February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 1
FLORIDA STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES
FLORIDA STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES .................... 1
SECTION 101 OATHS ......................................................................................13
101.1 OATH OF JURORS BEFORE VOIR DIRE .........................................13
101.2 OATH OF JUROR AFTER VOIR DIRE ..............................................13
101.3 OATH OF A WITNESS .........................................................................13
101.4 OATH OF AN INTERPRETER ............................................................13
SECTION 200 PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS ..........................................14
QUALIFICATIONS INSTRUCTION ....................................................................15
201.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE (Prior to Voir Dire) ............................17
201.2 INTRODUCTION OF PARTICIPANTS AND THEIR ROLES ..........18
201.3 EXPLANATION OF THE VOIR DIRE PROCESS .............................23
202.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................25
202.2 EXPLANATION OF THE TRIAL PROCEDURE ...............................26
202.3 NOTE-TAKING BY JURORS ..............................................................32
202.4 JUROR QUESTIONS ............................................................................34
202.5 JURY TO BE GUIDED BY OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION/INTERPRETATION ............................................................36
SECTION 300 EVIDENCE INSTRUCTIONS ..................................................37
301.1 DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, INTERROGATORIES, STIPULATED
TESTIMONY, STIPULATIONS, AND ADMISSIONS (from 1.13(a)) ..........38
301.2 INSTRUCTION WHEN FIRST ITEM OF DOCUMENTARY,
PHOTOGRAPHIC, OR PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IS ADMITTED ................40
301.3 INSTRUCTION WHEN EVIDENCE IS FIRST PUBLISHED TO
JURORS .............................................................................................................41
301.4 INSTRUCTION REGARDING VISUAL OR DEMONSTRATIVE
AIDS ..................................................................................................................42
301.5 EVIDENCE ADMITTED FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE .....................43
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 2
301.6 JURY TO BE GUIDED BY OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION/INTERPRETATION ............................................................44
301.7 JURY TO BE GUIDED BY OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT OF
RECORDING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE (ACCURACY NOT IN
DISPUTE) ..........................................................................................................46
301.8 JURY TO BE GUIDED BY OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION/INTERPRETATION TRANSCRIPT OF RECORDING
IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE (ACCURACY IN DISPUTE) .............................47
301.9 DISREGARD STRICKEN MATTER ...................................................48
301.10 INSTRUCTION BEFORE RECESS ...................................................49
301.11 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN EVIDENCE OR KEEP A RECORD ......50
SECTION 400 SUBSTANTIVE INSTRUCTIONS ..........................................52
401 GENERAL NEGLIGENCE .............................................................................53
401.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................54
401.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS .....................................................................55
401.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE .........................................56
401.4 NEGLIGENCE .......................................................................................57
401.5 NEGLIGENCE OF A CHILD ................................................................59
401.6 NEGLIGENCE OF A COMMON CARRIER .......................................60
401.7 RES IPSA LOQUITUR ..........................................................................61
401.8 VIOLATION OF NON-TRAFFIC PENAL STATUTE AS
NEGLIGENCE PER SE ....................................................................................62
401.9 VIOLATION OF STATUTE, ORDINANCE, OR REGULATION AS
EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE .......................................................................63
401.10 EQUAL AND RECIPROCAL RIGHTS OF MOTORISTS AND
PEDESTRIANS .................................................................................................65
401.11 DUTY OF MOTORIST TOWARD CHILDREN ................................66
401.12 LEGAL CAUSE ...................................................................................67
401.13 PREEMPTIVE CHARGES ..................................................................69
401.14 PRELIMINARY ISSUES VICARIOUS LIABILITY ....................71
401.15 PRELIMINARY ISSUES COMMON CARRIER..........................76
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 3
401.16 PRELIMINARY ISSUES PREMISES LIABILITY ......................78
401.17 BURDEN OF PROOF ON PRELIMINARY ISSUES ........................81
401.18 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM — GENERAL NEGLIGENCE 82
401.19 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM — COMMON CARRIER ........84
401.20 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM — PREMISES LIABILITY .....85
401.21 BURDEN OF PROOF ON MAIN CLAIM .........................................88
401.22 DEFENSE ISSUES ..............................................................................89
401.23 BURDEN OF PROOF ON DEFENSE ISSUES ..................................92
401.24 COUNTERCLAIMS, CROSS CLAIMS, AND THIRD PARTY
CLAIMS ............................................................................................................94
402 PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE ..................................................................95
402.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................96
402.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS .....................................................................97
402.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE .........................................98
402.4 MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE ....................................................................99
402.5 OTHER PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE ........................................103
402.6 LEGAL CAUSE ...................................................................................104
402.7 LEGAL CAUSE (TREATMENT WITHOUT INFORMED CONSENT)
..........................................................................................................................106
402.8 PREEMPTIVE CHARGES ..................................................................107
402.9 PRELIMINARY ISSUES VICARIOUS LIABILITY ....................109
402.10 BURDEN OF PROOF ON PRELIMINARY ISSUES ......................112
402.11 ISSUES ON MAIN CLAIM...............................................................113
402.12 ISSUES ON CLAIM OF ATTORNEY MALPRACTICE ARISING
OUT OF CIVIL LITIGATION .......................................................................115
402.13 BURDEN OF PROOF ON MAIN CLAIM .......................................117
402.14 DEFENSE ISSUES ............................................................................118
402.15 BURDEN OF PROOF ON DEFENSE ISSUES ................................121
403 PRODUCTS LIABILITY ..............................................................................123
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 4
403.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................124
403.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS ...................................................................125
403.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE .......................................126
403.4 EXPRESS WARRANTY .....................................................................127
403.5 IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY ........................128
403.6 IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR
PURPOSE ........................................................................................................129
403.7 STRICT LIABILITY ............................................................................130
403.8 STRICT LIABILITY FAILURE TO WARN ......................................133
403.9 NEGLIGENCE .....................................................................................134
403.10 NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN ................................................135
403.11 INFERENCE OF PRODUCT DEFECT OR NEGLIGENCE ...........136
403.12 LEGAL CAUSE .................................................................................137
403.13 PRELIMINARY ISSUE .....................................................................140
403.14 BURDEN OF PROOF ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE ........................141
403.15 ISSUES ON MAIN CLAIM ................................................................142
403.16 ISSUES ON CRASHWORTHINESS AND ENHANCED INJURY
CLAIMS ..........................................................................................................144
403.17 BURDEN OF PROOF ON MAIN CLAIM .......................................145
403.18 DEFENSE ISSUES ............................................................................146
403.19 BURDEN OF PROOF ON DEFENSE ISSUES ................................149
404 INSURER’S BAD FAITH .............................................................................151
404.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................152
404.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS OR CONTENTIONS................................153
404.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE .......................................154
404.4 INSURER’S BAD FAITH (FAILURE TO SETTLE) .........................155
404.5 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURER’S BAD FAITH FAILURE TO
SETTLE ...........................................................................................................156
404.6 LEGAL CAUSE ...................................................................................158
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 5
404.7 ISSUES ON CLAIM ............................................................................160
404.8 BURDEN OF PROOF ..........................................................................161
404.9 CONCLUDING INSTRUCTION WHEN COURT TO AWARD
DAMAGES ......................................................................................................162
404.10 DAMAGES (CASES WITH CLAIMS FOR MENTAL DISTRESS)
..........................................................................................................................163
404.11 BURDEN OF PROOF ON MENTAL DISTRESS CLAIM ..............164
404.12 DAMAGES ON MENTAL DISTRESS CLAIM ..............................165
404.13 PUNITIVE DAMAGES .....................................................................166
405 DEFAMATION .............................................................................................167
405.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................168
405.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS ............................169
405.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE .......................................170
405.4 CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ........................................171
405.5 NEGLIGENCE .....................................................................................172
