Title: In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases Report No. 1302

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC13-1669 
____________ 
 
 
IN RE:  STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES—REPORT 
NO. 13-02. 
 
[March 20, 2014] 
 
 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 
(Committee) has submitted proposed changes to the standard jury instructions 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 amending instruction 501.5 (Other Contributing 
Causes of Damages), with a new paragraph, (c), Subsequent injuries caused by 
medical treatment.  The proposal was prompted by the law that considers the 
treating doctor’s negligence in rendering medical care to the victim for the initial 
injuries as part of the consequences caused by the original actor’s negligence that 
required the medical treatment.  Stuart v. Hertz Corp., 351 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1977).  
 
- 2 - 
There is a need for a specific instruction for this complex legal subject.  The 
Committee published its proposal in The Florida Bar News.  Two comments were 
received. 
 
We authorize the changes to instruction 501.5 as proposed.  Instruction 
501.5(c), as amended, sets out the proposition that if the defendant caused the 
injury, loss, or damage to the claimant, he or she is responsible for any injury, loss, 
or damage caused by medical care or treatment reasonably obtained by the 
claimant.  In Stuart, the Court held that an active tortfeasor in an automobile 
accident may not bring a third party action for indemnity against a physician for 
damages directly attributable to malpractice which aggravated the plaintiff’s 
injuries.  351 So. 2d at 704-705.  The Court noted that “Florida continues to follow 
the general rule that where each tortfeasor is chargeable with active or affirmative 
negligence contributing to the injury for which recovery was had, neither is entitled 
to indemnity from the other.”  Id. at 705.  The Court thereupon stated that “[i]t 
follows that the rights of a party to indemnification will be denied where his own 
wrongful act or omission proximately contributes to the injury complained of.”  Id.  
Underlying the Court’s ruling is the proposition that “a wrongdoer is liable for the 
ultimate result, although the mistake or even negligence of the physician who 
treated the injury may have increased the damage which would otherwise have 
 
- 3 - 
followed from the original wrong.”  Id. at 707 (quoting 57 Am.Jur.2d Negligence § 
149, at 507).   
 
After consideration of the Committee’s proposal, the dissenting view, and 
the comments submitted to the Committee, we hereby authorize the publication 
and use of instruction 501.5 as amended, set forth in the appendix to this opinion.  
In doing so, we express no opinion on the correctness of the instruction and remind 
all interested parties that this authorization forecloses neither requesting additional 
or alternative instructions, nor contesting the legal correctness of the instruction.  
We further caution all interested parties that any comments associated with the 
instruction reflect only the opinion of the Committee and are not necessarily 
indicative of the views of this Court as to their correctness or applicability.  New 
language is indicated by underlining.  The instruction as set forth in the appendix 
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.  
 
Original Proceedings – Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in 
Civil Cases 
  
Honorable James Manly Barton, II, Committee Chair, Supreme Court Committee 
on Standard Jury Instructions, (Civil), Tampa, Florida; Joseph Hagedorn Lang, Jr., 
Committee Vice-Chair and Subcommittee Chair, Supreme Court Filing 
Subcommittee, Tampa, Florida; and Elizabeth K. Russo, Subcommittee Chair, 
Negligence Subcommittee, Miami, Florida,  
 
 
- 4 - 
 
for Petitioner 
 
 
  
 
- 5 - 
APPENDIX 
501.5  OTHER CONTRIBUTING CAUSES OF DAMAGES 
 
a. 
Aggravation or activation of disease or defect: 
 
If you find that the (defendant(s)) caused a bodily injury, and that the 
injury resulted in [an aggravation of an existing disease or physical defect] 
[or] [activation of a latent disease or physical defect], you should attempt to 
decide what portion of (claimant’s) condition resulted from the [aggravation] 
[or] [activation]. If you can make that determination, then you should award 
only those damages resulting from the [aggravation] [or] [activation]. 
However, if you cannot make that determination, or if it cannot be said that 
the condition would have existed apart from the injury, then you should 
award damages for the entire condition suffered by (claimant). 
 
NOTE ON USE FOR 501.5a 
 
This instruction is intended for use in situations in which a preexisting 
physical condition is aggravated by the injury, or the injury activates a latent 
condition. See C. F. Hamblen, Inc. v. Owens, 172 So. 694 (Fla. 1937). Instruction 
501.5a is necessary where Instruction 401.12b, Concurring cause, is given. See 
Hart v. Stern, 824 So.2d 927, 932–34 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Auster v. Gertrude & 
Philip Strax Breast Cancer Detection Institute, Inc., 649 So.2d 883, 887 (Fla. 4th 
DCA 1995). 
 
b. 
Subsequent injuries/multiple events: 
 
You have heard that (claimant) may have been injured in two events. If you 
decide that (claimant) was injured by (defendant) and was later injured by 
another event, then you should try to separate the damages caused by the two 
events and award (claimant) money only for those damages caused by (defendant). 
However, if you cannot separate some or all of the damages, you must award 
(claimant) any damages that you cannot separate as if they were all caused by 
(defendant).