The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently ruled that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of alcohol abuse in a wrongful death case against at cigarette manufacturer. In Aycock v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, 769 F.3d 1063 (2014) Plaintiff brought a wrongful death action on behalf of her husband alleging that he had contracted lung cancer as a result of his addiction to cigarettes manufactured by the defendant. A jury awarded her compensatory damages in the amount of 5.9 million which it found was a result of his addiction to cigarettes which caused lung cancer and his death. Prior to trial plaintiff moved in limine to exclude evidence of her husband’s alcohol abuse. Defendant had several experts who were prepared to testify that even though the precise cause of death could not be determined, alcohol could have contributed to whatever disease caused his death. In addition defendant contended that the evidence of alcohol abuse was also relevant to the determination of comparative fault. Plaintiff’s contention that Richard died of lung cancer was based primarily on the hospitals admission report and its interpretation by her expert. She refused to have a biopsy done. The court granted the motion in limine to exclude the evidence under Rule 403 holding that its probative value was outweighed by unfair prejudice. The Court of Appeals disagreed and noted:
“As Thelma notes in her brief, Reynolds was permitted to offer expert testimony on the possibility that Richard did not die as a result of a disease caused by smoking. Reynolds did in fact introduce evidence about other types of cancer, infection and inflammation as possible causes of death. However, contrary to Thelma’s assertion, the exclusion of the alcohol evidence was not harmless. The alcohol evidence made these other possible causes more likely, and in turn provided crucial support for the opinions of Reynolds’ experts. Simply put, Reynolds was denied the opportunity to present to the jury crucial facts bearing on the likelihood of whether Richard died from lung cancer. Here, the evidence relating to alcohol abuse formed an essential part of the defendant’s case. Because probative value is greater as evidence becomes more essential, the evidence of Richard’s alcohol abuse had high probative value.”
And held:
“In sum, the district court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude evidence under Rule 403. The evidence excluded was of high probative value and did not cause a high amount of unfair prejudice. As such, under Rule 403’s narrowly prescribed balancing test, the evidence should not have been excluded. On this basis, we remand to the district court for a new trial.”