405.6 LEGAL CAUSE ...................................................................................173
405.7 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM — PLAINTIFF A PUBLIC
OFFICIAL OR PUBLIC FIGURE ..................................................................176
405.8 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM — PLAINTIFF A PRIVATE
INDIVIDUAL AND A MEDIA DEFENDANT .............................................178
405.9 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM — PRIVATE CLAIMANT,
NON-MEDIA DEFENDANT .........................................................................180
405.10 DEFAMATION DAMAGES .............................................................183
406 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION .....................................................................190
406.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................191
406.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS ...................................................................192
406.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE .......................................193
406.4 PROBABLE CAUSE ...........................................................................194
406.5 MALICE ...............................................................................................195
406.6 INSTITUTING OR CONTINUING A PROCEEDING ......................196
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 6
406.7 LEGAL CAUSE ...................................................................................197
406.8 ISSUES ON CLAIM ............................................................................200
406.9 BURDEN OF PROOF ON CLAIM .....................................................201
406.10 DEFENSE ISSUES ............................................................................202
406.11 BURDEN OF PROOF ON DEFENSE ISSUES ................................203
406.12 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION DAMAGES ....................................204
407 FALSE IMPRISONMENT ............................................................................205
407.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................206
407.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS ...................................................................207
407.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE .......................................208
407.4 INTENTIONAL RESTRAINT ............................................................209
407.5 LEGAL CAUSE ...................................................................................210
407.6 ISSUES ON CLAIM ............................................................................213
407.7 BURDEN OF PROOF ON CLAIM .....................................................214
407.8 DEFENSE ISSUES ..............................................................................215
407.9 BURDEN OF PROOF ON DEFENSE ISSUES ..................................216
407.10 FALSE IMPRISONMENT DAMAGES ............................................217
408 TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS ......218
408.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................219
408.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS OR CONTENTIONS................................220
408.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE .......................................221
408.4 LEGAL CAUSE .........................................................................................222
408.5 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM — INTERFERENCE WITH
CONTRACT NOT TERMINABLE AT WILL ..............................................225
408.6 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM — INTERFERENCE WITH
BUSINESS RELATIONS OR WITH CONTRACT TERMINABLE AT WILL
..........................................................................................................................227
409 MISREPRESENTATION ..............................................................................231
409.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................232
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 7
409.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS ...................................................................233
409.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE .......................................234
409.4 NEGLIGENCE .....................................................................................235
409.5 MATERIAL FACT ..............................................................................236
409.6 LEGAL CAUSE ...................................................................................237
409.7 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM — FRAUDULENT
MISREPRESENTATION ...............................................................................239
409.8 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM — NEGLIGENT
MISREPRESENTATION ...............................................................................241
409.9 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM — FALSE INFORMATION
NEGLIGENTLY SUPPLIED FOR THE GUIDANCE OF OTHERS ...........243
409.10 BURDEN OF PROOF ON MAIN CLAIM .......................................245
409.11 DEFENSE ISSUES ............................................................................246
409.12 BURDEN OF PROOF ON DEFENSE ISSUES ................................247
409.13 DAMAGES .........................................................................................248
410 OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT CAUSING SEVERE EMOTIONAL
DISTRESS .............................................................................................................249
410.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................250
410.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS ...................................................................251
410.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE .......................................252
410.4 EXTREME AND OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT .................................253
410.5 SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ...................................................254
410.6 LEGAL CAUSE ...................................................................................255
410.7 ISSUES ON CLAIM ............................................................................258
410.8 BURDEN OF PROOF ON CLAIM .....................................................259
411 CIVIL THEFT................................................................................................260
411.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................261
411.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS ...................................................................262
411.3 CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ........................................263
411.4 LEGAL CAUSE ...................................................................................264
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 8
411.5 ISSUES ON CLAIM ............................................................................267
411.6 BURDEN OF PROOF ON CLAIM .....................................................269
411.7 CIVIL THEFT DAMAGES .................................................................270
412 CONTRIBUTION AMONG TORTFEASORS ............................................271
412.1 CONTRIBUTION SOUGHT BY CROSS-CLAIMS BETWEEN
DEFENDANT TORTFEASORS IN INJURED PARTY’S ORIGINAL
ACTION ..........................................................................................................272
412.2 CONTRIBUTION SOUGHT BY THIRD-PARTY CLAIM IN
INJURED PARTY’S ORIGINAL ACTION ..................................................273
412.3 INTRODUCTION FOR INDEPENDENT CONTRIBUTION CLAIM
..........................................................................................................................274
412.4 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS ...................................................................275
412.5 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE .......................................276
412.6 NEGLIGENCE .....................................................................................277
412.7 LEGAL CAUSE ...................................................................................278
412.8 ISSUES ON CLAIM AND BURDEN OF PROOF .............................280
412.9 DEFENSE ISSUE .................................................................................281
413 CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION INSURANCE (PIP)
BENEFITS (MEDICAL BENEFITS ONLY) .......................................................282
413.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................283
413.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS OR CONTENTIONS................................284
413.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE .......................................285
413.4 ISSUES ON CLAIM ............................................................................286
413.5 BURDEN OF PROOF ON CLAIM .....................................................289
414 INTENTIONAL TORT AS AN EXCEPTION TO EXCLUSIVE REMEDY
OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ....................................................................290
414.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................291
414.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS ...................................................................292
414.3 CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ........................................293
414.4 LEGAL CAUSE ...................................................................................294
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 9
414.5 ISSUES ON CLAIM ............................................................................296
414.6 BURDEN OF PROOF ..........................................................................297
415 UNLAWFUL RETALIATION .....................................................................298
415.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................299
415.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES .....................................300
415.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE .......................................301
415.4 RETALIATION; ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION ..................302
415.5 PROTECTED ACTIVITY ...................................................................303
415.6 LEGAL CAUSE RETALIATION ..................................................304
415.7 LEGAL CAUSE DAMAGE ...........................................................306
415.8 PRELIMINARY ISSUE ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION .307
415.9 BURDEN OF PROOF ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE ..........................308
415.10 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM..................................................309
415.11 BURDEN OF PROOF ON CLAIM ...................................................310
415.12 UNLAWFUL RETALIATION DAMAGES .....................................311
415.13 DEFENSE ISSUE ON DAMAGES (MITIGATION DISCHARGE)
..........................................................................................................................312
415.14 REDUCTION OF DAMAGES TO PRESENT VALUE ...................313
417 UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION ...............................................................314
417.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................315
417.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES .....................................315
417.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE .......................................316
