was a legal cause-of-his damage?
*812YES.- NO_,
Please answer question 5,
5, - State-the percentage of any responsibility- for plaintiff - Smith'S-damages that you charge-to; Defendant Mishap Manufacturing Co, (fill in only-if you answered YES to question-la, question lb, or both) _%
Defendant Sharp Sales Co. (fill in only if 3rou answered YES to question 2a, question 2b, or both) _%
Defendant Dilbert Driver-(-filI in only if you answered YES to question 3) %
Plaintiff,-John Smith (fill in-only if you answered YES to question-4) _%
TOTAL -RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL PARTIES-MUST BE-100%
Please answer question 6.
6, - What-is-the total-amount- (-100%) of any damages sustained-hy plaintiff, John Smith, and caused by the incident in question?
Total damages of plaintiff, John Smith $
In-deter-mining the total amount-of-damages, do-not make- any-reduction because of-the-negligence, if any, of plaintiff, John Smith. - If you find plaintif^-John Smith, negligent in any degree, the-court,-in-entering judgment, wiU reduee-Smith's total amount of damages (100%)-by-the percentage of negligence which you-find is chargeable-to Smith.
SO SAY WE ALL, this day-of 19
FOREMAN OR FOREWOMAN
NQ-T-E-ON-OSE
-For-a-medel itemized-verd-ict form,-as contemplated by section - 768-77, Florida Statutes-,-refer to Model-Verdict Form 1⁄8-!.-
COMMENT ON MODEL CHARGE N-CE-8
The - Committee - purposefully - omitted from- this-hypothetical-caser-and from-Mod-
el Charge No.--7,-a-ny possible claim-by John Smith against-the retailer or manufacturer based-upon an implied warranty theory. - Whether-or-not Smith was in privity - with - either - defendant, - see §-6-7-2.318, Fla. Stat,- (1995), and-regardless of-any implied warranty claim -that-may have -existed -notwithstanding the strict -liability claim, see Kramer v. Piper-Air&mft Govy., 520- So.2d 37, 39 n.4 (Fla.l-988)r-the claims in this hypothetical case included no claim of-implied warranty.
The model charge-and verdict- -foi-m-as-sume that both- the-negligence and strict liability claims are to be submitted- to--the 3⁄83⁄43⁄47⁄8 - In cases-i-nvol-ving claims of-both negligent and defective DESIGN,-however-,-submission-of-both claims may- result-in an-inconsistent verdict. - See, e.g., Consolidated- Aluminum- -Corp. v. Brmm¡ - 447 So.2d 391 (Fla.-dth-DCA -1984-);--.43⁄87⁄81⁄8 Divr of Consolidated Aluminum Corp. v. Bobbin, 458 So.2d-33S-(Fla. 3d DCA 1984), North American Catamaran Racing-Asm v. - McCollister, -48Q-So.2d -669 -(F-la^-Sth DCA 1985). - See-eAso-Moomanr v. Ameri-eem-Safety Equipment~ 594 So.2d 795-(-F-la. 4th-DCA 1992)-