Title: In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC15-1279 
____________ 
 
 
IN RE:  STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES—REPORT 
NO. 15-02. 
 
[April 21, 2016] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 
(Committee) has submitted a report proposing amendments to one existing 
standard jury instruction.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. 
 
The Committee proposes replacing the current version of instruction 402.16 
(Emergency Medical Treatment Claims), which is relocated to appendix D of the 
civil jury instruction book by the Committee’s proposal, with a “placeholder” 
instruction.  The “placeholder” instruction explains that the Committee will 
propose a new instruction 402.16 that is consistent with the current version of 
section 768.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2015), when “guidance is provided from 
decisions of the Florida appellate courts.”   
 
 
- 2 - 
Prior to filing its report with the Court, the Committee published its 
proposals for comment.  No comments were received by the Committee.  After the 
Committee filed its report, the Court republished the Committee’s proposals for 
comment.  No comments were received. 
 
Having considered the Committee’s report, we hereby authorize the 
relocation of instruction 402.16, as modified below, but decline to authorize the 
Committee’s proposed “placeholder” instruction for publication and use.    
Appendix D of the civil jury instruction book is currently occupied with directions 
on how to write and use jury instructions in civil cases.  No civil jury instructions 
are contained in appendix D.  Thus, relocating instruction 402.16 to appendix D 
would impair the organizational structure of the civil jury instruction book and lead 
to confusion.  We therefore authorize the creation of new appendix E and the 
relocation of instruction 402.16 to that appendix.  
Accordingly, the instruction, as set forth in the appendix to this opinion, is 
authorized for publication and use.  In authorizing the publication and use of this 
instruction, we express no opinion on its correctness 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 
 
 
- 3 - 
views of this Court as to their correctness or applicability.  New language is 
indicated by underlining and deleted language is indicated by struck-through type.  
The instruction as set forth in the appendix shall be effective when this opinion 
becomes final.  
It is so ordered. 
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, 
and PERRY, 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 
 
Rebecca Mercier Vargas, Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury 
Instructions in Civil Cases, Kreusler-Walsh, Compiani & Vargas, P.A., West Palm 
Beach, Florida; Joseph Hagedorn Lang, Jr., Past Chair, Supreme Court Committee 
on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., 
Tampa, Florida; Neal Allan Roth, Subcommittee Chair, Professional Malpractice 
Subcommittee, Coral Gables, Florida; John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, 
and Heather Savage Telfer, Bar Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, 
Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
 
 
 
- 4 - 
Appendix 
402.16 EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT CLAIMS 
INTRODUCTORY COMMENT 
Instruction 402.16 addresses the provisions of F.S. 768.13(2)(b). It applies only 
to cases described in that statute or to cases in which there is a jury issue as to the 
applibility of the statute. Instruction 402.16 does not apply to cases involving patients 
capable of receiving treatment as non-emergency patients, even if treated in an 
emergency room.  
Instruction 402.16a applies to cases in which there is a jury issue as to whether 
the statute applies. Instruction 402.16b applies to cases in which either the parties 
agree that the statute applies or the court has ruled that the statute applies as a matter 
of law. 
The applicable part of instruction 402.16 should be preceded 
by instructions 402.1, 402.2, 402.3, and 403.6. Instruction 402.4 should not be given 
in the ordinary sequence as it is, to the extent applicable, incorporated 
in instruction 402.16. If there are any preliminary vicarious liability 
issues, instructions 402.9 and 402.10 should also be given. 
No reported decision construes the legislative intent behind this section. Based 
upon the definition of “reckless disregard” in F.S.768.13(2)(b)3, the committee has 
concluded that the intent was to limit liability in civil actions for damages arising out 
of fact situations to which the statute applies to cases where something more than 
“simple” negligence is established. Therefore, the standard instructions dealing with 
“simple” negligence are not appropriate for civil damage actions to which the statute 
applies. 
402.16a EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT —  
Jury Issue as to Application of F.S. 768.13(2)(b) 
(1). 
Preliminary issue on application of statute: 
The first issue for you to decide on (claimant’s) claim 
against (defendant) is whether (claimant) was being [cared for] [treated] under 
emergency circumstances. 
[Care] [treatment] is rendered under emergency circumstances when a 
[hospital] [physician] renders medical [care] [treatment] required by a 
 
