Case Title: Standard Jury Instructions - Civil Cases

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC01-1205

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2002-06-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
Nos. SC01-1205 & SC01-2854
____________
STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS-
CIVIL CASES (NOS. 01-1 & 01-2).
[June 6, 2002]
 PER CURIAM.
The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases
filed a report asking this Court to amend the Florida Standard Jury Instructions in
Civil Cases.  The committee subsequently submitted a supplemental report
proposing further amendments to the standard jury instructions.  This supplemental
report was assigned a separate case number.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, §
2(a), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.985.  For purposes of efficiency, on our own
motion we consolidate these two cases.
The committee published its proposed amendments for comment in The
Florida Bar News.  A number of comments to the proposals were filed.  Upon
-2-
consideration of the committee's reports and the comments received, we hereby
authorize for publication and use the proposed amendments as set forth in the
appendix attached to this opinion. 
In authorizing publication, we caution all interested persons that the notes and
comments reflect only the opinion of the committee and are not necessarily
indicative of the views of this Court as to their correctness or applicability.  We
express no opinion on the correctness of these instructions and remind all interested
parties that this authorization forecloses neither requesting additional or alternative
instructions nor contesting the legal correctness of these instructions.  The
amendments shall be effective when this opinion becomes final.  New language is
indicated by underlining and deletions are indicated by struck-through type.  We
wish to express our appreciation to the committee for its dedication in presenting to
the Court its recommendations. 
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and
QUINCE, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF
FILED, DETERMINED.
Two Cases Consolidated:
Original Proceedings - Standard Jury Instructions - Civil Cases
-3-
Sylvia Walbolt, Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions
(Civil), St. Petersburg, Florida,
for Petitioner
Howard W. Weber, Tampa, Florida,
Commenting
-4-
APPENDIX
6.1
PERSONAL INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGES:
INTRODUCTION
a.
When directed verdict is given on liability (3.1d):
You should award (claimant) an amount of money that the greater weight
of the evidence shows will fairly and adequately compensate [him] [her] for
such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage], including any such damage as (claimant) is
reasonably certain to [incur] [experience] in the future. You shall consider the
following elements:
Enumerate appropriate elements (6.2).
b.
When there is no issue of comparative negligence:
If you find for defendant[s] you will not consider the matter of damages.
But, if you find for (claimant) you should award (claimant) an amount of money
that the greater weight of the evidence shows will fairly and adequately
compensate [him] [her] for such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage], including any
such damage as (claimant) is reasonably certain to [incur] [experience] in the
future. You shall consider the following elements:
Enumerate appropriate elements (6.2)
(1) When a Fabre issue is not involved
*[In entering a judgment for damages based on your verdict against
[either] [any] defendant, the court will take into account the percentage of that
defendant's [negligence] [responsibility] as compared to the total [negligence]
[responsibility] of all parties to this action.]
*Use the bracketed additional charge only when there are two or
more defendants; the reference to “responsibility” in this additional
charge is designed for use in strict liability cases.
-5-
(2) When a Fabre issue is involved
In determining the total amount of damages, you should not make any
reduction because of the [negligence] [fault] [responsibility], if any, of (identify
defendant and any additional person or entity who will be on verdict form). The
court in entering judgment will take into account your allocation of
[negligence] [fault] [responsibility] among all persons [or entities] who you find
contributed to (claimant's) damages.
NOTE ON USE FOR 6.1b
Where the jury is instructed to apportion fault and a “Fabre” issue is
involved, see Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1993) and Nash v. Wells Fargo
Services, 678 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 1996), 6.1b(2) may be used to alert the jury to the
appropriate procedure, so the jury does not make inappropriate adjustments to its
verdict. There is support for giving a special instruction explaining to the jury the
impact and effect of a section 768.81 apportionment of liability in such cases. See
Seminole Gulf Railway, Ltd. Partnership v. Fassnacht, 635 So.2d 142, 144 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1994) (Altenbernd, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) and Slawson
v. Fast Food Enterprises, 671 So.2d 255, 260 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. dismissed, 679
So.2d 773 (Fla. 1996). Pending further development in the law, the Committee takes
no position on this issue.
c.