417.4 DISCRIMINATION DISPARATE TREATMENT .......................316
417.5 LEGAL CAUSE DISCRIMINATION ...........................................317
417.6 LEGAL CAUSE DAMAGE ...........................................................320
417.7 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM....................................................320
417.8 BURDEN OF PROOF ON CLAIM .....................................................321
417.9 UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION DAMAGES ................................321
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 10
417.10 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FAILURE TO MITIGATE LOST
WAGES ...........................................................................................................323
417.11 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AFTER-ACQUIRED EVIDENCE .324
417.12 REDUCTION OF DAMAGES TO PRESENT VALUE ...................326
SECTION 500 DAMAGES ...................................................................................328
501.1 PERSONAL INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGES:
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................330
501.2 PERSONAL INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGES: ELEMENTS
..........................................................................................................................331
501.3 MOTOR VEHICLE NO-FAULT INSTRUCTION .............................335
501.4 COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, NON-PARTY FAULT AND
MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS ..........................................................................339
501.5 OTHER CONTRIBUTING CAUSES OF DAMAGES ......................339
501.6 MORTALITY TABLES .......................................................................342
501.7 REDUCTION OF DAMAGES TO PRESENT VALUE .....................343
501.8 COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE ........................................................345
501.9 LIABILITY OF MULTIPLE TORTFEASORS ..................................347
502.1 WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES: INTRODUCTION ....................347
502.2 WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES: ELEMENTS FOR ESTATE AND
SURVIVORS ...................................................................................................349
502.3 WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES OF ESTATE AND SURVIVORS:
SEPARATE AWARDS FOR ESTATE AND SURVIVORS ........................353
502.4 WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES: ELEMENTS WHEN THERE
ARE NO SURVIVORS ...................................................................................354
502.5 COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, NON-PARTY FAULT AND
MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS ..........................................................................355
502.6 MORTALITY TABLES .......................................................................356
502.7 REDUCTION OF DAMAGES TO PRESENT VALUE .....................357
502.8 LIABILITY OF MULTIPLE TORTFEASORS ..................................359
503.1 PUNITIVE DAMAGES BIFURCATED PROCEDURE ...............361
503.2 PUNITIVE DAMAGES NON-BIFURCATED PROCEDURE .....370
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 11
SECTION 600 SUBSTANTIVE INSTRUCTIONS GENERAL ...............378
601.1 WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE ............................................................379
601.2 BELIEVABILITY OF WITNESSES ...................................................380
601.3 JURY TO BE GUIDED BY OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION/INTERPRETATION ..........................................................382
601.4 MULTIPLE CLAIMS, NUMEROUS PARTIES, CONSOLIDATED
CASES .............................................................................................................383
601.5 CONCLUDING INSTRUCTION (BEFORE FINAL ARGUMENT) 384
SECTION 700 CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS ..................................................385
SECTION 700 CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS ............................................386
SECTION 800 SUPPLEMENTAL MATTERS ...............................................390
801.1 JUROR QUESTIONS DURING DELIBERATIONS .........................391
801.2 READ-BACK OF TESTIMONY .........................................................392
801.3 JURY DEADLOCKED ........................................................................394
801.4 INSTRUCTION UPON DISCHARGE OF JURY ..............................395
APPENDIX A MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS ...............................................396
MODEL INSTRUCTION NO. 1 .....................................................................398
MODEL INSTRUCTION NO. 2 .....................................................................424
MODEL INSTRUCTION NO. 3 .....................................................................434
MODEL INSTRUCTION NO. 4 .....................................................................444
MODEL INSTRUCTION NO. 5 .....................................................................453
MODEL INSTRUCTION NO. 6 .....................................................................460
MODEL INSTRUCTION NO. 7 .....................................................................469
APPENDIX B VERDICT FORMS ......................................................................481
FORM 1. MODEL FORM OF VERDICT FOR GENERAL NEGLIGENCE
WITH APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT ........................................................483
2. DAMAGES ..................................................................................................485
FORM 2(a). MODEL FORM OF VERDICT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
DAMAGES ......................................................................................................487
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 12
FORM 2(b). MODEL FORM OF VERDICT FOR WRONGFUL DEATH
DAMAGES ......................................................................................................489
FORM 3(a). MODEL FORM OF VERDICT FOR BIFURCATED PUNITIVE
DAMAGE CASES ..........................................................................................492
FORM 3(b). MODEL FORM OF VERDICT FOR NON-BIFURCATED
PUNITIVE DAMAGE CASES .......................................................................495
FORM 4. MODEL FORM OF VERDICT FOR STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS DEFENSE IN A MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE ...........498
FORM 5(a). MODEL FORM OF VERDICT FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL
TREATMENT; NO ISSUE AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF F.S.
768.13(2)(b) .....................................................................................................500
FORM 5(b). MODEL FORM OF VERDICT FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL
TREATMENT; ISSUE AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF F.S. 768.13(2)(b);
NO ISSUE AS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ..................................501
FORM 5(c). MODEL FORM OF VERDICT FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL
TREATMENT; ISSUES AS TO BOTH APPLICABILITY OF F.S.
768.13(2)(b) AND COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ...................................503
FORM 6. MODEL FORM OF VERDICT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
PROTECTION INSURANCE BENEFITS (PIP) (MEDICAL BENEFITS
ONLY) .............................................................................................................505
APPENDIX C ........................................................................................................506
PUNITIVE DAMAGE INSTRUCTIONS FOR CAUSES OF ACTION
ARISING PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1, 1999 .....................................................506
APPENDIX D ........................................................................................................515
APPENDIX E ........................................................................................................516
402.16 EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT CLAIMS
INSTRUCTIONS FOR CAUSES OF ACTION ARISING PRIOR TO
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 ...................................................................................516
402.16a EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENTJury Issue As To
Application of F.S. 768.13(2)(b) .....................................................................517
402.16b EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT .....................................520
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 13
SECTION 101 OATHS
101.1 Oath of Jurors Before Voir Dire
101.2 Oath of Jurors After Voir Dire
101.3 Oath of a Witness
101.4 Oath of an Interpreter
101.1 OATH OF JURORS BEFORE VOIR DIRE
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will answer truthfully all
questions asked of you as prospective jurors [so help you God]?
101.2 OATH OF JUROR AFTER VOIR DIRE
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will well and truly try this
case between the [plaintiff(s)] [petitioner(s)] and [defendant(s)]
[respondent(s)], and a true verdict render according to the law and evidence
[so help you God]?
101.3 OATH OF A WITNESS
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the evidence you are about to give
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth [so help you
God]?
101.4 OATH OF AN INTERPRETER
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will make a true
interpretation to the witness of all questions or statements made to [him] [her]
in a language which that person understands, and a true interpretation of the
witness’ statements into the English language [so help you God]?
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 14
SECTION 200 PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS
Qualifications Instruction
A. During Jury Selection
201.1 Description of the Case
201.2 Introduction of Participants and Their Roles
201.3 Explanation of the Voir Dire Process
B. After Jury Selected and Sworn
202.1 Introduction
202.2 Explanation of the Trial Procedure
202.3 Note-Taking by Jurors
202.4 Juror Questions
202.5 Jury to Be Guided by Official English
Translation/Interpretation
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 15
QUALIFICATIONS INSTRUCTION
Many of you have electronic devices such as cell phones, smartphones,
tablets, and laptops. Even though you have not yet been selected as a juror,
there are some strict rules that you must follow about electronic devices.
When you are called to a courtroom, the judge will give you specific
instructions on the use of electronic devices. These rules are so important that
the judge may tell you that you must turn off your cell phone or other
electronic devices completely or that you cannot have your cell phone or
electronic devices in the courtroom. If someone needs to contact you in case of
an emergency, the judge will provide you with a phone number where you can
receive messages.
If the trial judge allows you to keep your cell phones, computers, or
other electronic devices, you cannot use them to take photographs, video
recordings, or audio recordings of the proceedings in the courtroom or your
fellow jurors. You must not use them to search the Internet or to find out
anything related to any cases in the courthouse.
Why is this restriction imposed? This restriction is imposed because
jurors must decide the case without distraction and only on the evidence
presented in the courtroom. I know that, for some of you, these restrictions
affect your normal daily activities and may require a change in the way you
are used to communicating and perhaps even in the way you are used to
learning.
