In re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Case—-Report Number

Decision Date30 May 2013
Docket NumberNo. SC12–1566.,SC12–1566.
PartiesIn re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASE—–REPORT NO. 12–01.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

130 So.3d 596

In re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASE—–REPORT NO. 12–01.

No. SC12–1566.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 30, 2013.


Original Proceedings—Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions (Civil).
Honorable James Manly Barton, II, Committee Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions, (Civil), Tampa, FL; Joseph Hagedorn Lang, Jr. of Carlton Fields, P.A., Tampa, FL; and Rebecca Mercier Vargas of Kreusler–Walsh, Compiani & Vargas, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL.

PER CURIAM.

The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases has filed a report proposing changes to the standard jury instructions and asking the Court to authorize the amended standard instructions. We have jurisdiction. Seeart. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

In In re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases—Report No. 09–01 (Reorganization of the Civil Jury Instructions), 35 So.3d 666 (Fla.2010), the Court authorized for publication and use the standard civil jury instructions as reorganized by the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases (Committee). The reorganization of the civil jury instructions also incorporated gender neutral language and substituted plain English to improve readability of the instructions and juror comprehension. The Committee has continued to review the civil jury instructions for such stylistic changes and has now filed a report proposing additional amendments to several instructions.

Prior to filing its report with the Court, the Committee published for comment its proposed revisions in The Florida Bar News. No comments pertaining to the Committee's proposals were received. The Committee now requests that the Court amend the instructions with non-substantive technical revisions, as well as other changes for purposes of clarification. We amend the standard jury instructions as proposed by the Committee, except as discussed below, and authorize the amended jury instructions for publication and use.

The majority of the amendments do the following: (1) correct typographical or spelling errors; (2) correct grammatical errors; (3) correct cross-references; (4) insert omitted terms, phrases, or other material, or remove improperly included terms or phrases; (5) renumber or change the name of an instruction 1; (6) eliminate repetitive language; and (7) make an instruction gender neutral. These amendments are not discussed at length; however, we do describe the more substantive changes below.

Jury instructions 409.7 (Issues on Plaintiff's Claim—Fraudulent Misrepresentation), 409.8 (Issues on Plaintiff's Claim—Negligent Misrepresentation), and 409.9 (Issues on Plaintiff's Claim—False Information Negligently Supplied for the Guidance of Others), are each amended to clarify

[130 So.3d 597]

that causation is an element of the respective cause of action.

Next, the Court amends as proposed jury instruction 501.1 (Personal Injury and Property Damages: Introduction) to remove language applicable to wrongful death cases, as well as to add damages language pertaining to the claimant. These same amendments are also made to Model Instruction 2, and on the Court's own motion, to Model Instructions 4 and 6. In addition, the Note on Use to instruction 501.1 is amended to clarify the circumstances when instructions 501.3 (Motor Vehicle No–Fault Instruction), 501.4 (Comparative Negligence, Non–Party Fault and Multiple Defendants), or 501.5 (Other Contributing Causes of Damages) should be used, and to explain that to complete the instructions for personal injury and property damages, the applicable parts of instructions 501.6–501.9 (Mortality Tables; Reduction of Damages to Present Value; Collateral Source Rule; Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors) are to be used.

The “Notes on Use for 502.1” to jury instruction 502.1 (Wrongful Death Damages: Introduction) is amended as follows. First, the amendment directs that applicable portions of instructions 502.1–502.4 (Wrongful Death Damages: Introduction; Wrongful Death Damages: Elements for Estate and Survivors; Wrongful Death Damages of Estate and Survivors: Separate Awards for Estate and Survivors; and Wrongful Death Damages: Elements when There Are No Survivors) should be used for wrongful death damage instructions, and that instructions 502.6–502.8 (Mortality Tables; Reduction of Damages to Present Value; and Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors) be used to complete the instructions for wrongful death damages. The amendment also directs that instruction 502.5 (Comparative Negligence, Non–Party Fault and Multiple Defendants) be used if there is a comparative fault or Fabre issue 2 after giving instructions on the elements of damages.

We amend jury instruction “B. Punitive Damages” of Section 500 to include a “Note on Use for Punitive Damages Charges,” applicable to the two punitive damages instructions, 503.1 (Bifurcated Procedure) and 503.2 (Non–Bifurcated Procedure).

The instructions, as set forth in the appendix to this opinion, are authorized for publication and use. New language is indicated by underlining and deleted language is indicated by struck-through type. In authorizing the publication and use of these instructions, we express no opinion on the correctness of the instructions and remind all interested parties that this authorization forecloses neither requesting an additional or alternative instruction nor contesting the legal correctness of the instructions. We further caution all interested parties that any notes and comments associated with the instructions reflect only the opinion of the Committee and are not necessarily indicative of the views of this Court as to their correctness or applicability. The instructions shall be effective when this opinion becomes final.

