REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY v. LEVINE (2024)

Affirmed. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Ledoux, 230 So. 3d 530, 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Plaintiff to introduce evidence and present argument regarding the number of deaths caused by smoking ․”); Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Garcia, 352 So. 3d 404, 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“[T]he conduct complained of, if improper, was not ‘so highly prejudicial and inflammatory that it denied the opposing party its right to a fair trial.’ ”); R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Schleider, 273 So. 3d 63, 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“[The jury] found in favor of R.J. Reynolds on the question of punitive damages and concealment; awarded less than the compensatory amount requested for the daughter; and attributed a higher percentage of comparative negligence to [the decedent] than what Plaintiffs' counsel argued for in closing. These actions by the jury strongly indicate the jury was not inflamed, prejudiced, or improperly mislead by closing arguments.”).

PER CURIAM.