In re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases-Report No. 2011-01
| Citation | 95 So.3d 106 |
| Decision Date | 12 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. SC11–1403.,SC11–1403. |
| Parties | In re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES—REPORT NO. 2011–01 (UNLAWFUL RETALIATION). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
In re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES—REPORT NO. 2011–01 (UNLAWFUL RETALIATION).
No. SC11–1403.
Supreme Court of Florida.
July 12, 2012.
Original Proceedings—Standard Jury Instructions—Civil Cases.
Honorable James M. Barton, II, Acting Chair, Standard Jury Instructions—Civil Cases; Joseph H. Lang, Jr. of Carlton Fields, P.A., Tampa, FL; Honorable Edward C. Larose, Second District Court of Appeal, Lakeland, FL, for Petitioner.
[95 So.3d 107]
PER CURIAM.
The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases (Committee) has submitted proposed changes to the standard jury instructions in civil cases and asks that the Court authorize the proposed new 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 the reorganization and updated wording of the standard civil jury instructions. The Court observed that the reorganization was “based upon the delineation of separate sections, which include oaths, preliminary instructions, evidence instructions, substantive instructions, damages, general substantive instructions, closing instructions, and supplemental matters.” Id. at 667. In addition, all of the substantive areas were “organized into separate sections and include pertinent standard instructions which [were] reproduced within each substantive section, or, where necessary, tailored to the specific substantive area.” Id. At the time of reorganizing the civil jury instructions, however, the Court noted that proposed substantive instructions had not yet been filed by the Committee for Unlawful Retaliation and Products Liability.1 The instant petition pertains to the substantive area of Unlawful Retaliation.
Proposed new jury instructions 415.1 (Introduction); 415.2 (Summary of Claims and Defenses); 415.7 (Legal Cause); 415.8 (Preliminary Issue—Adverse Employment Action); 415.9 (Burden of Proof on Preliminary Issue); 415.10 (Issues on Plaintiff's Claim); and 415.11 (Burden of Proof on Claim), all follow the general format for the civil instructions of the representative areas previously authorized by the Court and are therefore authorized. The Court also authorizes for publication and use, as proposed, new instructions 415.4 (Retaliation; Adverse Employment Action); 415.6 (Legal Cause—Retaliation); 415.12 (Unlawful Retaliation Damages); 415.13 (Defense Issue on Damages (Mitigation—Discharge)); and 415.14 (Reduction of Damages to Present Value). Lastly, the Court authorizes proposed new instructions 415.3 (Greater Weight of the Evidence) and 415.5 (Protected Activity), with slight modification. Proposed instruction 415.3 is modified to exclude paragraph 3 of the Notes On Use For 415.3, “ ‘Preponderance of evidence’ and ‘burden of proof,’ ” to conform with the “Greater Weight of the Evidence” instructions under 401.3 (General Negligence); 402.3 (Professional Negligence); 404.3 (Insurer's Bad Faith); 405.3 (Defamation); 406.3 (Malicious Prosecution); 407.3 (False Imprisonment); 408.3 (Tortious Interference with Business Relationships); 409.3 (Misrepresentation); 410.3 (Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress); 412.5 (Contribution Among Tortfeasors); and 413.3 (Claim for Personal Injury Protection Insurance (PIP) Benefits (Medical Benefits Only)). Paragraph 2 of the Notes On Use For 415.5 for proposed instruction 415.5 is modified to reflect that in addressing the claimant's burden of proof under section 448.102(3), Florida Statutes (2011), each of the federal district courts in Florida has held that Florida's private-sector
[95 So.3d 108]
whistle-blower provisions, sections 448.101–.105, Florida Statutes, require proof of an actual violation of law, as opposed to a reasonable, good faith violation.
