Title: Standard Jury Instructions

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC00-2515
____________
STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS-
CIVIL CASES (NO. 00-2)
[July 5, 2001]
PER CURIAM.
The Committee on Standard Jury Instructions (Civil) petitions this Court to
amend the Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases.  We have jurisdiction.  Art. V,
§ 2(a), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.985. 
The committee published its proposed amendments for comment in The
Florida Bar News and no comments were received.  Upon consideration, we
hereby authorize for publication and use the proposed amendments as set forth in
the appendix attached to this opinion.   The amendments replace Jury Instruction
PD, "Punitive Damages," and Model Verdict Forms 8.7(a), 8.7(b), and 8.8. 
In authorizing publication, we caution all interested persons that the notes and
comments reflect only the opinion of the committee and are not necessarily
-2-
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.  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.
Original Proceedings - Standard Jury Instructions (Civil Cases)
Honorable Peter D. Webster, Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury
Instructions (Civil), Tallahassee, Florida,
for Petitioner
-3-
APPENDIX
PD
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
These instructions are intended for use in the majority of punitive damages cases. 
They may not be applicable in cases involving a defendant acting under the
influence of drugs or alcohol.  See Fla. Stat. s. 768.736 (1999). Likewise, these
instructions may not be applicable in cases involving child abuse, abuse of the
elderly, or abuse of the developmentally disabled or any civil action arising
under chapter 400.  See Fla. Stat. s. 768.735 (1999).
PD 1 Punitive Damages — Bifurcated Procedure
a.
First stage of bifurcated punitive damages procedure
(1)
Introduction
(2)
Punitive damages generally
(a)
Causes of action arising prior to October 1, 1999
(b)
Causes of action arising on or after October 1, 1999
(3)
Direct liability for acts of managing agent, primary owner, or
certain others
(a)
Causes of action arising prior to October 1, 1999
(b)
Causes of action arising on or after October 1, 1999
(4)
Vicarious liability for acts of employee or agent
(a)
Causes of action arising prior to October 1, 1999
(b)
Causes of action arising on or after October 1, 1999
b.
Second stage of bifurcated punitive damages procedure
(1)
Opening instruction second stage
(2)
Punitive damages — determination of amount
(a)
Causes of action arising prior to October 1, 1999
(b)
Causes of action arising on or after October 1, 1999
-4-
(3)
Closing instruction second stage
PD 2 Punitive Damages — Non-Bifurcated Procedure
a.
Punitive damages generally
(1)
Causes of action arising prior to October 1, 1999
(2)
Causes of action arising on or after October 1, 1999
b.
Direct liability for acts of managing agent, primary owner, or certain
others
(1)
Causes of action arising prior to October 1, 1999
(2)
Causes of action arising on or after October 1, 1999
c.
Vicarious liability for acts of employee or agent
(1)
Causes of action arising prior to October 1, 1999
(2)
Causes of action arising on or after October 1, 1999
d.
Punitive damages — determination of amount
(1)
Causes of action arising prior to October 1, 1999
(2)
Causes of action arising on or after October 1, 1999
-5-
PD
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
PD 1 Punitive Damages — Bifurcated Procedure:
a.
First stage of bifurcated punitive damages procedure:
(1)
Introduction:
If you find for (claimant) and against defendant (name person or entity whose
conduct may warrant punitive damages), you should consider whether, in addition
to 
compensatory 
damages, 
punitive 
damages 
are 
warranted 
in 
the
circumstances of this case as punishment and as a deterrent to others.
The trial of the punitive damages issue is divided into two stages. In this
first stage, you will decide whether the conduct of (name defendant whose
conduct may warrant punitive damages) is such that punitive damages are
warranted. If you decide that punitive damages are warranted, we will proceed
to the second stage during which the parties may present additional evidence
and argument on the issue of punitive damages. I will then give you additional
instructions, after which you will decide whether in your discretion punitive
damages will be assessed and, if so, the amount.
(2)
Punitive damages generally:
(a)
Causes of action arising prior to October 1, 1999
Punitive damages are warranted if you find by clear and convincing
evidence that:
(1)
the conduct causing [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant)
was so gross and flagrant as to show a reckless disregard of
human life or of the safety of persons exposed to the effects of such
conduct; or
(2)
the conduct showed such an entire lack of care that the
-6-
defendant must have been consciously indifferent to the
consequences; or
(3)
the conduct showed such an entire lack of care that the
defendant must have wantonly or recklessly disregarded the safety
and welfare of the public; or
(4)
the conduct showed such reckless indifference to the rights
of others as to be equivalent to an intentional violation of those
rights.
