact for a jury to resolve.
Facts:
- Grady Carter smoked unfiltered Lucky Strike cigarettes, a product of the American Tobacco Company (ATC), from 1947 until 1972, and then smoked another company's product until 1991.
- On January 29, 1991, Carter coughed up blood, consulted a medical dictionary which listed lung cancer and tuberculosis as possible causes, and quit smoking that day.
- Carter saw Dr. Gary Decker on February 4, 1991, who observed a spot on his lung x-ray and informed Carter it could be several things, including cancer or tuberculosis.
- Dr. Decker referred Carter to a specialist, Dr. Bruce Yergin, whom he saw the next day, February 5, 1991.
- Dr. Yergin observed a lung mass he described as 'highly suggestive' of a tumor but stated that further tests were necessary to make an accurate diagnosis.
- On February 14, 1991, following a bronchoscopy, Dr. Yergin definitively diagnosed Carter with lung cancer and informed him of the diagnosis.
Procedural Posture:
- Grady Carter and his wife filed a suit for negligence and strict liability against the American Tobacco Company (ATC) in a Florida trial court on February 10, 1995.
- The case was later amended to name Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation as the defendant following its merger with ATC.
- The trial court denied Brown & Williamson's pretrial motions and ruled that the statute of limitations question was an issue for the jury.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Carters, finding the action was not barred by the statute of limitations.
- Brown & Williamson, as the defendant-appellant, appealed to the Florida First District Court of Appeal.
- The First District Court of Appeal (an intermediate appellate court) reversed the trial court's judgment, holding as a matter of law that the Carters' claim was barred by the four-year statute of limitations.
- The Carters, as petitioners, sought review from the Supreme Court of Florida, which granted review based on an express and direct conflict with a prior decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a product liability action involving a latent disease, does the four-year statute of limitations begin to run as a matter of law when a plaintiff first experiences symptoms and is told by a doctor of a potential connection to a serious disease, or is the determination of when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the causal connection between the injury and the product a question of fact for the jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Harding, J.
No, the statute of limitations does not begin to run as a matter of law at the first experience of symptoms; the determination of when a plaintiff knew or should have known of the causal connection is a question of fact for the jury when reasonable inferences can be drawn from the evidence. A cause of action for a latent disease accrues when the injury manifests in a way that supplies some evidence of a causal relationship to the product. Here, because Carter's doctor presented tuberculosis as an alternative diagnosis to cancer, a reasonable jury could conclude that Carter did not have notice of the probable cause of his injury until he received the definitive cancer diagnosis on February 14, 1991. The appellate court overstepped its role by reweighing the evidence and substituting its judgment for the jury's, as there is no 'magic moment' of discovery in such cases, and reasonable people could differ as to when the causal link should have been known.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the application of the discovery rule for statutes of limitations in latent disease product liability cases in Florida, following the precedent set in Celotex Corp. v. Copeland. It firmly establishes that the question of when a plaintiff 'should have discovered' the cause of their injury is almost always a factual question for the jury, not a legal question for a judge. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants in such cases to obtain summary judgment or have a plaintiff's verdict overturned on appeal based on a statute of limitations defense, thereby protecting a plaintiff's right to have their case heard by a jury.
