Opinion ID: 2493631
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 26

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in granting jury instructions which emphasized specific elements of damages.

Text: ¶ 80. Jury Instruction C-1 directed the jury not to single out one instruction alone as stating the law, but you must consider these instructions as a whole. Jury Instruction D-2 provided that the value of [Dedeaux] as a going business concern must be obtained by taking a comprehensive view of each and all of the elements of property, tangible and intangible, and considering them as inseparable parts of the business entity.  (Emphasis added.) Several jury instructions noted specific valuation elements which could be considered in determining the fair-market value of the Dedeaux utility system. Jury Instruction D-6a provided that the depreciated replacement cost: may include the cost which may be incurred to overcome the constraints which existed upon the property at that date, ... in the event you find from a preponderance of the evidence that a willing purchaser and willing seller would consider those costs to be a part of the fair market value.... Jury Instruction D-7 stated that: in determining your award, you may consider evidence of damages, if any, as established by a preponderance of the evidence, as follows: ... 1. The fair market value of all tangible assets as measured by the depreciated replacement cost of all water and sewer facilities owned by [Dedeaux] on the date of taking.... 2. ... [I]n determining the fair market value of the [Certificate], ... you may consider the present worth of future benefits from the ownership of the Certificate as established by a preponderance of the evidence and in determining [such], if any, you may consider the following:... A. The present worth of any future [CIAC] which [Dedeaux] could have reasonably expected to receive ... after December 3, 1996.... [ [22] ] B. The present worth of any projected future [c]ash [f]low ... which [Dedeaux] could have reasonably expected to receive after December 3, 1996.... 3. The fair market value of land necessary for use in connection with [Dedeaux] which is stipulated to be $20,200.... 4. Any other business factors which a willing buyer and willing seller could be reasonably expected to consider in the determination of the fair market value of [Dedeaux] as a going business concern including its assets, as of December 3, 1996, including but not limited to the likelihood of expansion and the likelihood of future revenue. ¶ 81. Gulfport argues that it was not proper for the [c]ourt to instruct the jury regarding separate elements of damages[,] and that the cumulative adverse effect therefrom was not cured by Jury Instruction C-1. ¶ 82. If the jury instructions, read as a whole[,] ... fairly announce the law of the case and create no injustice, no reversible error will be found. Fielder, 757 So.2d at 929. This Court finds that these instructions are neither cumulative nor repetitive, for they do not seek to amass or multiply the damages sought. As this Court reverses and remands for a new trial on other grounds, see Issue I.(B)(2)(ii) & (iii) and Issue II. supra, we instruct the trial court to ensure that all instructions regarding damages are sufficiently clear to prevent cumulative recovery for the same element of damages.