Title: Standard Jury Instructions - Civil Cases
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC02-2130
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: April 1, 2004

Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
____________
No. SC02-2130
____________
STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS–CIVIL CASES (NO. 02-2)
[April 1, 2004]
PER CURIAM.
The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases
(Committee) has petitioned this Court to consider amendments to the Florida
Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, §
2(a), Fla. Const.
On October 1, 2002, the Committee filed a Supplemental Report (No. 02-2),
proposing changes to current civil jury instructions regarding product liability. 
Prior to submitting this report to the Court, the Committee published its proposals
in the June 15, 2002, edition of The Florida Bar News.  The Committee received
and considered one comment prior to submitting its proposals to the Court. 
Further, on August 27, 2003, the Committee filed an amended report to
clarify its October 1, 2002, submission.    
1.  The concept "manufacturing flaw" has been used in only a few reported
decisions discussing strict liability issues, the most recent of which was decided in
1984.  See Ford Motor Co. v. Hill, 404 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 1981); Zyferman v.
Taylor, 444 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Husky Indus., Inc. v. Black, 434
So. 2d 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Cassisi v. Maytag Co., 396 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1981).
-2-
The proposed revisions to PL 4, "strict liability (manufacturing flaw)," are
intended to provide structure and information in a manner similar to that in current
PL 5, "strict liability (design defect)."  Accordingly, the proposal to modify PL 4
follows the format of existing PL 5.  Further, the proposal strikes the term
"manufacturing flaw"1 and utilizes the phrase "manufacturing defect" to reflect the
generally accepted concept that has been applied in decisions rendered in this
state.  See Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 2 (1998).  
The proposed amendments to the two “notes on use” sections of the product
liability instructions clarify that the instructions do not contain negligence
instructions, but that a negligence instruction can be found in charge 3.5,
Negligence Issues, as illustrated in Model Charge 8.  Further, the proposed notes
provide a caution to judges and lawyers concerning the possibility of an
inconsistent verdict when both a negligence claim and a defective design claim are
submitted to a jury.  See, e.g., Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. Braun, 447 So. 2d 391
(Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Ashby Div. of Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. Dobkin, 458 So.
2.  In Barth v. Khubani, 748 So. 2d 260, 261 (Fla. 1999), this Court stated
that the two-issue rule provides:
[W]here there is no proper objection to the use of a
general verdict, reversal is improper where no error is
found as to one of two issues submitted to the jury on the
basis that the appellant is unable to establish that he has
been prejudiced. 
Whitman v. Castlewood Int'l Corp., 383 So. 2d 618, 619 (Fla. 1980). 
The rule is based on the principle that reversal is improper where no
error is found as to one of the issues that can independently support
the jury's verdict.
3.  Black’s Law Dictionary 311 (7th ed. 1999) defines the consumer-
expectation test, listed under the "consumer-contemplation test," as a "method of
imposing product liability on a manufacturer if the evidence shows that a product's
danger is greater than what a reasonable consumer would expect." 
4.  Black’s Law Dictionary 1329 (7th ed. 1999) defines the risk-utility test
as a "method of imposing product liability on a manufacturer if the evidence
shows that a reasonable person would conclude that the benefits of a product's
particular design versus the feasibility of an alternative safer design did not
outweigh the dangers inherent in the original design. -- Also termed danger-utility
test; risk-benefit test."  See also Adams v. G.D. Searle & Co., 576 So. 2d 728, 733
(Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (the test weighs a product's benefits against its known risks);
-3-
2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). 
The Committee's proposal makes two changes to Comment 2 regarding PL
5.  First, the proposal updates the case law cited for definitions of the term
"unreasonably dangerous."  Second, the proposal provides a caution regarding
potential two-issue rule problems2 that might arise if a jury is instructed under PL
5 on both the consumer-expectation test3 and the risk-utility test.4  See Zimmer,
Cassisi v. Maytag Co., 396 So. 2d 1140, 1145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (the test
weighs the utility of the design versus the magnitude of the inherent risk).
