In Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Green, No. 5D13-3758 (Fla. Ct. App. July 31, 2015), the Florida Court of Appeal addressed the question whether the trial court erred by rejecting defendant’s request for the application of the doctrine of comparative fault. At trial, plaintiff’s counsel argued to the jury that plaintiff had accepted his share of responsibility for his illness. Indeed, the jury had apportioned the fault for plaintiff’s illness in part between the two defendants and in part to the plaintiff. The trial court, however, refused to apportion damages based upon the jury’s determination of fault and entered judgment in the full amount of damages against the defendants. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that plaintiff’s counsel’s frequent reference to plaintiff’s acceptance of some shared responsibility misled the jury into believing that its apportionment of fault would be followed by the trial court. The appellate court further held that the plaintiff’s tactics in seeking to have the full amount of damages imposed upon defendants after arguing to the jury that plaintiff accepted responsibility for a share of those damages was improper and could not be harmless error. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instruction to enter a new judgment based upon the jury’s apportionment of fault.