If you investigate, research, or make inquiries on your own, the trial
judge has no way to make sure that the information you obtain is proper for
the case. The parties likewise have no opportunity to dispute or challenge the
accuracy of what you find. Any independent investigation by a juror unfairly
and improperly prevents the parties from having that opportunity our
judicial system promises.
Between now and when you have been discharged from jury duty by the
judge, you must not discuss any information about your jury service with
anyone, including friends, co-workers, and family members. You may tell
those who need to know where you are that you have been called for jury
duty. If you are picked for a jury, you may tell people that you have been
picked for a jury and how long the case may take. However, you must not give
anyone any information about the case itself or the people involved in the
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 16
case. You must also warn people not to try to say anything to you or write to
you about your jury service or the case. This includes face-to-face, phone or
computer communications.
I want to stress that you must not use electronic devices or computers to
talk about this case, including tweeting, texting, blogging, e-mailing, posting
information on a website or chat room, or any other means at all. Do not send
or accept any messages, including e-mail and text messages, about your jury
service. You must not disclose your thoughts about your jury service or ask
for advice on how to decide any case.
The judge will tell you when you are released from this instruction.
Remember, these rules are designed to guarantee a fair trial. It is important
that you understand the rules as well as the impact on our system of justice if
you fail to follow them. If it is determined that any one of you has violated
this rule, and conducted any type of independent research or investigation, it
may result in a mistrial. A mistrial would require the case to be tried again at
great expense to the parties and the judicial system. The judge may also
impose a penalty upon any juror who violates this instruction. All of us are
depending on you to follow these rules, so that there will be a fair and lawful
resolution of every case.
NOTE ON USE
This instruction should be given in addition to and at the conclusion of the
instructions normally given to the prospective jurors. The portion of this
instruction dealing with communication with others and outside research may need
to be modified to include other specified means of communication or research as
technology develops.
(Revised December 4, 2014)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 17
A. During Jury Selection
201.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE
(PRIOR TO VOIR DIRE)
Welcome. [I] [The clerk] will now administer your oath.
Now that you have been sworn, I’d like to give you an idea about what
we are here to do.
This is a civil trial. A civil trial is different from a criminal case, where a
defendant is charged by the state prosecutor with committing a crime. The
subject of a civil trial is a disagreement between people or companies [or
others, as appropriate], where the claims of one or more of these parties have
been brought to court to be resolved. It is called “a trial of a lawsuit.”
This is a case about (insert brief description of claim(s) and defense(s)
brought to trial in this case).*
The incident involved in this case occurred on (date) at (location). (Add
any other information relevant to voir dire).
The principal witnesses who will testify in this case are (list witnesses).
NOTE ON USE FOR 201.1
*See, for example, 401.2.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 18
201.2 INTRODUCTION OF PARTICIPANTS AND THEIR ROLES
Who are the people here and what do they do?
Judge/Court: I am the Judge. You may hear people occasionally refer to
me as “The Court.” That is the formal name for my role. My job is to
maintain order and decide how to apply the rules of the law to the trial. I will
also explain various rules to you that you will need to know in order to do
your job as the jury. It is my job to remain neutral on the issues of this
lawsuit.
Parties: A party who files a lawsuit is called the Plaintiff. A party that is
sued is called the Defendant.
Attorneys: The attorneys have the job of representing their clients. That
means they speak for their client here at the trial. They have taken oaths as
attorneys to do their best and to follow the rules for their profession.
Plaintiff’s Counsel: The attorney on this side of the courtroom, (introduce
by name), represents (client name) and is the person who filed the lawsuit here
at the courthouse. [His] [Her] job is to present [his] [her] client’s side of things
to you. [He] [She] and [his] [her] client will be referred to most of the time as
“the plaintiff. (Attorney name), will you please introduce who is sitting at the
table with you?
[Plaintiff without Counsel: (Introduce claimant by name), on this side of the
courtroom, is the person who filed the lawsuit at the courthouse. (Claimant) is
not represented by an attorney and will present [his] [her] side of things to
you [himself] [herself].]
Defendant’s Counsel: The attorney on this side of the courtroom,
(introduce by name), represents (client name), the one who has been sued. [His]
[Her] job is to present [his] [her] client’s side of things to you. [He] [She] and
[his] [her] client will usually be referred to here as “the defendant. (Attorney
name), will you please introduce who is sitting at the table with you?
[Defendant’s Counsel: The attorney on this side of the courtroom,
(introduce by name), represents (client name), the one who has been sued. [His]
[Her] job is to present [his] [her] client’s side of things to you. [He] [She] and
[his] [her] client will usually be referred to here as “the defendant.” [His]
[Her] client (defendant uninsured or underinsured motorist carrier) is (claimant’s
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 19
name) motor vehicle insurance company and provided [him] [her] [uninsured]
[underinsured] motorist coverage, which may be available to pay some or all
of the damages that may be awarded.]*
*Use the bracketed paragraph above when the case involves an uninsured
or underinsured motorist carrier.
[Defendant without Counsel: (Introduce defendant by name), on this side of
the courtroom, is the one who has been sued. (Defendant) is not represented by
an attorney and will present [his] [her] side of things to you [himself]
[herself].]
Court Clerk: This person sitting in front of me, (name), is the court clerk.
[He] [She] is here to assist me with some of the mechanics of the trial process,
including the numbering and collection of the exhibits that are introduced in
the course of the trial.
Court Reporter: The person sitting at the stenographic machine, (name),
is the court reporter. [His] [Her] job is to keep an accurate legal record of
everything we say and do during this trial.
Bailiff: The person over there, (name), is the bailiff. [His] [Her] job is to
maintain order and security in the courtroom. The bailiff is also my
representative to the jury. Anything you need or any problems that come up
for you during the course of the trial should be brought to [him] [her].
However, the bailiff cannot answer any of your questions about the case. Only
I can do that.
Jury: Last, but not least, is the jury, which we will begin to select in a
few moments from among all of you. The jury’s job will be to decide what the
facts are and what the facts mean. Jurors should be as neutral as possible at
this point and have no fixed opinion about the lawsuit.
In order to have a fair and lawful trial, there are rules that all jurors
must follow. A basic rule is that jurors must decide the case only on the
evidence presented in the courtroom. You must not communicate with
anyone, including friends and family members, about this case, the people and
places involved, or your jury service. You must not disclose your thoughts
about this case or ask for advice on how to decide this case.
I want to stress that this rule means you must not use electronic devices
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 20
or computers to communicate about this case, including tweeting, texting,
blogging, e-mailing, posting information on a website or chat room, or any
other means at all. Do not send or accept any messages to or from anyone
about this case or your jury service.
You must not do any research or look up words, names, [maps,] or
anything else that may have anything to do with this case. This includes
reading newspapers, watching television or using a computer, cell phone, the
Internet, any electronic device, or any other means at all, to get information
related to this case or the people and places involved in this case. This applies
whether you are in the courthouse, at home, or anywhere else.
Many of you may have cell phones, tablets, laptops, or other electronic
devices with you here in the courtroom.**
**The trial judge should select one of the following two alternative
instructions explaining the rules governing jurors’ use of electronic devices,
as explained in Note on Use 1.
Alternative A: [All cell phones, computers, tablets, or other types of
electronic devices must be turned off while you are in the courtroom. Turned
off means that the phone or other electronic device is actually off and not in a
silent or vibrating mode. You may use these devices during recesses, but even
then you may not use your cell phone or electronic device to find out any
information about the case or communicate with anyone about the case or the
people involved in the case. Do not take photographs, video recordings, or
audio recordings of the proceedings or of your fellow jurors. After each
recess, please double check to make sure your cell phone or electronic device
is turned off. At the end of the case, while you are deliberating, you must not
communicate with anyone outside the jury room. You cannot have in the jury
room any cell phones, computers, or other electronic devices. If someone
needs to contact you in an emergency, the court can receive messages and
deliver them to you without delay. A contact phone number will be provided
to you.]