 
- 5 - 
sudden, unexpected situation or event that resulted in a serious medical 
condition demanding immediate medical attention, for which (claimant or 
decedent) initially entered the hospital through its [emergency room] [trauma 
center], before (claimant or decedent) was medically stabilized and capable of 
receiving [care] [treatment] as a nonemergency patient. 
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support that (claimant’s or 
decedent’s) [care] [treatment] was being rendered under emergency 
circumstances then you shall proceed to decide whether (defendant) was 
negligent in [his] [her] [its] [care] [treatment] of (claimant or decedent). 
However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports that (claimant’s 
or decedent’s) [care] [treatment] was being rendered under emergency 
circumstances, then you shall proceed to decide whether (defendant) acted in 
reckless disregard of the consequences in [his] [her] [its] [care] [treatment] 
of (claimant or decedent). 
(2). 
Issues regarding negligence: 
[If you find that (claimant’s or decedent’s) [care] [treatment] was not 
being rendered under emergency circumstances,] the [next] issue for you to 
decide is whether (defendant) was negligent in (describe conduct in question); 
and, if so, whether that negligence was a legal cause of the [loss] [injury] [or] 
[damage] to (claimant, decedent or person for whose injury claim is made). 
“Negligence” is the failure to use reasonable care. Reasonable care on 
the part of a [hospital] [physician] 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 [hospitals] 
[physicians]. Negligence on the part of a [hospital] [physician] is doing 
something that a reasonably careful [hospital] [physician] would not do under 
like circumstances or failing to do something that a reasonably careful 
[hospital] [physician] would do under like circumstances. 
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support this claim, then 
your verdict [on this claim] should be for (defendant). 
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence does 
support (claimant’s) claim on these issues, then your verdict [on this claim] 
should be for (claimant) and against (defendant).] 
 
 
- 6 - 
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence does support (claim-
ant’s) claim, then you should consider the defense(s) raised by (defendant).] 
(3). 
Issues regarding reckless disregard:  
[If you find that (claimant’s or decedent’s) [care] [treatment] was being 
rendered under emergency circumstances,] the [next] issue for you to decide is 
whether (defendant) acted with reckless disregard of the consequences 
in (describe conduct in question); and, if so, whether that reckless disregard 
was a legal cause of the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent or 
person for whose injury claim is made).] 
A [hospital] [physician] acts with “reckless disregard” for the 
consequences of [its] [his] [her] actions if [it] [he] [she] knew or should have 
known at the time [it] [he] [she] rendered emergency services that [its] [his] 
[her] conduct would likely result in injury or death, considering [the 
seriousness of the situation] [the lack of a prior patient-physician relationship] 
[time constraints due to other emergencies requiring [care] [treatment] at the 
same time] [the lack of time or ability to obtain appropriate medical 
consultation] [and] [the inability to obtain an appropriate medical history of 
the patient]. 
If emergency circumstances have not been established by the greater 
weight of the evidence but the greater weight of the evidence 
supports (claimant’s) claim of negligence, then [your verdict [on this claim] 
should be for (claimant) and against (defendant)] [you should consider the 
defense(s) raised by (defendant)]. 
(Proceed to instructions 402.14 and 402.15) 
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence does not 
support (claimant’s) claim of negligence, then your verdict [on this claim] 
should be for (defendant).] 
On the other hand, if emergency circumstances have been established 
by the greater weight of the evidence and the greater weight of the evidence 
also supports (claimant’s) claim of reckless disregard of the consequences, then 
[your verdict [on this claim] should be for (claimant) and against (defendant)] 
[you should consider the defense(s) raised by(defendant)]. 
(Proceed to instructions 402.14 and 402.15) 
 
 
- 7 - 
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence does not 
support (claimant’s) claim of reckless disregard of the consequences, then your 
verdict [on this claim] should be for (defendant) and against (claimant).] 
402.16b EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT 
(Describe conduct in question) occurred in the course of [rendering] [or] 
[failing to render] emergency [care] [treatment] to (claimant or decedent). The 
issue for you to decide is whether (defendant) acted with reckless disregard of 
the consequences in (describe conduct in question); and, if so, whether that 
reckless disregard was a legal cause of the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] 
to (claimant, decedent or person for whose injury claim is made). 
A [hospital] [physician] acts with “reckless disregard” for the 
consequences of [its] [his] [her] actions if [it] [he] [she] knew or should have 
known at the time [it] [he] [she] rendered emergency services that [its] [his] 
[her] conduct would likely result in injury or death, considering [the 
seriousness of the situation] [the lack of a prior patient-physician relationship] 
[time constraints due to other emergencies requiring [care] [treatment] at the 
same time] [the lack of time or ability to obtain appropriate medical 
consultation] [and] [the inability to obtain an appropriate medical history of 
the patient]. 
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support (claimant’s) claim, 
then your verdict [on this claim] should be for (defendant). 
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence does 
support (claimant’s) claim on these issues, then your verdict [on this claim] 
should be for (claimant) and against (defendant).] 
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence does 
support (claimant’s) claim on these issues, then you should consider the 
defense(s) raised by (defendant).] 
(Proceed to instructions 402.14 and 402.15)