5.  In 1973, this Court adopted the comparative negligence doctrine in place
of the contributory negligence doctrine.  See Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431,
438 (Fla. 1973).
6.  In Cassisi, the district court of appeal adopted a rule that when a product
malfunctions during normal operation, a legal inference of product defectiveness
arises, and the injured plaintiff thereby establishes a prima facie case for jury
consideration.  
-4-
Inc. v. Birnbaum, 758 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
The proposal amends Comment 5 by striking references to the concept of
contributory negligence,5 and correcting references to the model charge numbers.  
The proposal adds new Comment 7, which directs attention to Cassisi v.
Maytag Co., 396 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).6  The proposal merely states
that pending further development of Florida law, the Committee takes no position
on the sufficiency of the instructions in cases in which the Cassisi inference
applies.  
Additionally, the attached amendments contain corrections to minor citation 
errors.
Upon consideration of the Committee's reports, we hereby authorize the
publication and use of the revised instruction as set forth in the appendix
following this opinion.  In doing so, we express no opinion on the correctness of
-5-
the instruction 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 the
notes and 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.  The instruction as set forth in the appendix shall be
effective when this opinion becomes final.  New language is indicated by
underlining, and deletions are indicated by struck-through type.  
It is so ordered.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and
BELL, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Original Proceeding - Standard Jury Instructions - Civil Cases
Honorable Chris W. Altenbernd, Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard
Jury Instructions (Civil), Second District Court of Appeal, Tampa, Florida; and
Tracy Raffles Gunn, Chair, Supreme Court Reporting Committee, Tampa, Florida,
for Petitioner
Philip M. Burlington, Chair, AFTL Amicus Curiae Committee, West Palm Beach,
Florida, and Paul D. Jess, General Counsel, Tallahassee, Florida, on behalf of The
Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, Inc., 
Responding
-6-
PL
PRODUCT LIABILITY
NOTE ON USE
The instructions in tThis Part PL PRODUCT LIABILITY do not contain
instructions on Negligence. is intended to serve the same purposes, in cases
involving asserted product liability based on concepts other than negligence, as are
served in negligence cases by Part III ISSUES and Part IV NEGLIGENCE. When
alternative issues of negligence are to be submitted, use Charge 3.5 on Negligence
Issues, as in Model Charge No. 78.
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
PL 1 express warranty
if it does not conform to representations of fact made by (defendant),
orally or in writing, in connection with the [sale] [transaction], on
which (name) relied in the [purchase and] use of the product. [Such a
representation must be one of fact, rather than opinion.]
PL 2 implied warranty of merchantability
if it is not reasonably fit for the uses intended or reasonably foreseeable
by (defendant).
PL 3 implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose
if it is not reasonably fit for the specific purpose for which (defendant)
knowingly sold the product and for which the purchaser bought the
product in reliance on the judgment of (defendant).
PL 4 strict liability (manufacturing defect flaw)
if by reason of a manufacturing defect it is in a condition unreasonably
dangerous to [the user] [a person in the vicinity of the product]* and
the product is expected to and does reach the user without substantial
-7-
change affecting that condition.
A product is unreasonably dangerous because of a manufacturing
defect if it does not conform to its intended design and fails to perform
as safely as the intended design would have performed.
PL 5 strict liability (design defect)
if by reason of its design the product is in a condition unreasonably
dangerous to [the user] [a person in the vicinity of the product]* and
the product is expected to and does reach the user without substantial
change affecting that condition.
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].
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support the claim of
(claimant), your verdict should be for (defendant).
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence does support the claim
of (claimant), then your verdict should be for (claimant) and against
(defendant)]. **[However, if the greater weight of the evidence does support
the claim of (claimant), then you shall consider the defense raised by
(defendant). On the defense, the issues for your determination are (state
defense issues)].
“Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and
convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.