Title: In Re: Standard Jury Instructions In Civil Cases Report No. 09-10 (Products Liability)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC09-1264
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: May 17, 2012

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC09-1264 
____________ 
 
 
IN RE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES—REPORT 
NO. 09-10 (PRODUCTS LIABILITY). 
 
[May 17, 2012] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 
(Committee) has submitted extensive proposed changes to the standard civil jury 
instructions previously authorized by the Court.  We now address the amendments 
directed for use in products liability cases, which the Committee asks the Court to 
authorize.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. 
BACKGROUND 
 
On July 16, 2009, the Committee filed a report proposing both new and 
revised products liability standard jury instructions.1  At that time, pending before 
                                         
1.  The Court identified the Committee‘s proposals by number for ease of 
consideration, as follows: 
 
Proposal 1 – Eliminating ―PL Product Liability, Note on Use‖ and 
introductory paragraph; 
 
 
- 2 - 
the Court was the Committee‘s proposed general reorganization of the standard 
civil jury instructions (Case No. SC09-284), which included reorganizing the 
instructions by separate areas of civil law and renumbering the instructions to 
reflect that reorganization, as well as modifications intended to improve juror 
understanding.  In large part, the Court authorized, with minor modifications, the 
Committee‘s proposals for publication and use.  See In re Standard Jury 
                                                                                                                                   
Proposal 2 – Instruction 403.1 – Introduction (new); 
Proposal 3 – Instruction 403.2 – Summary of Claims (new); 
Proposal 4 – Eliminate current paragraph on burden and add Instruction 
403.3 – Greater Weight of the Evidence; 
Proposal 5 – Eliminate PL 1 and add Instruction 403.4 – Express Warranty; 
Proposal 6 – Eliminate PL 2 and add Instruction 403.5 – Implied Warranty 
of Merchantability; 
Proposal 7 – Eliminate PL 3 and add Instruction 403.6 – Implied Warranty 
of Fitness for Particular Purpose; 
Proposal 8 – Eliminate PL 4, PL 5, Notes on Use, and Comment, and add 
Instruction 403.7 – Strict Liability; 
Proposal 9 – Instruction 403.8 – Strict Liability Failure to Warn (new); 
Proposal 10 – Instruction 403.9 – Negligence; 
Proposal 11 – Instruction 403.10 – Negligent Failure to Warn (new); 
Proposal 12 – Instruction 403.11 – Inference of Product Defect or 
Negligence (new); 
Proposal 13 – Instruction 403.12 – Legal Cause; 
Proposal 14 – Instruction 403.13 – Preliminary Issue (new); 
Proposal 15 – Instruction 403.14 – Burden of Proof on Preliminary Issue; 
Proposal 16 – Instruction 403.15 – Issues on Main Claim; 
Proposal 17 – Instruction 403.16 – Issues on Crashworthiness and 
―Enhanced Injury‖ Claim (new); 
Proposal 18 – Instruction 403.17 – Burden of Proof on Main Claim; 
Proposal 19 – Instruction 403.18 – Defense Issues (new); 
Proposal 20 – Instruction 403.19 – Burden of Proof on Defense Issues; and 
Proposal 21 – Eliminating Model Charge Nos. 7 and 8 and adding Model 
Instruction No. 7 and Special Verdict Form. 
 
 
 
- 3 - 
Instructions in Civil Cases—Report No. 09-01 (Reorganization of the Civil Jury 
Instructions), 35 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 2010). 
Prior to filing its report in this case, on December 15, 2008, the Committee 
published the proposed changes directed to the products liability instructions for 
public comment in The Florida Bar News.  Five comments were received, each 
addressing a number of the proposals.  The Court also sought public comment on 
specific issues pertaining to particular proposals, which appeared in the January 1, 
2010, edition of The Florida Bar News.  Following receipt of numerous comments, 
the Court heard oral argument on May 5, 2010. 
DISCUSSION 
 
