Poole v. Lowell Dunn Co.
| Decision Date | 26 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-2951,88-2951 |
| Citation | 16 Fla. L. Weekly 78,573 So.2d 51 |
| Parties | 16 Fla. L. Weekly 78 Thomas POOLE, et al., Appellants/Cross Appellees, v. The LOWELL DUNN COMPANY, et al., Appellees/Cross Appellants. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Sams, Beckham, Spiegel, Alger & Criscione, Cooper, Wolfe & Bolotin and Sharon L. Wolfe, Miami, for appellants/cross appellees.
O'Conner, Sinclair, Tunstall & Lemos and William R. Lemos, Coral Gables, for The Lowell Dunn Company.
Kimbrell & Hamann and Jennifer Drechsel Bailey, Miami, for Capeletti Bros.
Blackwell & Walker and Douglas H. Stein, Miami, for Rinker Southeastern Materials, Inc.
Before BASKIN, FERGUSON and LEVY, JJ.
Thomas Poole and Sharon Poole, the plaintiffs, appeal an adverse final judgment in their personal injury case against defendants The Lowell Dunn Company, Rinker Southeastern Materials, Inc., A.J. Capeletti, Inc., and Capeletti Brothers, Inc., each of which were engaged in blasting operations. The defendants cross-appeal several evidentiary rulings of the trial court. We reverse on the main appeal based upon our finding that the trial court erred in giving the jury confusing and misleading jury instructions. We affirm on the cross-appeal finding that the evidentiary issues raised by the defendants do not constitute error.
The defendants each owned and operated limestone quarry pits in northwest Dade County. The defendants began blasting in the late 1960's or early 1970's using dynamite or slurry to blast out the lime rock. The plaintiffs had purchased a home approximately two miles away from the quarrying site in a nearby residential area in 1966. In 1973, the plaintiffs' home and pool began to crack. The plaintiffs reported experiencing a vibrating sensation. According to the plaintiffs, the daily booming and shaking was very emotionally disturbing, gave their child severe headaches, and created difficulties in their marriage which eventually led to a divorce. The plaintiffs sought damages for the blasting activities during 1978 and thereafter, on theories of nuisance and strict liability. 1
The trial court ruled, as a matter of law, that blasting is an ultrahazardous activity, and directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on the issue of strict liability. The court limited the plaintiffs' damages to property damage, finding that damages for emotional distress are unavailable in strict liability cases. Emotional distress remained a recoverable element under the plaintiffs' nuisance claim.
At the charge conference, the trial court agreed to give the defendants' requested jury instruction regarding causation, over the plaintiffs' objection, in addition to the standard jury instruction covering that subject. The entire instruction regarding causation, with the second paragraph being the objectionable portion at issue, reads as follows:
With respect to the Defendants in this case, blasting is a legal cause of loss, injury or damage if it directly and in a natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such loss, injury or damage so that it reasonably could be said that but for the blasting, the loss, injury or damage would not have occurred.
You are instructed that if the damage to the Plaintiffs' property may have resulted from two or more forces for only one of which a Defendant is responsible and that it is just as probable the damage resulted from a cause other than the blasting, as it was a result of the blasting of the Defendants, then you should find for the Defendants.
In order to be regarded as legal cause of loss, injury or damage, blasting need not be the only cause.
Blasting may be a legal cause of loss, injury or damage even though it operates in combination with the acts of another natural cause of other causes, such as another cause occurs at the same time as the blasting.
If the blasting contributed substantially to producing such loss, injury or damage, the blasting may solely be a legal cause of loss, injury or damage, even though it operates in combination with the act of another natural cause or other cause occurring after the blasting occurred.
The trial court also agreed, over the plaintiffs' objection, to give the defendants' requested jury instruction on nuisance, which conditioned legal cause and liability for nuisance on the absence of hypersensitivity. The pertinent portions of the instruction regarding nuisance read as follows:
The existence or non-existence of a nuisance generally turns on the factual questions of whether the use of the Defendants' property is reasonable use under the circumstances and whether this is attributable to sustaining injury resulting in actual material, physical discomfort, and not merely a tendency to injure, but the injury must be real and not fanciful or imaginary or such result in merely a trifling annoyance, inconvenience or discomfort.
To determine whether a nuisance existed and the gravity of the harm to the Plaintiffs, it must be weighed against the utility of the Defendants' conduct.
* * * * * *
If you find, by the greater weight of the evidence, it establishes that the gravity of the harm to the Plaintiff outweighs the utility of the Defendants' conduct, the test to be applied in determining whether a particular nuisance or inconvenience is such degree to constitute a nuisance, it is the effect of the condition on an ordinary, reasonable person with a reasonable disposition and ordinary health, possessing normal health and sensibility.
The law does not provide for those who are hypersensitive, and if the greater weight or the claim does not support the Plaintiffs, then the verdict is for the Defendants.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, finding that the blasting was not a legal cause of the plaintiffs' damages.
We recognize that the decision to give a particular jury instruction is within the discretion of the trial court and, absent a finding of prejudicial error, such decisions should not be disturbed on appeal. Goldschmidt v. Holman, 571 So.2d 422 (Fla.1990). However, we find that in the instant case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Liggett Group, Inc. v. Engle
...required "where a jury might reasonably have been misled, regardless of whether it has actually been misled"); Poole v. Lowell Dunn Co., 573 So.2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(same). 51. Class certification significantly increases the number of unmeritorious claims and dramatically affects the sta......
-
Triple R Paving, Inc. v. Broward County
...a particular jury instruction, and any such decision will not be reversed on appeal absent prejudicial error. See Poole v. Lowell Dunn Co., 573 So.2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). However, a confusing or misleading jury instruction may constitute reversible error. See Gross v. Lyons, 721 So.2d 304......
-
SDI Quarry v. Gateway Estates Park Condo. Ass'n
...was sufficient to subject Appellant to strict liability because blasting is an ultra-hazardous activity.* See Poole v. Lowell Dunn Co. , 573 So.2d 51, 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (holding that defendant engaged in blasting activities, which the trial court found to be ultra-hazardous and subject ......
-
Jacobs v. Westgate
...that they otherwise would not have reached. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Vanater, 297 So.2d 293, 295 (Fla.1974); Poole v. Lowell Dunn Co., 573 So.2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Reversal is required where a jury might reasonably have been misled, regardless of whether it has actually been misled. See......