In re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases—Report No. 15–01

• Decision Date: 21 April 2016
• Docket Number: No. SC15–1275.,SC15–1275.
• Citation: 192 So.3d 1183 (Mem)
• Parties: In re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES—REPORT NO. 15–01.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

192 So.3d 1183 (Mem)

In re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES—REPORT NO. 15–01.

No. SC15–1275.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 21, 2016.

Rebecca Mercier Vargas, Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases, Kreusler–Walsh, Compiani & Vargas, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL; Joseph Hagedorn Lang, Jr., Past Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Tampa, FL; Cynthia Sass, Subcommittee Chair, Spoliation Subcommittee, Tampa, FL; Neal Allan Roth, Subcommittee Chair, Professional Malpractice Subcommittee, Coral Gables, FL; John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, and Heather Savage Telfer, Bar Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases (Committee) has submitted a report proposing amendments to four existing standard jury instructions and the addition of a new instruction. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const

.

The Committee proposes amending existing instructions 402.4—Medical Negligence; 501.5—Other Contributing Causes of Damages; 501.7—Reduction of Damages to Present Value; and 502.7—Reduction of Damages to Present Value. The Committee also proposes the addition of new instruction 301.11—Failure to Maintain Evidence or Keep a Record.

All of the proposals in the Committee's report were published prior to being filed with the Court. No comments were received by the Committee. After the Committee filed its report, the Court published the Committee's proposals for comment. No comments were received.

Having considered the Committee's report, we hereby authorize new instruction 301.11 and amended instructions 402.4, 501.5, 501.7, and 502.7 for publication and use, as proposed by the Committee. The instructions, as set forth in the appendix to this opinion, are authorized for publication and use. In authorizing the publication and use of these instructions, we express no opinion on their correctness and remind all interested parties that this authorization forecloses neither requesting additional or alternative instructions nor contesting the legal correctness of the instructions. We further caution all interested parties that any 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. New language is indicated by underlining and deleted language is indicated by struck-through type. The instructions as set forth in the appendix shall be effective when this opinion becomes final.

It is so ordered.

LABARGA

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

Appendix

301.11 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN EVIDENCE OR KEEP A RECORD

a. Adverse inference.

If you find that:

(Name of party) [lost] [destroyed] [mutilated] [altered] [concealed] or otherwise caused the (describe evidence) to be unavailable, while it was within [his] [her] [its] possession, custody, or control; and the (describe evidence) would have been material in deciding the disputed issues in this case; then you may, but are not required to, infer that this evidence would have been unfavorable to (name of party). You may consider this, together with the other evidence, in determining the issues of the case.

NOTES ON USE FOR 301.11a

1. This instruction is not intended to limit the trial court's discretion to impose additional or other sanctions or remedies against a party for either inadvertent or intentional conduct in the loss, destruction, mutilation, alteration, concealment, or other disposition of evidence material to a case. See, e.g., Golden Yachts, Inc. v. Hall, 920 So.2d 777, 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)

; Am. Hosp. Mgmt. Co. of Minnesota v. Hettiger, 904 So.2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ; Jost v. Lakeland Reg. Med. Ctr., 844 So.2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ; Nationwide Lift Trucks, Inc. v. Smith, 832 So.2d 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) ; Torres v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 762 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) ; and Sponco Mfg., Inc. v. Alcover, 656 So.2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

2. The inference addressed in this instruction does not rise to the level of a presumption. Pub. Health Tr. of Dade Cty. v. Valcin, 507 So.2d 596 (Fla.1987)

, and Instruction 301.11b.

3. This instruction may require modification in the event a factual dispute exists as to which party or person is responsible for the loss of any evidence.

b. Burden shifting presumption.

The court has determined that (name of party) had a duty to [maintain (describe missing evidence) ] [keep a record of (describe subject matter as to which party had record keeping duty) ]. (Name of party) did not [maintain (describe missing evidence) ] [or] [keep a record of (describe subject matter as to which party had recordkeeping duty) ].