Alternative B: [You cannot have any cell phones, tablets, laptops, or
other electronic devices in the courtroom. You may use these devices during
recesses, but even then you may not use your cell phone or electronic device to
find out any information about the case or communicate with anyone about
the case or the people involved in the case. Do not take photographs, video
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 21
recordings, or audio recordings of the proceedings or your fellow jurors. At
the end of the case, while you are deliberating, you must not communicate
with anyone outside the jury room. If someone needs to contact you in an
emergency, the court can receive messages and deliver them to you without
delay. A contact phone number will be provided to you.]
What are the reasons for these rules? These rules are imposed because
jurors must decide the case without distraction and only on the evidence
presented in the courtroom. If you investigate, research, or make inquiries on
your own outside of the courtroom, the trial judge has no way to make sure
that the information you obtain is proper for the case. The parties likewise
have no opportunity to dispute or challenge the accuracy of what you find.
That is contrary to our judicial system, which assures every party the right to
ask questions about and challenge the evidence being considered against it
and to present argument with respect to that evidence. Any independent
investigation by a juror unfairly and improperly prevents the parties from
having that opportunity our judicial system promises.
Any juror who violates these restrictions jeopardizes the fairness of
these proceedings, and a mistrial could result that would require the entire
trial process to start over. A mistrial is a tremendous expense and
inconvenience to the parties, the court, and the taxpayers. If you violate these
rules, you may be held in contempt of court, and face sanctions, such as
serving time in jail, paying a fine or both.
All of your communications with courtroom personnel, or me, will be
part of the record of these proceedings. That means those communications
shall either be made in open court with the court reporter present or, if they
are in writing, the writing will be filed with the court clerk. This means, if you
are outside the courtroom, any communication with me must be in writing,
unsigned, and handed directly to the bailiff. Do not share the content of the
writing with anyone, including other jurors. I have instructed the courtroom
personnel that any communications you have with them outside of my
presence must be reported to me, and I will tell the parties [and their
attorneys] about any communication from you that I believe may be of
interest to the parties [and their attorneys].
However, you may communicate directly with courtroom personnel
about matters concerning your comfort and safety, such as [juror parking]
[location of break areas] [how and when to assemble for duty] [dress] [what
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 22
personal items can be brought into the courthouse or jury room] [list any
other types of routine ex parte communications permitted].
If you become aware of any violation of these instructions or any other
instruction I give in this case, you must tell me by giving a note to the bailiff.
NOTES ON USE FOR 201.2
1. Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.451 directs trial judges to
instruct jurors on the use of cell phones and other electronic devices. During the
trial, the trial judge may remove the jurors’ cell phones or other electronic devices.
The trial judge also has the option to allow the jurors to keep the cell phones and
electronic devices during trial until the jurors begin deliberations. Rule 2.451
prohibits jurors from using the cell phones or electronic devices to find out
information about the case or to communicate with others about the case. The
jurors also cannot use the electronic devices to record, photograph, or videotape
the proceedings. In recognition of the discretion rule 2.451 gives trial judges, this
instruction provides two alternatives: (A) requiring jurors to turn off electronic
devices during court proceedings and removing their cell phones and electronic
devices during deliberations; or (B) removing the cell phones and electronic
devices during all proceedings and deliberations. These instructions may be
modified to fit the practices of a trial judge in a particular courtroom. These
instructions are not intended to limit the discretion of the trial court to control the
proceedings.
2. The portion of this instruction dealing with communication with
others and outside research may be modified to include other specified means of
communication or research as technology develops.
3. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.431(i)(2) requires the court, by
pretrial order or statement on the record with opportunity for objection, to set forth
the scope of routine, ex parte communications. Rule 1.431(i)(3) mandates an
instruction during voir dire regarding the limitations on jurors’ communications
with the court and courtroom personnel. The court should make sure that
courtroom personnel are also aware of the limitations on their communications
with jurors.
4. The introduction of the uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier is
required because the plaintiffs are entitled to have the jury know that the joined
carrier is the plaintiffs’ uninsured/underinsured carrier. Lamz v. Geico General
Insurance Co., 803 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2001); Medina v. Peralta, 724 So. 2d 1188
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 23
(Fla. 1999).
(Revised November 16, 2017)
201.3 EXPLANATION OF THE VOIR DIRE PROCESS
Voir Dire:
The last thing I want to do, before we begin to select the jury, is to
explain to you how the selection process works.
Questions/Challenges: This is the part of the case where the parties and
their lawyers have the opportunity to get to know a little bit about you, in
order to help them come to their own conclusions about your ability to be fair
and impartial, so they can decide who they think should be the jurors in this
case.
How we go about that is as follows: First, I’ll ask some general questions
of you. Then, each of the lawyers will have more specific questions that they
will ask of you. After they have asked all of their questions, I will meet with
them and they will tell me their choices for jurors. Each side can ask that I
exclude a person from serving on a jury if they can give me a reason to believe
that he or she might be unable to be fair and impartial. That is what is called
a challenge for cause. The lawyers also have a certain number of what are
called peremptory challenges, by which they may exclude a person from the
jury without giving a reason. By this process of elimination, the remaining
persons are selected as the jury. It may take more than one conference among
the parties, their attorneys, and me before the final selections are made.
Purpose of Questioning: The questions that you will be asked during this
process are not intended to embarrass you or unnecessarily pry into your
personal affairs, but it is important that the parties and their attorneys know
enough about you to make this important decision. If a question is asked that
you would prefer not to answer in front of the whole courtroom, just let me
know and you can come up here and give your answer just in front of the
attorneys and me. If you have a question of either the attorneys or me, don’t
hesitate to let me know.
Response to Questioning: There are no right or wrong answers to the
questions that will be asked of you. The only thing that I ask is that you
answer the questions as frankly and as honestly and as completely as you can.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 24
You [will take] [have taken] an oath to answer all questions truthfully and
completely and you must do so. Remaining silent when you have information
you should disclose is a violation of that oath as well. If a juror violates this
oath, it not only may result in having to try the case all over again but also can
result in civil and criminal penalties against a juror personally. So, again, it is
very important that you be as honest and complete with your answers as you
possibly can. If you don’t understand the question, please raise your hand and
ask for an explanation or clarification.
In sum, this is a process to assist the parties and their attorneys to select
a fair and impartial jury. All of the questions they ask you are for this
purpose. If, for any reason, you do not think you can be a fair and impartial
juror, you must tell us.
NOTE ON USE FOR 201.3
The publication of this recommended instruction is not intended to intrude
upon the trial judge’s own style and manner of delivery. It may be useful in
cataloging the subjects to be covered in an introductory instruction.
(Revised December 4, 2014)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 25
B. After Jury Selected and Sworn
202.1 INTRODUCTION
Administer oath:
You have now taken an oath to serve as jurors in this trial. Before we
begin, I am going to tell you about the rules of law that apply to this case and
let you know what you can expect as the trial proceeds.
It is my intention to give you [all] [most] of the rules of law but it might
be that I will not know for sure all of the law that will apply in this case until
all of the evidence is presented. However, I can anticipate most of the law and
give it to you at the beginning of the trial so that you will better understand
what to be looking for while the evidence is presented. If I later decide that
different or additional law applies to the case, I will tell you. In any event, at
the end of the evidence I will give you the final instructions on which you must
base your verdict. At that time, you will have a complete written set of the
instructions so you do not have to memorize what I am about to tell you.