[You may determine that punitive damages are warranted against one
defendant and not the other[s] or against more than one defendant.]
“Clear and convincing evidence” differs from the “greater weight of the
evidence” in that it is more compelling and persuasive.  “Greater weight of the
evidence” means the more persuasive and convincing force and effect of the
entire evidence in the case.  In contrast, “clear and convincing evidence” is
evidence that is precise, explicit, lacking in confusion, and of such weight that
it produces a firm belief or conviction, without hesitation, about the matter in
issue.
(b)
Causes of action arising on or after October 1, 1999
Punitive damages are warranted if you find by clear and convincing
evidence that (name person whose conduct may warrant punitive damages) was
personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence.  "Intentional
misconduct" means that (name person whose conduct may warrant punitive
damages) had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and the high
probability that injury or damage to (claimant) would result and, despite that
knowledge, intentionally pursued that course of conduct, resulting in injury or
damage.  "Gross negligence" means that the conduct of (name person whose
conduct may warrant punitive damages) was so reckless or wanting in care that it
constituted a conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety, or rights of
-7-
persons exposed to such conduct.  
“Clear and convincing evidence” differs from the “greater weight of the
evidence” in that it is more compelling and persuasive. “Greater weight of the
evidence” means the more persuasive and convincing force and effect of the
entire evidence in the case.   In contrast, “clear and convincing evidence” is
evidence that is precise, explicit, lacking in confusion, and of such weight that
it produces a firm belief or conviction, without hesitation, about the matter in
issue.
(3)
Direct liability for acts of managing agent, primary owner, or
certain others:
(a)
Causes of action arising prior to October 1, 1999
If you find for (claimant) and against (defendant corporation or partnership),
and you find also that clear and convincing evidence shows that the conduct of
(name managing agent, primary owner, or other person whose conduct may warrant
punitive damages without proof of a superior's fault) was a substantial cause of
[loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant) and that such conduct warrants
punitive damages against [her] [him] in accordance with the standards I have
mentioned, then in your discretion you may also determine that punitive
damages are warranted against (defendant corporation or partnership).
(b)
Causes of action arising on or after October 1, 1999
If you find for (claimant) and against (defendant corporation or partnership),
and you find also that clear and convincing evidence shows that  (name managing
agent, primary owner, or other person whose conduct may warrant punitive damages
without proof of a superior's fault) was personally guilty of intentional misconduct
or gross negligence which was a substantial cause of [loss][injury] [or] [damage]
-8-
to (claimant) and that such conduct warrants punitive damages against [her]
[him] in accordance with the standards I have mentioned, then in your discretion
you may also determine that punitive damages are warranted against (defendant
corporation or partnership).   "Intentional misconduct" means that (name person
whose conduct may warrant punitive damages) had actual knowledge of the
wrongfulness of the conduct and the high probability that injury or damage to
(claimant)  would result and, despite that knowledge, intentionally pursued that
course of conduct, resulting in injury or damage.  "Gross negligence" means
that the conduct of (name person whose conduct may warrant punitive damages)
was so reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard or
indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct.
(4)
Vicarious liability for acts of employee or agent:
(a)
Causes of action arising prior to October 1, 1999
If you find for (claimant) and against (defendant employer/principal), and you
find also that (name employee/agent) acted in such a manner as to warrant
punitive damages, then if clear and convincing evidence shows also that
(defendant employer/principal) was negligent and that such negligence contributed
to (claimant's) [loss] [injury] [or] [damage], you may also determine that punitive
damages are warranted against (defendant employer/principal).  If clear and
convincing 
evidence 
does 
not 
show 
such 
negligence 
by 
(defendant
employer/principal) independent of the conduct of (name employee/agent), punitive
damages are not warranted against (defendant employer/principal).