It is so ordered.

POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

[130 So.3d 598]



APPENDIX
401.13 PREEMPTIVE CHARGES

The court has determined and now instructs you that

a. Duty to use reasonable care:

the circumstances at the time and place of the incident involved in this case were such that (defendant) had a duty to use reasonable care for (claimant's) safety.

(skip to instruction 401.1718 on negligence issues)

NOTE ON USE FOR 401.13a

This preemptive instruction is not for use routinely, but only when the reasonable care standard was contested before the jury, as by an instruction 401.14 issue now to be withdrawn as a matter of law. In that event instruction 401.13a properly emphasizes reasonable care as embodied in instruction 401.17 or 401.19 and 401.4. Otherwise it is argumentative.

b. Vicarious liability:

(Defendant) is responsible for any negligence of (name) in (describe alleged negligence).

(skip to instruction 401.1718 on negligence issues)

c. Negligence:

(Defendant) was negligent. The issue for you to decide [on (claimant's) claim] is whether such negligence was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant or person on whose behalf the claim is made).

(skip to causation, damage issues and general instructions)

d. Directed verdict on liability:

(Defendant) was negligent and such negligence was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant). (Claimant) is therefore entitled to recover from (defendant) for the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] as is shown by the greater weight of the evidence to have been caused by (defendant).

(skip to damage issues and general instructions)

NOTE ON USE FOR 401.13d

This instruction should be given only when the sole issue to be determined by the jury is damages.

NOTES ON USE FOR 401.13

1. This instruction covers only preemptive instructions on issues arising on claims. Preemptive instructions on defense issues are covered in instruction 401.22 and should be given at that stage of the instruction.

2. It may be necessary or desirable in some cases for the court to introduce this instruction by calling attention to the evidence or arguments of counsel in which the issue now to be withdrawn was raised or discussed.

401.20 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM—PREMISES LIABILITY

The [next] issues on (claimant's) claim, for you to decide are:

a. Landowner or possessor's negligence (toward invitee and invited licensee);

whether (defendant) [negligently failed to maintain thehis premises in a reasonably safe condition], [or] [negligently failed to correct a dangerous condition about which (defendant)

[130 So.3d 599]

either knew or should have known, by the use of reasonable care,] [or] * [negligently failed to warn (claimant) of a dangerous condition about which (defendant) had, or should have had, knowledge greater than that of (claimant) ]; and, if so, whether such negligence was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent or person for whose injury claim is made).

NOTES ON USE FOR 401.20a

1. If there is an issue of whether claimant had status as an invitee or invited licensee, give instructions 401.16a and 401.17 as preliminary instructions before giving instruction 401.20a. The final segment of instruction 401.20a, marked with an asterisk (*), is inapplicable when plaintiff does not proceed on a theory of defendant's failure to warn.

2. The phrase “... about which (defendant) either knew or should have known by use of reasonable care ...” may be inappropriate in cases involving “transitory foreign objects.” F.S. 768.0710; Markowitz v. Helen Homes of Kendall Corp., 826 So.2d 256 (Fla.2002); Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So.2d 315 (Fla.2001); Melkonian v. Broward County Board of County Commissioners, 844 So.2d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

b. Landowner or possessor's negligence (toward discovered trespasser or foreseeable licensee):

whether (defendant) negligently failed to warn (claimant) of a dangerous condition and risk which were known to (defendant) and of which (claimant) neither knew nor should have known, by the use of reasonable care; and, if so, whether such negligence was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • In re Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Prods. Mktg.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • April 21, 2017
    ... ... The second phase standard, which was in operation when the events described ... "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." ... 1997) (finding that, "in the context of the civil False Claims Act the determination of ... In re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil CasesReport No ... 12-01 , 130 So. 3d ... ...
  • In re Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Prods. Mktg.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • June 20, 2017
    ... ... The second phase standard, which was in operation when Page 5 the events ... "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving Page 7 ... 1997) (finding that, "in the context of the civil False Claims Act the determination of ... In re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil CasesReport No ... 12-01 , 130 So. 3d ... ...
  • Jones v. Alayon
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 8, 2015
    ... ... arising out of an automobile accident, the jury found the decedent at fault for his own death due ... court did not adopt a negligence per se standard for the defense. Id. at 453. It held:Nonuse of ... evidence of comparative negligence, in any civil action. 316.614(10), Fla. Stat. (2006).The ... 2 of the Florida Standard Jury Instructions (Civil), written for an auto accident case ... ...
  • Valenty v. Saraiva
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 11, 2020
    ... ... Valenty for negligence, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Mr. Valenty. Mr ... Saraiva, the jury was presented with a standard interrogatory that asked it to determine whether ... Saraiva." See In re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil CasesReport No. 12-01, 130 So. 3d 596, ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT