Court Opinion

ID: 9948140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 16:06:06.677607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:12.678110
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                         Opinion filed March 6, 2024.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-1965
                       Lower Tribunal No. 16-25106
                          ________________

             Dev-Land Demolition & Site, Inc., et al.,
                                 Appellants,

                                     vs.

                         Trekker Tractor, LLC,
                                  Appellee.

     An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lourdes
Simon, Judge.

      Gulisano Law, PLLC and Michael Gulisano (Boca Raton), for
appellants.

     The Barthet Firm, Paul D. Breitner, John C. Hanson, II, and Jessica A.
Goldfarb, for appellee.

Before MILLER, GORDO, and LOBREE, JJ.

     MILLER, J.
      Affirmed. See Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 349 So. 2d

1187, 1189 (Fla. 1977) (“[I]t is not the function of an appellate court to

reevaluate the evidence and substitute its judgement for that of the jury. . . .

[I]f there is any competent evidence to support a verdict, that verdict must be

sustained regardless of the [appellate court’s] opinion as to its

appropriateness. . . . [T]he question of whether defendant’s [liability] was the

cause of the injury is generally one for the jury unless reasonable men could

not differ in their determination of that question.”); see also R.J. Reynolds

Tobacco Co. v. Neff, 325 So. 3d 872, 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“A trial court

is accorded broad discretion in the formulation of appropriate jury

instructions and its decision should not be reversed unless the error

complained of resulted in a miscarriage of justice or the jury instructions were

reasonably calculated to confuse or mislead the jury.”) (quoting Chevron

U.S.A., Inc. Forbes, 783 So. 2d 1215, 1218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)); Morgan v.

State, 146 So. 3d 508, 512–13 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (“The invited error

doctrine provides that fundamental error may be waived where defense

counsel affirmatively agrees to an improper jury instruction. The doctrine is

founded on the principle that ‘a party may not make or invite error at trial and

then take advantage of that error on appeal.’”) (internal citations omitted)

(quoting Sheffield v. Superior Ins. Co., 800 So. 2d 197, 202–03 (Fla. 2001)).

                                       2