(b)
Causes of action arising on or after October 1, 1999
If 
you 
find 
for 
(claimant) 
and 
against 
(defendant
employer/principal/corporation/ or other legal entity), and you find also that (name
employee/agent) was personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross
-9-
negligence which was a substantial cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to
(claimant) and that such conduct warrants punitive damages against (name
employee/agent), then in your discretion you may also determine that punitive
damages are warranted against (defendant employer/principal/corporation/or other
legal entity) if you find that clear and convincing evidence also shows that:
•
(defendant employer/principal/corporation/or other legal entity) actively
and 
knowingly 
participated 
in 
such 
conduct 
of 
(name
employee/agent); or
•
the 
[officers] 
[directors] 
[or] 
[managers] 
of 
(defendant
employer/principal/corporation/or 
other 
legal 
entity) 
knowingly
condoned, ratified, or consented to such conduct of (name
employee/agent); or
•
(defendant employer/principal/corporation/or other legal entity) engaged
in conduct that constituted gross negligence and that contributed to
the [loss] [damage] [or] [injury] suffered by (claimant).
"Intentional misconduct" means that (name person whose conduct may
warrant punitive damages) had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the
conduct and the high probability that injury or damage to (claimant)  would result
and, despite that knowledge, intentionally pursued that course of conduct,
resulting in injury or damage.  "Gross negligence" means that the conduct of
(name person whose conduct may warrant punitive damages)  was so reckless or
wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard or indifference to the
life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct.
b.
Second stage of bifurcated punitive damage procedure:
(1)
Opening instruction second stage:
The parties may now present additional evidence related to whether
punitive damages should be assessed and, if so, in what amount. You should
consider this additional evidence along with the evidence already presented, and
you should decide any disputed factual issues by the greater weight of the
-10-
evidence.  “Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and
convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
(2)
Punitive damages — determination of amount:
(a)
Causes of action arising prior to October 1, 1999
You will now determine the amount of punitive damages, if any, to be
assessed as punishment and as a deterrent to others. This amount would be in
addition to the compensatory damages you have previously awarded.  In making
this determination, you should consider the following:
(1)
the nature, extent and degree of misconduct and the related
circumstances; [and]
[(2)
[the] [each] defendant's financial resources; and]*
*Refer to Note on Use 4
[(3)
any other circumstance which may affect the amount of
punitive damages.]*
*Refer to Note on Use 4
You may in your discretion decline to assess punitive damages. [You may
assess punitive damages against one defendant and not the other[s] or against
more than one defendant. Punitive damages may be assessed against different
defendants in different amounts.]
(b)
Causes of action arising on or after October 1, 1999
You will now determine the amount of punitive damages, if any, to be
assessed as punishment and as a deterrent to others. This amount would be in
addition to the compensatory damages you have previously awarded.  In making
this determination, you should consider the following:
(1)
the nature, extent and degree of misconduct and the related
circumstances, including the following:
-11-
•
whether the wrongful conduct was motivated solely by
unreasonable financial gain;
•
whether the unreasonably dangerous nature of the conduct,
together with the high likelihood of injury resulting from the
conduct, was actually known by [defendant] [the managing
agent, director, officer, or other person responsible for making
policy decisions on behalf of the defendant];
•
whether, at the time of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage],
[defendant] [the managing agent, director, officer, or other person
responsible for making policy decisions on behalf of the defendant]
had a specific intent to harm (claimant) and the conduct of
[defendant] [the managing agent, director, officer, or other person
responsible for making policy decisions on behalf of the defendant]
did in fact harm  (claimant),  [and]
[(2)
[the] [each] defendant's financial resources; and]*
*Refer to Note on Use 4
[(3)
any other circumstance which may affect the amount of
punitive damages.]*
*Refer to Note on Use 4
You may in your discretion decline to assess punitive damages. [You may
assess punitive damages against one defendant and not the other[s] or against
more than one defendant. Punitive damages may be assessed against different
defendants in different amounts.]
(3)
Closing instruction second stage:
Your verdict on the issues raised by the punitive damages claim of
(claimant) against (defendant) must be based on the evidence that has been
received during the trial of the first phase of this case and on the evidence that
has been received in these proceedings and the law on which I have instructed
you. In reaching your verdict, you are not to be swayed from the performance
of your duty by prejudice or sympathy for or against any party.
-12-
Your verdict must be unanimous, that is, your verdict must be agreed to
by each of you.
You will be given a form of verdict, which I shall now read to you:
When you have agreed on your verdict, the foreman or forewoman, acting
for the jury, should date and sign the verdict. You may now retire to consider
your verdict.