In lieu of the products liability standard instructions previously authorized 
under the former standard civil jury instruction structure, see In re Standard Jury 
Instructions (Civil Cases), 435 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 1983), and upon consideration of 
the proposals, comments, and oral arguments presented in this case, we hereby take 
the following action.  First, we provide preliminary approval for publication in the 
future of the proposals with regard to standard instructions 403.1 – Introduction 
(new); instruction 403.2 – Summary of Claims (new); instruction 403.4 – Express 
Warranty; instruction 403.5 – Implied Warranty of Merchantability; instruction 
403.6 – Implied Warranty of Fitness for Particular Purpose; instruction 403.8 – 
Strict Liability Failure to Warn (new); instruction 403.10 – Negligent Failure to 
 
 
- 4 - 
Warn (new); instruction 403.12 – Legal Cause; instruction 403.14 – Burden of 
Proof on Preliminary Issue; instruction 403.15 – Issues on Main Claim; instruction 
403.17 – Burden of Proof on Main Claim; and instruction 403.19 – Burden of 
Proof on Defense Issues. 
 
Second, the following jury instructions are preliminarily approved for 
publication in the future as modified: instruction 403.9 – Negligence; and 
instruction 403.18 – Defense Issues (new). 
 
Last, the Court rejects the following proposals: instruction 403.3 – Greater 
Weight of the Evidence; instruction 403.7 – Strict Liability; instruction 403.11 – 
Inference of Product Defect or Negligence (new); instruction 403.13 – Preliminary 
Issue (new); instruction 403.16 – Issues on Crashworthiness and ―Enhanced 
Injury‖ Claim (new); and Model Instruction 7 and Special Verdict Form.2  Instead, 
the Court preliminarily approves for publication in the future instruction 403.3, 
consistent with previously authorized ―Greater Weight of the Evidence‖ standard 
civil jury instructions.3  We refer back to the Committee its proposals with regard 
                                         
2.  The numerical assigned placement for such instructions is reserved, 
however. 
  
3.  For example, see the following instructions:  401.3 (negligence cases); 
402.3 (professional negligence cases); 404.3 (insurer‘s bad faith cases); 405.3 
(defamation cases); 406.3 (malicious prosecution cases); 407.3 (false 
imprisonment cases); 408.3 (tortious interference with business relationships); 
409.3 (misrepresentation cases); 410.3 (outrageous conduct causing severe 
emotional distress cases); 412.5 (cases involving contribution among tortfeasors); 
 
 
- 5 - 
to instructions 403.7, 403.11, 403.13, 403.14, 403.15d, 403.15f, 403.15g, 403.16, 
Model Instruction No. 7 and the Special Verdict Form, and the Committee Notes to 
each of the products liability standard instructions.  We direct the Committee to 
make revisions consistent with the instructions preliminarily approved by the Court 
for publication in the future and as set forth in the appendix to this opinion, as well 
as the Court‘s decisions in In re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases—Report 
No. 09-01 (Reorganization of the Civil Jury Instructions), 35 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 
2010) and In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report No. 2010-01 
& Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases—Report No. 2010-01, 52 So. 3d 595 
(Fla. 2010).  We also direct the Committee to conform all instructions, comments, 
model forms of instructions, verdict forms, and any related material to the actions 
of the Court in this and prior opinions.  All of the foregoing must be completed 
before publication and use.  Accordingly, until further order of the Court, we 
withhold authorization of the approved instructions.4  The approvals are only 
preliminary because this group of instructions must be viewed as a full package 
before authorization can be provided. 
                                                                                                                                   
and 413.3 (cases involving claim for personal injury protection benefits (medical 
benefits only)).  See In re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases—Report No. 
09-01 (Reorganization of the Civil Jury Instructions), 35 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 2010). 
 
 
4.  We direct the Clerk of Court, on behalf of the Court, to send a referral 
letter to the Committee, to include information with regard to the procedure the 
Committee is to follow in submitting its revised proposals to the Court in accord 
with this decision. 
 
