Case Name: Eartherlene FLOWERS and Raleigh Flowers, Individually, and as husband and wife, Appellants, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, d/b/a Jackson Memorial Hospital, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1975-05-27
Citations: 314 So. 2d 207
Docket Number: No. 74-1122
Parties: Eartherlene FLOWERS and Raleigh Flowers, Individually, and as husband and wife, Appellants, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, d/b/a Jackson Memorial Hospital, et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before PEARSON, HAVERFlELD and NATHAN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 314
Pages: 207–208

Head Matter:
Eartherlene FLOWERS and Raleigh Flowers, Individually, and as husband and wife, Appellants, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, d/b/a Jackson Memorial Hospital, et al., Appellees.
No. 74-1122.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 27, 1975.
Rehearing Denied July 2, 1975.
Kuvin, Klingensmith & Coon and R. Fred Lewis, Coconut Grove, Gaine & Gaine, Miami, for appellants.
Fowler, White, Humkey, Burnett, Hurley & Banick and Fred R. Ober, Miami, for ap-pellees.
Before PEARSON, HAVERFlELD and NATHAN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The point presented upon this appeal is whether the giving of a designated instruction to the jury constitutes reversible error. The instruction has been approved as to form and content. Potock v. Turek, Fla. App.1969, 227 So.2d 724. A party is entitled to an instruction upon an issue raised by the evidence. See Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Bracewell, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 482, and Parker v. Chew, Fla.App.1973, 280 So.2d 695. Here, an issue of negligence was tried; therefore, the instruction was applicable. The only remaining consideration is whether the instruction constituted reversible error in that, when considered together with the entire charge to the jury, it was improper. Keyser v. Brunette, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 840. We hold that the giving of the instruction did not constitute reversible error. Cf. Chambers v. Nottebaum, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 716, 721, and cases cited therein.
Affirmed.