Because (name of party) did not [maintain (describe missing evidence) ] [or] [keep a record of (describe subject matter as to which party had a record keeping duty) ], you should find that (name of invoking party) established [his] [her] (describe applicable claim or defense) unless (name of party) proves otherwise by the greater weight of the evidence.

NOTES ON USE FOR 301.11b

1. This instruction applies only when the court has determined that there was a duty to maintain or preserve the missing evidence at issue and the party invoking the presumption has established to the satisfaction of the court that the absence of the missing evidence hinders the other party's ability to establish its claim or defense. See Pub. Health Tr. of Dade Cty. v. Valcin, 507 So.2d 596 (Fla.1987)

.

2. This instruction may require modification in the event a factual dispute exists as to which party or person is responsible for the loss of any evidence.

402.4 MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

a. Negligence (physician, hospital or other health provider):

Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care. Reasonable care on the part of a [physician] [hospital] [health care provider] is that level of care, skill and treatment which, in light of all relevant surrounding circumstances, is recognized as acceptable and appropriate by similar and reasonably careful [physicians] [hospitals] [health care providers]. Negligence on the part of a [physician] [hospital] [health care provider] is doing something that a reasonably careful [physician] [hospital] [health care provider] would not do under like circumstances or failing to do something that a reasonably careful [physician] [hospital] [health care provider] would do under like circumstances.

[If you find that (describe treatment or procedure) involved in this case was carried out in accordance with the prevailing professional standard of care recognized as acceptable and appropriate by similar and reasonably careful [physicians] [hospitals] [health care providers], then, in order to prevail, (claimant) must show by the greater weight of the evidence that his or her injury was not within the necessary or reasonably foreseeable results of the treatment or procedure.]

NOTES ON USE FOR 402.4a

1. See F.S. 766.102

. Instruction 402.4a is derived from F.S. 766.102(1) and is intended to embody the statutory definition of “prevailing professional standard of care” without using that expression itself, which is potentially confusing.

The second bracketed paragraph is derived from F.S. 766.102(2)(a)

and should be given only in cases involving a claim of negligence in affirmative medical intervention.

b. Negligence (treatment without informed consent):

[Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care.] Reasonable care on the part of a [physician] [health care provider] in obtaining the [consent] [informed consent] to treatment of a patient consists of

(1). When issue is whether consent was obtained irregularly:

obtaining the consent of the patient [or one whose consent is as effective as the patient's own consent such as (describe) ], at a time and in a manner in accordance with an accepted standard of medical practice among members of the profession with similar training and experience in the same or a similar medical community.

(2). When issue is whether sufficient information was given:

providing the patient [or one whose informed consent is as effective as the patient's informed consent, such as (describe) ] information sufficient to give a reasonable person a general understanding of the proposed treatment or procedure, of any medically acceptable alternative treatments or procedures, and of the substantial risks and hazards inherent in the proposed treatment or procedure which are recognized by other [physicians] [health care providers] in the same or a similar community who perform similar treatments or procedures.

NOTE ON USE FOR 402.4b

This instruction is derived from the provisions of F.S. 766.103

.

c. Foreign bodies:

[Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care.] The presence of (name of foreign body) in (patient's) body establishes negligence unless (defendant(s)) prove(s) by the greater weight of the evidence that [he] [she] [it] was not negligent.

NOTES ON USE FOR 402.4c

1. This instruction is derived from F.S. 766.102(3)

. The statute uses the term “prima facie evidence of negligence.” The committee recommends that term not be used as not helpful to a jury. Rather, the committee has used the definition of prima facie. See, e.g.,

State v. Kahler, 232 So.2d 166, 168 (Fla.1970) (“prima facie” means “evidence sufficient to establish a fact unless and until rebutted”).

2. Before this instruction is given, the court must make a finding that the foreign body is one that meets the statutory definition. See Kenyon v. Miller, 756 So.2d 133 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)

.

d. Failure tomake or maintain evidence or keep a records:

[Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care.] The law requires (defendant) as a licensed health care provider to prepare and maintain health care records.

[Because (defendant) did not [make] [or] [maintain] (describe the missing record(s))

or

[If you...