 
- 6 - 
CONCLUSION 
In providing preliminary approval for the standard civil jury instructions for 
publication in the future, as set forth in the appendix, we express no opinion on 
their correctness.  We further caution all interested parties that any comments 
associated with the instructions 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 underscoring and deletions are 
indicated by struck-through type.  The instructions as set forth in the appendix 
shall be effective when the entire package of products liability material is 
completed and the instructions are authorized by the Court.  We caution that 
further work is required before publication and use of these preliminary products 
liability instructions, model forms, verdict forms, and any other material relating to 
the foregoing. 
 
It is so ordered. 
PARIENTE, LEWIS, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
PARIENTE, J., concurs with an opinion. 
CANADY, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which 
POLSTON, J., concurs. 
QUINCE, concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion. 
 
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.   
 
 
PARIENTE, J., concurring. 
 
 
- 7 - 
A dedicated group of individuals has worked very hard in reorganizing the 
Standard Civil Jury Instructions for Products Liability, and I thank those 
Committee members.  I concur with our decision to grant preliminary approval for 
the adoption of the majority of the proposed instructions.  I further agree that in 
light of the legislative changes regarding crashworthiness, Instruction 403.16 must 
be rejected in its present form. 
I write to explain my reasons for agreeing with the majority‘s rejection of 
proposed Instruction 403.7, Strict Liability.  As to Instruction 403.7, the 
Committee had proposed merging the definitions of manufacturing defect and 
design defect.  I believe that the definitions of manufacturing defect and design 
defect should be kept separate in order to avoid confusion.  
The definition of a manufacturing defect currently contained in existing 
Instruction PL4 states: ―A product is unreasonably dangerous because of a 
manufacturing defect if it was not built according to its intended design and fails to 
perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect.‖  This clarifies that the 
risk/benefit test is not a definition of an unintended manufacturing defect.  Further, 
in the Committee‘s proposed notes on use, paragraph 1, the Committee specifically 
explains that the ―risk/benefit test does not apply in cases involving claims of 
manufacturing defect,‖ citing to Cassisi v. Maytag, 396 So. 2d 1140, 1146 (Fla. 1st 
DCA 1981).  That is a correct statement of the law.   
 
 
- 8 - 
With regard to design defect, the current Instruction PL5 states that ―[a] 
product is unreasonably dangerous because of its design if [the product fails to 
perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used as intended or 
in a manner reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer] [or] [the risk of danger in 
the design outweighs the benefits].‖  These alternative definitions encompass both 
the consumer expectations test and the risk/benefit test.  
With regard to defining design defect, according to commentator Larry S. 
Stewart, Instruction 403.7 was the ―primary focus‖ of a ―barrage of advocacy.‖  I 
have read all the comments submitted, both those in favor and those against the 
proposed changes, and realize that the advocacy on both sides continues in this 
Court.  The existing committee note to PL5 has stated that the instruction defines 
― ‗unreasonably dangerous‘ both in terms of consumer expectations . . . and in 
terms weighing the design risk against its utility.‖  It also explains that the 
instruction was adopted in response to this Court‘s opinion in Ford Motor Co. v. 
Hill, 404 So. 2d 1049, 1052 n.4 (Fla. 1981), which directed the Committee to 
improve its products liability jury instruction. 
In the proposed notes on use, paragraph 3, the Committee explains that the 
proposed instruction ―retain[ed] the consumer expectations test and the risk/benefit 
test for product defect,‖ both of which previously appeared in PL5, Design Defect.  
The proposed committee note specifically explained in paragraph 3 that ―[p]ending 
 