When there is an issue of comparative negligence:
If your verdict is for (defendant)(s), you will not consider the matter of
damages. But if you find for (claimant), you should determine and write on the
verdict form, in dollars, the total amount of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] which
the greater weight of the evidence shows [he] [she] sustained as a result of the
incident complained of, including any such damage as (claimant) is reasonably
certain to [incur] [experience] in the future. You shall consider the following
elements.
Enumerate appropriate elements (6.2)
-6-
Give 6.9 (mortality tables),
6.10 (reduction to present value) and
6.13 (collateral source), if applicable.
(1)
When a Fabre issue is not involved
In determining the total amount of damages, you should not make any
reduction because of the negligence, if any, of (claimant). The court will enter a
judgment based on your verdict and, if you find that (claimant) was negligent in
any degree, the court in entering judgment will reduce the total amount of
damages by the percentage of negligence which you find is chargeable to
(claimant).
*[The court will also take into account, in entering judgment against any
defendant whom you find to have been [negligent] [responsible], the percentage
of that defendant's [negligence] [responsibility] compared to the total
[negligence] [responsibility] of all the parties to this action.]
*Use the bracketed paragraph above only when there is more than
one defendant; the reference to “responsibility” in this additional
charge is designed for use in strict liability cases.
(2)
When a Fabre issue is involved
In determining the total amount of damages, you should not make any
reduction because of the [negligence], if any, of (claimant) or because of the
[negligence] [fault] [responsibility] of (identify defendant and additional person or
entity who will be on verdict form). The court in entering judgment will take into
account your allocation of [negligence] [fault] [responsibility] among all
persons [or entities] who you find contributed to (claimant's) damages.
NOTE ON USE FOR 6.1c
Where the jury is instructed to apportion fault and a “Fabre” issue is
involved, see Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1993) and Nash v. Wells Fargo
-7-
Services, 678 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 1996), 6.1c(2) may be used to alert the jury to the
appropriate procedure, so the jury does not make inappropriate adjustments to its
verdict. There is support for giving a special instruction explaining to the jury the
impact and effect of a section 768.81 apportionment of liability in such cases. See
Seminole Gulf Railway, Ltd. Partnership v. Fassnacht, 635 So.2d 142, 144 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1994) (Altenbernd, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) and Slawson
v. Fast Food Enterprises, 671 So.2d 255, 260 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. dismissed, 679
So.2d 773 (Fla. 1996). Pending further development in the law, the Committee takes
no position on this issue.
d.
Motor vehicle no fault threshold instruction:
If you find for the (defendant)(s), you will not consider the matter of
damages. However, if you find for (claimant), you shall next determine the issue
of permanency, that is, whether (claimant) sustained an [injury] [or] [disease]
as a result of the incident complained of which consists in whole or in part of:
[(1)
significant and permanent loss of an important bodily function;]
[or]
[(2)
significant and permanent scarring or disfigurement;] [or]
[(3)
a permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical
probability, other than scarring and disfigurement].
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support the claim of
(claimant) on the issue of permanency, you should [award to claimant an
amount of money which the greater weight of the evidence shows will fairly
and adequately compensate (claimant) for damages caused by the incident in
question] [see Note on use 3]. You shall consider the following elements of
damage:
Note: here enumerate those damages recoverable in the absence of a
finding of permanency.
-8-
[and which have not been paid and are not payable by personal injury
protection benefits].
However, if the greater weight of the evidence does support the claim of
(claimant) on the issue of permanency, then you should also consider the
following elements:
Note: enumerate those damages in S.J.I. 6.2 as applicable. If there is
an issue of comparative negligence, refer to 6.1(c) for additional
language and instructions.