Case Name: Robert E. SMITH and Barbara Smith, his wife, Appellants, v. Dr. Craig HUGO, V.M.D and The Cat Hospital Of Hillsboro Boulevard, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-03-18
Citations: 714 So. 2d 467
Docket Number: No. 97-0220
Parties: Robert E. SMITH and Barbara Smith, his wife, Appellants, v. Dr. Craig HUGO, V.M.D and The Cat Hospital Of Hillsboro Boulevard, Appellees.
Judges: OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concurs specially with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 714
Pages: 467–469

Head Matter:
Robert E. SMITH and Barbara Smith, his wife, Appellants, v. Dr. Craig HUGO, V.M.D and The Cat Hospital Of Hillsboro Boulevard, Appellees.
No. 97-0220.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
March 18, 1998.
Rehearing Denied April 23, 1998.
David L. Kahn of David L. Kahn, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
Daniel M. Bachi, Jeffrey D. Kirby and Bard D. Rockenbach of Sellars, Supran, Cole, Marion & Bachi, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees.

Opinion:
DELL, Judge.
Robert and Barbara Smith appeal from a jury verdict in favor of Dr. Craig Hugo and The Cat Hospital of Hillsboro Boulevard, Inc. ("Cat Hospital"). Appellants have failed to demonstrate reversible error in the eight points raised on appeal. We will, however, discuss appellants' challenge to the court's instruction to the jury.
On July 3, 1992, Robert Smith brought his cat to Dr. Hugo for an examination and inoculation. During the vaccination proee- dure, the cat bit Mr. Smith. Appellants sued Dr. Hugo and Cat Hospital for negligence and loss of consortium.
The court charged the jury using Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Civil) 4.1 on ordinary negligence, but refused to give the modified version of Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Civil) 4.2c as requested by appellants. Appellants contend that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the standard of negligence for a veterinarian.
The failure to give a requested instruction constitutes reversible error when the complaining party establishes that the requested instruction accurately states the applicable law, the facts in the case support giving the instruction, and the instruction was necessary to allow the jury to properly resolve all issues in the case.
Auster v. Gertrude and Philip Strax Breast Cancer Detection Inst., Inc., 649 So.2d 883, 887 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). "However, an appellate court will not set aside a verdict merely because an instruction which might have been proper is not given; the court must conclude that the jury was misled by the instructions which were used." Bohannon v. Thomas, 592 So.2d 1246, 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
The proposed instruction accurately stated the law, and the facts supported giving the instruction; however, the instruction was not necessary in order for the jury to resolve the issues in this case. The general negligence instruction addresses the standard of care as a reasonably careful person under like circumstances. A reasonable person under like circumstances as defined in the standard instruction would contemplate Dr. Hugo's education and experience as a veterinarian. Further, both Dr. Hugo and the appellants' expert testified as to the standard of care for a veterinarian, and appellants presented evidence that Dr. Hugo did not act as a reasonable veterinarian would have acted under similar circumstances.
Under the court's instruction, the jury had a proper basis to resolve the issues of negligence and comparative negligence. The failure to give Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Civil) 4.2e was, at most, harmless error.
AFFIRMED.
OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concurs specially with opinion.
GROSS, J., dissents with opinion.