(Continue with the Substantive law, Damages, and General instructions
from the applicable sections of this book, followed by the applicable parts of
202.2 through 202.5)
NOTE ON USE FOR 202.1
The committee recommends giving the jury at the beginning of the trial a
complete as possible set of instructions on the Substantive law, Damages, and
General Instructions.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 26
202.2 EXPLANATION OF THE TRIAL PROCEDURE
Now that you have heard the law, I want to let you know what you can
expect as the trial proceeds.
Opening Statements: In a few moments, the attorneys will each have a
chance to make what are called opening statements. In an opening statement,
an attorney is allowed to give you [his] [her] views about what the evidence
will be in the trial and what you are likely to see and hear in the testimony.
Evidentiary Phase: After the attorneys’ opening statements the plaintiffs
will bring their witnesses and evidence to you.
Evidence: Evidence is the information that the law allows you to see or
hear in deciding this case. Evidence includes the testimony of the witnesses,
documents, and anything else that I instruct you to consider.
Witnesses: A witness is a person who takes an oath to tell the truth and
then answers attorneys’ questions for the jury. The answering of attorneys’
questions by witnesses is called “giving testimony.” Testimony means
statements that are made when someone has sworn an oath to tell the truth.
The plaintiff’s lawyer will normally ask a witness the questions first.
That is called direct examination. Then the defense lawyer may ask the same
witness additional questions about whatever the witness has testified to. That
is called cross-examination. Certain documents or other evidence may also be
shown to you during direct or cross-examination. After the plaintiff’s
witnesses have testified, the defendant will have the opportunity to put
witnesses on the stand and go through the same process. Then the plaintiff’s
lawyer gets to do cross-examination. The process is designed to be fair to both
sides.
It is important that you remember that testimony comes from witnesses.
The attorneys do not give testimony and they are not themselves witnesses.
Objections: Sometimes the attorneys will disagree about the rules for
trial procedure when a question is asked of a witness. When that happens, one
of the lawyers may make what is called an “objection.” The rules for a trial
can be complicated, and there are many reasons for attorneys to object. You
should simply wait for me to decide how to proceed. If I say that an objection
is “sustained,” that means the witness may not answer the question. If I say
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 27
that the objection is “overruled,” that means the witness may answer the
question.
When there is an objection and I make a decision, you must not assume
from that decision that I have any particular opinion other than that the rules
for conducting a trial are being correctly followed. If I say a question may not
be asked or answered, you must not try to guess what the answer would have
been. That is against the rules, too.
Side Bar Conferences: Sometimes I will need to speak to the attorneys
about legal elements of the case that are not appropriate for the jury to hear.
The attorneys and I will try to have as few of these conferences as possible
while you are giving us your valuable time in the courtroom. But, if we do
have to have such a conference during testimony, we will try to hold the
conference at the side of my desk so that we do not have to take a break and
ask you to leave the courtroom.
Recesses: Breaks in an ongoing trial are usually called “recesses.”
During a recess you still have your duties as a juror and must follow the rules,
even while having coffee, at lunch, or at home.
Instructions Before Closing Arguments: After all the evidence has been
presented to you, I will instruct you in the law that you must follow. It is
important that you remember these instructions to assist you in evaluating the
final attorney presentations, which come next, and, later, during your
deliberations, to help you correctly sort through the evidence to reach your
decision.
Closing Arguments: The attorneys will then have the opportunity to
make their final presentations to you, which are called closing arguments.
Final Instructions: After you have heard the closing arguments, I will
instruct you further in the law as well as explain to you the procedures you
must follow to decide the case.
Deliberations: After you hear the final jury instructions, you will go to
the jury room and discuss and decide the questions I have put on your verdict
form. [You will have a copy of the jury instructions to use during your
discussions.] The discussions you have and the decisions you make are usually
called “jury deliberations.” Your deliberations are absolutely private and
neither I nor anyone else will be with you in the jury room.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 28
Verdict: When you have finished answering the questions, you will give
the verdict form to the bailiff, and we will all return to the courtroom where
your verdict will be read. When that is completed, you will be released from
your assignment as a juror.
What are the rules?
Finally, before we begin the trial, I want to give you just a brief
explanation of rules you must follow as the case proceeds.
Keeping an Open Mind: You must pay close attention to the testimony
and other evidence as it comes into the trial. However, you must avoid
forming any final opinion or telling anyone else your views on the case until
you begin your deliberations. This rule requires you to keep an open mind
until you have heard all of the evidence and is designed to prevent you from
influencing how your fellow jurors think until they have heard all of the
evidence and had an opportunity to form their own opinions. The time and
place for coming to your final opinions and speaking about them with your
fellow jurors is during deliberations in the jury room, after all of the evidence
has been presented, closing arguments have been made, and I have instructed
you on the law. It is important that you hear all of the facts and that you hear
the law and how to apply it before you start deciding anything.
Consider Only the Evidence: It is the things you hear and see in this
courtroom that matter in this trial. The law tells us that a juror can consider
only the testimony and other evidence that all the other jurors have also heard
and seen in the presence of the judge and the lawyers. Doing anything else is
wrong and is against the law. That means that you must not do any work or
investigation of your own about the case. You must not obtain on your own
any information about the case or about anyone involved in the case, from any
source whatsoever. This includes reading newspapers, watching television or
using a computer, cell phone, the Internet, any electronic device, or any other
means at all, to get information related to this case or the people and places
involved in this case. This applies whether you are in the courthouse, at home,
or anywhere else. You must not visit places mentioned in the trial or use the
internet to look at maps or pictures to see any place discussed during trial.
Do not provide any information about this case to anyone, including
friends or family members. Do not let anyone, including the closest family
members, make comments to you or ask questions about the trial. Jurors
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 29
must not have discussions of any sort with friends or family members about
the case or the people and places involved. So, do not let even the closest
family members make comments to you or ask questions about the trial. In
this age of electronic communication, I want to stress again that just as you
must not talk about this case face-to-face, you must not talk about this case by
using an electronic device. You must not use phones, tablets, computers or
other electronic devices to communicate. Do not send or accept any messages
related to this case or your jury service. Do not discuss this case or ask for
advice by any means at all, including posting information on an Internet
website, chat room or blog.
No Mid-Trial Discussions: When we are in a recess, do not discuss
anything about the trial or the case with each other or with anyone else. If
attorneys approach you, don’t speak with them. The law says they are to
avoid contact with you. If an attorney will not look at you or speak to you, do
not be offended or form a conclusion about that behavior. The attorney is not
supposed to interact with jurors outside of the courtroom and is only
following the rules. The attorney is not being impolite. If an attorney or
anyone else does try to speak with you or says something about the case in
your presence, please inform the bailiff immediately.
Only the Jury Decides: Only you get to deliberate and answer the verdict
questions at the end of the trial. I will not intrude into your deliberations at
all. I am required to be neutral. You should not assume that I prefer one
decision over another. You should not try to guess what my opinion is about
any part of the case. It would be wrong for you to conclude that anything I say
or do means that I am for one side or another in the trial. Discussing and
deciding the facts is your job alone.
Use of Cell Phones and Electronic Devices in the Courtroom and Jury
Room:*
*The trial judge should select one of the following two alternative
instructions explaining the rules governing jurors’ use of electronic devices,
as explained in Note on Use 3.
