Support local journalism. Join the Orlando Weekly Press Club.

Wednesday, July 10, 2019

Florida man's meth mouth not improved by exploding e-cigarette; appeals court upholds award

Posted By on Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 3:50 PM

click to enlarge ADOBE STOCK PHOTO
  • Adobe Stock photo
A state appeals court Tuesday upheld a verdict of more than $2 million in a case involving an electronic cigarette that exploded and caused damage to a man’s teeth.

A three-judge panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal rejected arguments by R-L Sales, LLC, which sold a lithium ion battery used in the electronic cigarette. The Alachua County case was filed by J. Michael Hoce against companies that made and sold the electronic cigarette and components, including R-L Sales.

At the time of trial, R-L Sales was the only remaining defendant and was found at fault by a jury, according to Tuesday’s ruling by a three-judge panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal. The jury awarded $48,000 for medical expenses and $2 million in pain-and-suffering damages for Hoce, who had several teeth damaged in the e-cigarette explosion.

In the appeal, R-L Sales argued, in part, that the trial judge should have allowed it to introduce evidence that Hoce used methamphetamine that had damaged his teeth. But the appeals court turned down the argument.

“Although the fact that appellee (Hoce) already had extensive dental problems was relevant to the jury’s determination of the extent of damages attributable to the e-cigarette explosion, the cause of appellee’s preexisting dental problems — i.e., whether it was meth use, too many sugary drinks, or simply extremely poor dental hygiene — was not relevant to any issue the jury had to decide,” said the ruling by Chief Judge Stephanie Ray and judges Clay Roberts and T. Kent Wetherell.

“Moreover, because evidence of illegal drug use is inherently prejudicial, even if the cause of appellee’s preexisting dental problems had some marginal relevance, the probative value of the evidence that appellee was a meth user was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.”

Also, the appeals court rejected arguments that the jury award was excessive, saying that while it is “substantial, it has adequate record support, and it is not so large that it shocks the judicial conscience.”

Stay on top of Orlando news and views. Sign up for our weekly Headlines newsletter.

Tags: , , , ,

We welcome readers to submit letters regarding articles and content in Orlando Weekly. Letters should be a minimum of 150 words, refer to content that has appeared on Orlando Weekly, and must include the writer's full name, address, and phone number for verification purposes. No attachments will be considered. Writers of letters selected for publication will be notified via email. Letters may be edited and shortened for space.

Email us at

Support Local Journalism.
Join the Orlando Weekly Press Club

Local journalism is information. Information is power. And we believe everyone deserves access to accurate independent coverage of their community and state. Our readers helped us continue this coverage in 2020, and we are so grateful for the support.

Help us keep this coverage going in 2021. Whether it's a one-time acknowledgement of this article or an ongoing membership pledge, your support goes to local-based reporting from our small but mighty team.

Join the Orlando Weekly Press Club for as little as $5 a month.


Never miss a beat

Sign Up Now

Subscribe now to get the latest news delivered right to your inbox.

Read the Digital Print Issue

November 24, 2021

View more issues


© 2021 Orlando Weekly

Website powered by Foundation