 
- 9 - 
further development in the law, the committee takes no position on whether the 
risk/benefit test is a standard for product defect that should be included in 
instruction 403.7 or an affirmative defense under instruction 403.18.‖  In fact, 
proposed committee note 4 explains that Florida has not yet adopted provision 2(b) 
of the Restatement (Third) of Torts, Products Liability, which defines a design 
defect.  In support, the proposed committee note cites to Liggett Group, Inc. v. 
Davis, 973 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), which recognized that this Court has 
only adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts.  The Fourth District subsequently 
certified the following specific question to this Court: ―Should Florida adopt the 
Restatement (Third) of Torts for design defect cases?‖  Liggett Grp., Inc. v. Davis, 
973 So. 2d 684, 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).  We declined to answer the certified 
question, as pointed out in the committee note.   
After the proposed committee notes were written, the Third District decided 
the case of Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 48 So. 3d 976, 
996 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), in which the Third District did adopt the Restatement 
(Third) of Torts, Products Liability, and rejected the ―consumer expectations‖ test 
as an independent basis for finding a design defect.  The Third District reversed a 
verdict in favor of the plaintiffs in part based on a jury instruction that was 
patterned after current Instruction PL5.  Agrofollajes, 48 So. 3d at 996.  Although a 
majority of this Court did not vote to accept jurisdiction in Agrofollajes, I hope that 
 
 
- 10 - 
we will have the opportunity in the near future to clarify the law regarding the 
proper definition of design defect and whether the definition varies depending on 
the type of product involved.  I would urge the appellate courts to bring this issue 
to our attention by way of a certified question of great public importance in the 
appropriate case.   
Because this Court has not yet determined that issue and the definition of 
design defect is in a state of flux in Florida, I agree that the best course of action is 
to retain the current instructions on design defect, which have been in use since the 
1980s, until this Court can reach a definitive substantive decision on this issue, 
including whether to adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts regarding the 
definition of design defect.  That decision should be made in the context of a case 
or controversy and not through an amendment to the jury instructions. 
 
 
CANADY, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
 
I dissent from the Court‘s preliminary approval of new standard instructions 
403.9 (Negligence); 403.10 (Negligent Failure to Warn); and 403.18 (Defense 
Issues).  Because these particular instructions and certain of the comments 
associated with them have generated substantial controversy, I conclude that it 
would be appropriate for the Court to now refrain from approving these 
instructions.  The Court should defer addressing the contested issues until 
 
 
- 11 - 
presented with a proper case for adjudication.  I concur with the preliminary 
approval of the other new standard jury instructions. 
POLSTON, J., concurs. 
 
 
QUINCE, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
 
 
I agree with Chief Justice Canady that we should not authorize for 
publication or use new standard instruction 403.10 (Negligence Failure to Warn).  
However, I also conclude that standard instruction 403.18 as modified should be 
authorized for publication and use. 
 
 
Original Proceedings – Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instruction (Civil)  
 
Tracy Raffles Gunn, Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions (Civil), 
Gunn Appellate Practice, Tampa, Florida, Gary M. Farmer of Farmer, Jaffe, 
Weissing, et al., Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Joseph Hagedorn Lang, Jr. of Carlton 
Fields, P.A., Tampa, Florida, and Judge James Manly Barton, II, Thirteenth 
Judicial Circuit, Tampa, Florida,  
 
 
For Petitioner 
 
Larry M. Roth of Law Office of Larry M. Roth, P.A., Orlando, Florida; William L. 
Kirk, Jr. and Myron Shapiro of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, Orlando, Florida; 
Wendy F. Lumish of Carlton Fields, P.A., Miami, Florida and Richard J. Caldwell, 
Jr. of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, Tampa, Florida; Roy D. Wasson of Wasson & 
Associates, Chartered, Miami, Florida, Dock A. Blanchard of Blanchard, Merriam, 
Adel & Kirkland, P.A., Ocala, Florida, Julie H. Littky-Rubin of Lytal Reiter Clark 
Fountain & Williams, LLP, West Palm Beach, Florida, Charles B. Patrick of 
Charles B. Patrick , P.A., Miami, Florida, Joel S. Perwin of Joel S. Perwin, P.A., 
Miami, Florida, and Edward S. Schwartz of Gerson & Schwartz, P.A., Miami, 
Florida, on behalf of Florida Justice Association; Daniel B. Rogers, Edward A. 
Moss, Thomas Sherhouse, Alfred J. Saikali, and Mihai M. Vrasmasu of Shook, 
 