Alternative A: [All cell phones or other types of electronic devices must
be turned off while you are in the courtroom. Turned off means that the
phone or other electronic device is actually off and not in a silent or vibrating
mode. You may use these devices during recesses, but even then you may not
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 30
use your phone or electronic device to find out any information about the case
or communicate with anyone about the case or the people involved in the case.
Do not take photographs, video recordings or audio recordings of the
proceedings or your fellow jurors. After each recess, please double check to
make sure your device is turned off. At the end of the case, while you are
deliberating, you must not communicate with anyone outside the jury room.
You cannot have in the jury room any cell phones, computers, or other
electronic devices. If there are breaks in the deliberations, I may allow you to
communicate with your family or friends, but do not communicate about the
case or your deliberations. If someone needs to contact you in an emergency,
the court can receive messages and deliver them to you without delay. The
court’s phone number will be provided to you.]
Alternative B: [You cannot have any cell phones, computers, or other
electronic devices in the courtroom. You may use these devices during
recesses, but even then you may not use your phone or electronic device to
find out any information about the case or communicate with anyone about
the case or the people involved in the case. Do not take photographs, video
recordings or audio recordings of the proceedings or your fellow jurors. At
the end of the case, while you are deliberating, you must not communicate
with anyone outside the jury room. If there are breaks in the deliberations, I
may allow you to communicate with your family or friends, but do not
communicate about the case or your deliberations. If someone needs to
contact you in an emergency, the court can receive messages and deliver them
to you without delay. The court’s phone number will be provided to you.]
NOTES ON USE FOR 202.2
1. This instruction is intended for situations in which at the end of the
case the jury is going to be instructed before closing argument. The committee
strongly recommends instructing the jury before closing argument. If, however, the
court is going to instruct the jury after closing argument, this instruction will have
to be amended.
2. The publication of this recommended instruction is not intended to
intrude upon the trial judge’s own style and manner of delivery. It may be useful in
cataloging the subjects to be covered in an introductory instruction.
3. Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.451 directs trial judges to
instruct jurors on the use of cell phones and other electronic devices. During the
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 31
trial, the trial judge may remove the jurors’ cell phones or other electronic devices.
The trial judge also has the option to allow the jurors to keep the cell phones and
electronic devices during trial until the jurors begin deliberations. Rule 2.451
prohibits jurors from using the cell phones or electronic devices to find out
information about the case or to communicate with others about the case. The
jurors also cannot use the electronic devices to record, photograph, or videotape
the proceedings. In recognition of the discretion rule 2.451 gives trial judges, this
instruction provides two alternatives. The trial judge should give the jurors one of
the following alternative instructions: (A) requiring jurors to turn off electronic
devices during court proceedings and removing their phones and electronic devices
during deliberations; or (B) removing the cell phones and electronic devices during
all proceedings and deliberations. These instructions may be modified to fit the
practices of a trial judge in a particular courtroom. These instructions are not
intended to limit the discretion of the trial court to control the proceedings.
4. The portion of this instruction dealing with communication with
others and outside research may be modified to include other specified means of
communication or research as technology develops.
(Revised December 4, 2014)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 32
202.3 NOTE-TAKING BY JURORS
If you would like to take notes during the trial, you may do so. On the
other hand, of course, you are not required to take notes if you do not want to.
That will be left up to you individually.
You will be provided with a note pad and a pen for use if you wish to
take notes. Any notes that you take will be for your personal use. However,
you should not take them with you from the courtroom. During recesses, the
bailiff will take possession of your notes and will return them to you when we
reconvene. After you have completed your deliberations, the bailiff will collect
your notes, which will be immediately destroyed. No one will ever read your
notes.
If you take notes, do not get so involved in note-taking that you become
distracted from the proceedings. Your notes should be used only as aids to
your memory.
Whether or not you take notes, you should rely on your memory of the
evidence and you should not be unduly influenced by the notes of other jurors.
Notes are not entitled to any greater weight than each juror’s memory of the
evidence.
NOTES ON USE FOR 202.3
1. The court should furnish all jurors with the necessary pads and pens
for taking notes. Additionally, it may be desirable for jurors to be furnished with
envelopes to place the notes for additional privacy.
2. Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.430(k) provides that at the
conclusion of the trial, the court shall collect and immediately destroy all juror
notes.
3. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.455 provides that the trial court
may, in its discretion, authorize the use of juror notebooks to contain documents
and exhibits as an aid to the jurors in performing their duties.
4. When it is impractical to take exhibits into the jury room, this
instruction should be modified to describe how the jury will have access to the
exhibits.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 33
(Revised February 1, 2018)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 34
202.4 JUROR QUESTIONS
Questions for the court or courtroom personnel:
During the trial, you may have a question about these proceedings. If
so, please write it down and hand it to the bailiff, who will then hand it to me.
I will review your question with the parties [and their attorneys] before
responding.
Questions for witnesses:
You also may have a question you think should be asked of a witness. If
so, there is a way for you to request that I ask the witness a question. After all
the attorneys have completed their questioning of the witness, you should
raise your hand if you have a question. I will then give you sufficient time to
write the question on a piece of paper, fold it, and give it to the bailiff, who
will pass it to me. Do not put your name on the question, show it to anyone or
discuss it with anyone.
It is important to know that if you have a question you believe should be
asked of a witness, you must raise your hand and request that I ask the
witness the question before the witness leaves the witness stand. You will not
have an opportunity to ask the witness a question once the witness leaves the
courtroom. I will then review the question with the attorneys. Under our law,
only certain evidence may be considered by a jury in determining a verdict.
You are bound by the same rules of evidence that control the attorneys’
questions. If I decide that the question may not be asked under our rules of
evidence, I will tell you. Otherwise, I will direct the question to the witness.
The attorneys may then ask follow-up questions if they wish. If there are
additional questions from jurors, we will follow the same procedure again.
By providing this procedure, I do not mean to suggest that you must or
should submit written questions for witnesses. In most cases, the lawyers will
have asked the necessary questions.
NOTES ON USE FOR 202.4
1. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.431(i)(3) requires an instruction that
jurors’ questions must be submitted in writing to the court, which will review them
with the parties and counsel before responding. Rule 1.431 does not prevent jurors
from asking the bailiff about routine matters affecting comfort and safety. The
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 35
committee notes to rule 1.431 recognize that this instruction may need to be
modified to reflect that individual trial judges may have reasonable differences
regarding the type of communications considered routine.
2. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.452 mandates that jurors be
permitted to submit written questions directed to witnesses or the court.
(Revised November 16, 2017)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 36
202.5 JURY TO BE GUIDED BY OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION/INTERPRETATION
[A] [Some] witness[es] may testify in (language to be used) which will be
interpreted in English.
The evidence you are to consider is only that provided through the
official court interpreters. Although some of you may know (language used), it
is important that all jurors consider the same evidence. Therefore, you must
accept the English interpretation. You must disregard any different meaning.
If, however, during the testimony there is a question as to the accuracy
of the English interpretation, you should bring this matter to my attention
immediately by raising your hand. You should not ask your question or make
any comment about the interpretation in the presence of the other jurors, or
otherwise share your question or concern with any of them. I will take steps to
see if your question can be answered and any discrepancy resolved. If,
however, after such efforts a discrepancy remains, I emphasize that you must
rely only upon the official English interpretation as provided by the court
interpreter and disregard any other contrary interpretation.
NOTE ON USE FOR 202.5
When instructing the jury at the beginning of the trial, this instruction should
be used in lieu of 601.3. See United States v. Franco, 136 F.3d 622, 626 (9th Cir.
