Case Title: In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC18-694

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2018-09-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC18-694 
____________ 
 
 
IN RE:  STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES — 
REPORT NO. 18-01. 
 
September 13, 2018 
 
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 amended standard instructions for 
publication and use.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. 
 
 
The Committee proposes amendments to instructions 402.4 (Medical 
Negligence) and 402.9 (Preliminary Issues — Vicarious Liability).  The 
Committee’s proposals were published in The Florida Bar News and no comments 
were received that addressed the Committee’s proposals, which are straightforward 
and noncontroversial.  
The Committee proposes removing the second paragraph of instruction 
402.4a (Medical Negligence), which is derived from section 766.102(2)(a), Florida 
- 2 - 
 
Statutes, and concerns the standard of care for affirmative medical intervention.  
The paragraph provides: 
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. 
 
The Committee proposes deleting this paragraph because it is susceptible to 
varying interpretations as it can be read as instructing the jury that it may find that 
the defendant acted within the prevailing professional standard of care and still 
find the defendant liable.  See Auster v. Gertrude & Philip Strax Breast Cancer 
Detection Inst., 649 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).  We delete the second 
paragraph from instruction 402.4a, as proposed.   
The Committee also proposes deleting the second Note on Use for 
instruction 402.4a, which refers to the second paragraph of the instruction, and 
removing the numbering for the remaining Note on Use.  We delete the second 
Note on Use for 402.4a and remove the numbering for the remaining Note on Use, 
as proposed.   
 
Next, instruction 402.9a(1) is modified, as proposed by the Committee, to 
make clear that the determination of whether an individual is an independent 
contractor or an employee for purposes of vicarious liability should be based on the 
- 3 - 
 
circumstances of the parties’ dealings with each other and not on the basis of the 
labels used by them.  The Committee determined that the proposed amendment 
removes ambiguity from the instruction. 
Having considered the Committee’s report, we authorize the amended 
instructions, as set forth in the appendix to this opinion, 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 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.  The instructions set 
forth in the appendix shall become effective when this opinion becomes final.  
 
It is so ordered. 
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, 
and LAWSON, JJ., concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
Original Proceeding – Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in 
Civil Cases 
 
Laura K. Whitmore, Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury  
- 4 - 
 
Instructions in Civil Cases, Tampa, Florida, Jeffrey Alan Cohen, Vice Chair and 
Subcommittee Chair, Miami, Florida, and Nichole J. Segal, Filing Subcommittee 
of the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases, 
West Palm Beach, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
- 5 - 
 
APPENDIX 
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.]