Florida Flight Attendant Cases

The Florida Flight Attendant cases stem from the settlement of a class action against the backdrop of the States Attorneys General in 1998. The settlement resolved certain issues but left other issues to be decided in individual cases brought by individual flight attendants.

Click on one of the links below to jump to that section:

• Broin Class Action Background
• Broin Settlement Provisions
• Settlement Interpretation

Broin Class Action Background

The Broin class action was filed on October 30, 1991, by attorneys Stanley and Susan Rosenblatt in Miami’s Dade County Circuit Court. The class was defined as “all nonsmoking flight attendants who are or have been suffering from diseases and disorders caused by their exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke in airline cabins.”

Trial began on June 2, 1997, and throughout the summer the plaintiffs and defense presented testimony and evidence to a six-person jury in Miami’s Dade County Circuit Court.

On October 10, 1997, days before the defense would have completed its case, Philip Morris USA, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company and Lorillard Tobacco Company announced they would settle the class action.

The decision had less to do with the merits of our case, and more to do with the companies’ decision to enter into a Global Settlement Agreement with States Attorneys General to resolve many controversial issues regarding tobacco.

The Global Settlement Agreement required Congressional action, and in the spirit of cooperation, the companies determined that a settlement in Broin was appropriate.

Broin Settlement Provisions

The Broin settlement provided $300 million from the companies to “be used solely to establish a foundation whose purpose shall be to sponsor scientific research with respect to the early detection and cure of diseases associated with cigarette smoking.”

The settlement also allowed individual flight attendants one additional year to file lawsuits seeking compensatory damages for any injuries they may have suffered from exposure to ETS in airline cabins.

For those flight attendants who claim to have lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or chronic sinusitis, the settlement shifted the burden of proof to the tobacco company defendants as to whether those diseases could be caused by ETS exposure.

Under terms of the settlement, however, the shift in the burden of proof “is not an admission of any sort, and shall not be construed, now or at any future trial or proceeding, as an admission of causation or any other fact or legal contention” by the tobacco company defendants.

In addition, the settlement bars the award of punitive damages to any individual flight attendant who is successful in recovering compensatory damages at trial.
As a result of the settlement, more than 3,000 flight attendants filed lawsuits in Miami seeking to recover economic and non-economic compensatory damages for illnesses they allege were caused as a result to their exposure to ETS in airline cabins.

Settlement Interpretation

In anticipation of the individual flight attendant trials, Judge Robert P. Kaye, presiding judge of the original Broin class action, issued a ruling on October 5, 2000 on what evidence would be required at trial that drew an immediate objection from the tobacco companies.

Judge Kaye interpreted the settlement provision regarding the shift in the burden of proof to mean that it created “a rebuttable presumption” that ETS causes the five illnesses listed in the settlement agreement.  Therefore, the court relieved the flight attendants of their burden to prove the elements of liability for their claims of strict liability, negligence and breach of implied warranty.  The effect of that ruling was to strip away many of the legal rights expressly reserved for the defendants to challenge the legal merit of individual plaintiffs’ claims as part of the settlement agreement.

For example, Judge Kaye’s ruling prevents the companies from introducing evidence that would contradict the belief that ETS is a general cause of the diseases allegedly suffered by individual flight attendants.

Although Philip Morris USA and other tobacco company defendants immediately appealed Judge Kaye’s ruling to Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal, the Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was without proper jurisdiction to review the order at issue. A subsequent order from the Dade County Circuit Court ruled that the issue would best be determined by individual judges in each case.  Because of the challenge, some Dade County Circuit Court judges scheduled to preside at individual flight attendant trials notified plaintiffs that they would not take action until there is a ruling by the appeals court on the burden of proof.  However, to date six individual cases have gone to trial under Judge Kaye’s ruling.  Five of the cases resulted in defense verdicts: Fontana in June 2001, Tucker in June 2002, Janoff in October 2002, Seal in February 2003 and Routh in October 2003.

The Routh verdict was the first flight attendant case that went to trial in which the plaintiff alleged that she developed lung cancer as a result of her exposure to ETS during her career.  However, the jury found that ETS did not cause the plaintiff’s lung cancer.

The one plaintiff’s verdict was in the French case tried in June 2002.  In that case, the jury found that Lynn French had developed chronic sinusitis as a result of her exposure to ETS while a flight attendant for TWA and awarded her $5.5 million in compensatory damages.  The verdict was subsequently reduced to $500,000.

However, the case is now on appeal on numerous grounds, the primary one being that under Judge Kaye’s previous ruling the burden of proof was erroneously shifted and the plaintiff was not required to show that the tobacco companies’ cigarettes were defective, that the tobacco company defendants acted negligently or that a warranty was made and breached.

A number of the individual Broin cases that were scheduled for trial have been stayed by various judges pending the outcome of the French appeal.