James Smith obtained a $600,000 compensatory-damages verdict in an Engle progeny tobacco case after the jury found the tobacco company liable on negligence and intentional-tort theories and attributed 45 percent of the responsibility for his wife’s injuries to her own conduct. The company argued that Florida’s comparative-fault statute required reducing the award and that Smith had waived any contrary position by discussing comparative fault at trial. The Eleventh Circuit applied a recent Florida Supreme Court decision holding that damages in a mixed negligence and intentional-tort Engle case cannot be reduced when the jury finds liability on the intentional tort unless the plaintiff waived that exception. The court held that Smith had not waived it because he consistently opposed apportionment on the intentional-tort claims, sought a clarifying instruction, and did not mislead the jury. It also rejected the company’s request to enforce an incorrect jury instruction that it had requested. The court affirmed the judgment without reducing Smith’s damages.