 
- 12 - 
Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Miami, Florida; M. Gary Toole and David C. Knapp of 
Smith Toole & Wiggins, P.L., Orlando, Florida; Aaron D. Twerski, Brooklyn Law 
School, Brooklyn, New York; Barbara Bolton Litten, Patricia E. Lowery and Amy 
Bloom of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P., West Palm Beach, Florida; Kathleen 
M. O‘Conner of Kathleen M. O‘Conner, P.A., Palmetto Bay, Florida and Frederick 
J. Fein of Thornton, Davis & Fein, P.A., Miami, Florida; P. Mike Patterson, Alan 
B. Bookman and Patrick G. Emmanuel of Emmanuel, Sheppard and Condon, 
Pensacola, Florida; John  C. Seipp, Jr. of Seipp & Flick LLP, Miami, Florida; Joel 
D. Eaton of Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Miami, Florida; Frank H. Gassler, Nava Ben-
Avraham and Petra L. Justice of Banker Lopez Gassler, P.A., Tampa, Florida; 
Robert M. Fulton, Benjamin H. Hill, III and Christopher S. Branton of Hill, Ward 
& Henderson, P.A., Tampa, Florida; Mercer K. Clarke of Clarke Silverglate & 
Campbell, P.A., Miami, Florida; Fredrick H.L. McClure, Lewis J. Conwell and 
Angela J. Crawford of DLA Piper LLP(US), Tampa, Florida; Robert J. Rudock 
and Loren W. Fender of Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Miami, Florida, 
 
 
Responding with comments  
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 13 - 
APPENDIX 
 
 
PL 
 
PRODUCT LIABILITY 
 
 
Issues 
 
PL 1 
 
Express warranty 
 
PL 2 
 
Implied warranty of merchantability 
 
PL 3 
 
Implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose 
 
PL 4 
 
Strict liability (manufacturing defect) 
 
PL 5 
 
Strict liability (design defect) 
 
Burden of proof (greater weight of the evidence) 
 
Defense issues 
 
 
403  PRODUCTS LIABILITY 
 
403.1  
Introduction 
403.2  
Summary of Claims 
403.3  
Greater Weight of the Evidence 
403.4  
Express Warranty 
403.5  
Implied Warranty of Merchantability 
403.6  
Implied Warranty of Fitness for Particular Purpose 
403.7  
Strict Liability 
403.8  
Strict Liability Failure to Warn 
403.9  
Negligence 
403.10 
Negligent Failure to Warn 
403.11 
Inference of Product Defect or Negligence   (reserved) 
403.12 
Legal Cause 
403.13 
Preliminary Issue   (reserved) 
403.14 
Burden of Proof on Preliminary Issue 
 
 
- 14 - 
403.15 
Issues on Main Claim 
403.16 
Issues on Crashworthiness and “Enhanced Injury” Claims 
403.17 
Burden of Proof on Main Claim 
403.18 
Defense Issues 
403.19 
Burden of Proof on Defense Issues 
 
 
- 15 - 
PL 
PRODUCT LIABILITY 
 
NOTE ON USE 
 
The instructions in this Part PL PRODUCT LIABILITY do not contain 
instructions on Negligence. When alternative issues of negligence are to be 
submitted, use Charge 3.5 on Negligence Issues, as in Model Charge No. 8. 
 
The issues for your determination on the claim of (claimant) against 
(defendant) are whether the (describe product) [sold] [supplied] by (defendant) 
was defective when it left the possession of (defendant) and, if so, whether such 
defect was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] sustained by (claimant 
or person for whose injury claim is made). A product is defective 
 
 
403.1 INTRODUCTION 
 
Members of the jury, you have now heard and received all of the 
evidence in this case. I am now going to tell you about the rules of law that you 
must use in reaching your verdict. [You will recall at the beginning of the case 
I told you that if, at the end of the case I decided that different law applies, I 
would tell you so. These instructions are (slightly) different from what I gave 
you at the beginning and it is these rules of law that you must now follow.] 
When I finish telling you about the rules of law, the attorneys will present 
their final arguments and you will then retire to decide your verdict.