Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DEFENSES TO LIABILITY—TOBACCO PRODUCTS—Or. App.: Jury verdict of $18 million against R.J. Reynolds affirmed, (May 7, 2026)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

The evidence supports the fraud claim and the trial court’s instruction to the jury on fraudulent concealment was not legally erroneous.

In a products liability case brought by a smoker alleging fraud against tobacco maker R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Inc., the Oregon Court of Appeals has affirmed a jury verdict of $18.1 million. The appeals court concluded that the evidence at trial supports the fraud claim, including evidence of collusion with other tobacco companies and engagement in a decades-long campaign, which included a variety of methods of messaging and suppressing or manipulating research. The panel also found that the trial court did not err in giving a jury instruction on fraud concealment (Higgs v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Inc., No. 362 (Or. App. May. 6, 2026)).

As a result of smoking cigarettes manufactured by R.J. Reynolds, a smoker developed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The smoker started smoking at age 16 in 1963. The smoker filed a products liability case in the Oregon state court alleging claims for strict liability, negligence, and fraud. The jury returned a unanimous verdict for the smoker on all claims, awarding $100,000 in economic damages for past and future medical expenses and pain and suffering, and $18 million in noneconomic damages, allocating 30 percent comparative fault to the smoker and 70 percent fault to the tobacco manufacturer. The trial court denied the tobacco company’s motion for directed verdict. The tobacco company appealed.

Fraud. The Oregon Court of Appeals concluded that the smoker presented sufficient evidence at trial to support the fraud claim. The jury considered evidence that R.J. Reynolds, in collusion with other tobacco companies and the industry advocacy groups, engaged in a decades-long campaign, which included a variety of methods of messaging and suppressing or manipulating research. The jury could also conclude from the evidence that the purpose of the campaign was to convey to smokers and potential smokers that there was a legitimate controversy about whether a connection existed between cigarette smoking and adverse health effects, about whether cigarette smoking is addictive, and to portray filtered cigarettes as providing protection from unhealthy aspects of cigarette smoke. The jury to induce young people to begin smoking, to conceal the harmful impact of cigarette smoke and to take advantage of the addictive quality of nicotine to keep those young people smoking for life. The jury unanimously awarded Higgs $18.1 million. Therefore, this evidence supports the jury’s verdict on the fraud claim and the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a directive verdict.

Fraudulent concealment. The appeals court also found that the trial court did not err in giving jury instructions on fraudulent concealment. The challenged jury instruction explicitly states that fraud by concealment requires that “a person, by any word or act, conceals a material matter either by creating a false impression covering up the truth, or by removing an opportunity that might otherwise have led to the discovery of the truth.” The trial court gave instructions that fraud requires more than the simple nondisclosure of facts; rather, there had to be a qualifying word or act that the tobacco company intended the smoker to receive and rely on, and evidence that the smoker relied on that conduct. Under Oregon law, in these circumstances, the smoker needed to prove only that he was within the class of individuals that defendant intended would rely on the false impression it created through its words and conduct concealing the truth about smoking and cigarette filters. In addition, the jury was instructed that the smoker had to reasonably rely on the tobacco company’s misrepresentations and the factors to consider for that determination.

Therefore, the appeals court affirmed the trial court decision and the jury award of $18.1 million.

The case is No. 362.

Judge: Lucero, A.

Attorneys: James S. Coon (Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost) for Gary Walter Higgs. Brian C. Lea (Jones Day) for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Inc. And West Linn North Liquor Store.

Companies: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Inc.; West Linn North Liquor Store

MainStory: TopStory DefensesLiabilityNews TobaccoProductsNews OregonNews