## Facts

- Grady Carter smoked cigarettes for about forty-four years (1947–1991).
- From 1947 to 1972, he smoked unfiltered Lucky Strike cigarettes manufactured by a predecessor of Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation (B&W); he later switched brands.
- On January 29, 1991, Carter began coughing and spitting blood, suspected a serious condition, promptly sought medical care, and quit smoking.
- In February 1991, Carter was diagnosed with lung cancer; a tumor was removed in March 1991.
- On February 12, 1995, Carter and his wife sued B&W (as successor) for negligence and strict liability, including defective product and failure to warn, alleging Lucky Strike cigarettes caused his lung cancer.
- At trial, the jury was instructed that accrual turned on when Carter knew or should have known of his injury and a reasonable possibility of smoking-related causation; the jury found the suit timely and returned a verdict for the Carters.
- The district court of appeal reversed, holding the claims time-barred, and also raised (without reversing on) federal preemption and an asserted unpleaded-theory problem.

## Issues

1. In a latent or “creeping disease” products-liability case, when does a cause of action accrue for statute-of-limitations purposes under Florida law, and were the Carters’ claims timely?
2. Were any of the Carters’ claims or trial theories preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1969?
3. Did the Carters effectively try an unpleaded cause of action by introducing evidence about B&W’s research and internal conduct?

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court quashed the district court of appeal and reinstated the trial court judgment for the Carters.
- The Court reaffirmed that in latent-disease cases accrual occurs when the effects of exposure manifest in a way supplying some evidence of a causal relationship to the product; applying that standard, the limitations issue was properly treated as a jury question and the verdict was supported by competent evidence.
- The Court held the Carters’ claims, as presented to the jury, were not preempted by the 1969 federal labeling statute because the case was confined to non-preempted duties and time periods and did not impose advertising-or-promotion-based requirements barred by federal law.
- The Court rejected the contention that the Carters pursued an unpleaded theory; evidence of internal research and knowledge was permissible and did not expand the pleaded negligence and strict-liability theories.

## Legal Principles

- For latent or “creeping disease” product injuries, a claim accrues when the accumulated effects manifest to the claimant in a manner supplying some evidence of a causal relationship to the manufactured product.
- Accrual in latent-disease cases commonly presents a fact question; appellate courts should not substitute their view of the evidence for a supported jury determination on when the plaintiff knew or should have known of injury and product-related causation.
- The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1969 preempts only certain state-law requirements or prohibitions based on smoking and health that relate to cigarette advertising or promotion; claims can proceed when limited to non-preempted theories, including pre-1969 conduct and non-advertising duties.
- Evidence concerning a defendant’s research, testing, and internal knowledge may be admissible to prove foreseeability, reasonableness, and product-related knowledge without constituting a new, unpleaded cause of action.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated the plaintiffs’ verdict, holding that Florida’s latent-disease accrual rule requires manifestation with some causal evidence, that the jury could find the suit timely under that rule, and that the claims were neither federally preempted nor transformed into an unpleaded theory by the challenged evidence.


Carter v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 778 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 2000)