The instructions, as set forth in the appendix to this opinion, are authorized for publication and use. New language is indicated by underlining. 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.415.1 Introduction
415.2 Summary of Claims and Defenses
415.3 Greater Weight of the Evidence
415.4 Retaliation; Adverse Employment Action
415.5 Protected Activity
415.6 Legal Cause—Retaliation
415.7 Legal Cause—Damage
415.8 Preliminary Issue—Adverse Employment Action
415.9 Burden of Proof on Preliminary Issue
415.10 Issues on Plaintiff's Claim
415.11 Burden of Proof on Claim
415.12 Unlawful Retaliation Damages
415.13 Defense Issue on Damages (Mitigation–Discharge)
415.14 Reduction of Damages to Present Value
The instructions in this section are based upon F.S. 448.101–105 (Florida's private-sector whistle-blower provisions). As to the right to trial by jury, see Fox v. City of Pompano Beach, 984 So.2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), and O'Neal v. Fla. A & M University, 989 So.2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (right to jury trial pursuant to the Whistle-blower Act, F.S. 112.3187–31895); Rodriguez v. Casson–Mark Corp., 2008 WL 2949520 (M.D.Fla. July 28, 2008) (right to jury trial pursuant to the private-sector whistle-blower's provisions, F.S. 448.101–105).
Members of the jury, you have now heard and received all of the evidence in this case. I am now going to tell you about the rules of law that you must use in reaching your verdict. [You will recall at the beginning of the case I told you that if, at the end of the case I decided that different law applies, I would tell you so. These instructions are (slightly) different from what I gave you at the beginning and it is these rules of law that you must now follow.] When I finish telling you about the rules of law, the attorneys will present their final arguments and you will then retire to decide your verdict.
[95 So.3d 109]
1. When instructing the jury before taking evidence, use instruction 202.1 in lieu of instruction 415.1. See Model Instruction 1. Instruction 415.1 is for instructing the jury after the evidence has been concluded. Use the bracketed language in instruction 415.1 when the final instructions are different from the instructions given at the beginning of the case. If the instructions at the end of the case are different from those given at the beginning of the case, the committee recommends that the court point out the differences with appropriate language in the final instructions, including an explanation for the difference, such as where the court has directed a verdict on an issue.
2. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b) authorizes instructing the jury during trial or before or after final argument. The timing of instructions is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, to be determined on a case-by-case basis, but the committee strongly recommends instructing the jury before final argument.
3. Each juror must be provided with a full set of jury instructions for use during their deliberations. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b). The trial judge may find it useful to provide these instructions to the jurors when the judge reads the instructions in open court so that jurors can read along with the judge, as the judge reads the instructions aloud.
The claim[s] in this case [is][are] as follows: (Claimant) claims that (defendant) retaliated against [him][her] by (describe retaliatory action) because (claimant) (describe activity which claimant alleges caused retaliatory action), and that the (describe retaliatory action) caused [him][her] damage.
(Defendant) denies that claim [and also claims that (Claimant) failed to reduce [his][her] damages by seeking other similar employment] [and (describe any other affirmative defense) ].
[ ( Claimant) ] [The parties] must prove [his][her][all] claim(s) [and defenses] by the greater weight of the evidence. I will now define some of the terms you will use in deciding this case.
Greater weight of the evidence means the more persuasive and convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
1. Greater or lesser number of witnesses. The committee recommends that no charge be given regarding the relationship (or lack of relationship) between the greater weight of the evidence and the greater or lesser number of witnesses.
2. Circumstantial evidence. The committee recommends that no charge generally be given distinguishing circumstantial from direct evidence. See Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So.2d 731 (Fla.1960).
Retaliation means [discharging] [or] [demoting] [or] [suspending] [or] [taking certain adverse employment action against] an employee because the employee engaged in [a] protected activit[y][ies].
[An adverse employment action is retaliation if it affects the terms and conditions of employment and would discourage a reasonable employee in
[95 So.3d 110]
1. The definitions of retaliation and adverse employment action are derived from F.S....
To continue reading
Request your trial