1998); United States v. Fuentes-Montijo, 68 F.3d 352, 35556 (9th Cir. 1995). For
an example, see Model Instruction No. 1.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 37
SECTION 300 EVIDENCE INSTRUCTIONS
301.1 Deposition Testimony, Interrogatories, Stipulated Testimony,
Stipulations, and Admissions
301.2 Instruction when First Item of Documentary, Photographic, or
Physical Evidence Is Admitted
301.3 Instruction when Evidence Is First Published to Jurors
301.4 Instruction Regarding Visual or Demonstrative Aids
301.5 Evidence Admitted for a Limited Purpose
301.6 Jury to Be Guided by Official English
Translation/Interpretation
301.7 Jury to Be Guided by Official English Transcript of Recording
in Foreign Language (Accuracy Not in Dispute)
301.8 Jury to Be Guided by Official English
Translation/Interpretation Transcript of Recording in
Foreign Language (Accuracy in Dispute)
301.9 Disregard Stricken Matter
301.10 Instruction Before Recess
301.11 Failure to Maintain Evidence or Keep a Record
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 38
301.1 DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, INTERROGATORIES,
STIPULATED TESTIMONY, STIPULATIONS,
AND ADMISSIONS (from 1.13(a))
a. Deposition or prior testimony:
Members of the jury, the sworn testimony of (name), given before trial,
will now be presented. You are to consider and weigh this testimony as you
would any other evidence in the case.
b. Interrogatories:
Members of the jury, answers to interrogatories will now be read to
you. Interrogatories are written questions that have been presented before
trial by one party to another. They are answered under oath. You are to
consider and weigh these questions and answers as you would any other
evidence in the case.
c. Stipulated testimony:
Members of the jury, the parties have agreed that if (name of witness)
were called as a witness, [he] [she] would testify (read or describe the
testimony). You are to consider and weigh this testimony as you would any
other evidence in the case.
d. Stipulations:
Members of the jury, the parties have agreed to certain facts. You must
accept these facts as true. (Read the agreed facts).
e. Admissions:
1. Applicable to all parties:
Members of the jury, (identify the party or parties that have admitted the
facts) [has] [have] admitted certain facts. You must accept these facts as true.
(Read the admissions).
2. Applicable to fewer than all parties:
Members of the jury, (identify the party or parties that have admitted the
facts) [has] [have] admitted certain facts. You must accept these facts as true
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 39
in deciding the issues between (identify the affected parties), but these facts
should not be used in deciding the issues between (identify the unaffected
parties). (Read the admissions).
NOTE ON USE FOR 301.1
The committee recommends that the appropriate explanation be read
immediately before a deposition, or an interrogatory and answer, stipulated
testimony, a stipulation, or an admission are read in evidence, and that no
instruction on the subject be repeated at the conclusion of the trial.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 40
301.2 INSTRUCTION WHEN FIRST ITEM OF DOCUMENTARY,
PHOTOGRAPHIC, OR PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE IS ADMITTED
The (describe item of evidence) has now been received in evidence.
Witnesses may testify about or refer to this or any other item of evidence
during the remainder of the trial. This and all other items received in evidence
will be available to you for examination during your deliberations at the end
of the trial.
NOTE ON USE FOR 301.2
This instruction should be given when the first item of evidence is received
in evidence. It may be appropriate to repeat this instruction when items received in
evidence are not published to the jury. It may be combined with 301.5 in
appropriate circumstances. It may also be given in conjunction with 301.4 if a
witness has used exhibits which have been admitted in evidence and demonstrative
aids which have not.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 41
301.3 INSTRUCTION WHEN EVIDENCE IS FIRST PUBLISHED TO
JURORS
The (describe item of evidence) has been received in evidence. It is being
shown to you now to help you understand the testimony of this witness and
other witnesses in the case, as well as the evidence as a whole. You may
examine (describe item of evidence) briefly now. It will also be available to you
for examination during your deliberations at the end of the trial.
NOTE ON USE FOR 301.3
This instruction may be given when an item received in evidence is handed
to the jurors. It may be combined with 301.5 in appropriate circumstances.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 42
301.4 INSTRUCTION REGARDING VISUAL
OR DEMONSTRATIVE AIDS
a. Generally:
This witness will be using (identify demonstrative or visual aid(s)) to assist
in explaining or illustrating [his] [her] testimony. The testimony of the witness
is evidence; however, [this] [these] (identify demonstrative or visual aid(s)) [is]
[are] not to be considered as evidence in the case unless received in evidence,
and should not be used as a substitute for evidence. Only items received in
evidence will be available to you for consideration during your deliberations.
b. Specially created visual or demonstrative aids based on disputed
assumptions:
This witness will be using (identify demonstrative aid(s)) to assist in
explaining or illustrating [his] [her] testimony. [This] [These] item[s] [has]
[have] been prepared to assist this witness in explaining [his] [her] testimony.
[It] [They] may be based on assumptions which you are free to accept or
reject. The testimony of the witness is evidence; however, [this] [these]
(identify demonstrative or visual aid(s)) [is] [are] not to be considered as
evidence in the case unless received in evidence, and should not be used as a
substitute for evidence. Only items received in evidence will be available to
you for consideration during your deliberations.
NOTES ON USE FOR 301.4
1. Instruction 301.4a should be given at the time a witness first uses a
demonstrative or visual aid which has not been specially created for use in the
case, such as a skeletal model.
2. Instruction 301.4b is designed for use when a witness intends to use
demonstrative or visual aids which are based on disputed assumptions, such as a
computer-generated model. This instruction should be given at the time the witness
first uses these demonstrative or visual aids. This instruction should be used in
conjunction with 301.3 if a witness uses exhibits during testimony, some of which
are received in evidence, and some of which are not.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 43
301.5 EVIDENCE ADMITTED FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE
The (describe item of evidence) has now been received into evidence. It
has been admitted only [for the purpose of (describe purpose)] [as to (name
party)]. You may consider it only [for that purpose] [as it might affect (name
party)]. You may not consider that evidence [for any other purpose] [as to [any
other party] [(name other party(s)].
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 44
301.6 JURY TO BE GUIDED BY OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION/INTERPRETATION
Introduction:
The law requires that the court appoint a qualified interpreter to assist
a witness who does not readily speak or understand the English language in
testifying. The interpreter does not work for either side in this case. [He] [She]
is completely neutral in the matter and is here solely to assist us in
communicating with the witness. [He] [She] will repeat only what is said and
will not add, omit, or summarize anything. The interpreter in this case is
(name of interpreter). The oath will now be administered to the interpreter.
Oath to Interpreter:
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will make a true
interpretation to the witness of all questions or statements made to [him] [her]
in a language which that person understands, and interpret the witness’s
statements into the English language, to the best of your abilities [so help you
God]?
Foreign Language Testimony:
You are about to hear testimony of a witness who will be testifying in
(language used). This witness will testify through the official court interpreter.
Although some of you may know (language used), it is important that all jurors
consider the same evidence. Therefore, you must accept the English
translation of the witness’s testimony. You must disregard any different
meaning.
If, however, during the testimony there is a question as to the accuracy
of the English interpretation, you should bring this matter to my attention
immediately by raising your hand. You should not ask your question or make
any comment about the interpretation in the presence of the other jurors, or
otherwise share your question or concern with any of them. I will take steps to
see if your question can be answered and any discrepancy resolved. If,
however, after such efforts a discrepancy remains, I emphasize that you must
rely only upon the official English interpretation as provided by the court
interpreter and disregard any other contrary interpretation.
NOTE ON USE FOR 301.6
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 45
This instruction should be given to the jury immediately before the
testimony of a witness who will be testifying through the services of an official
court interpreter. Compare United States v. Franco, 136 F.3d 622, 626 (9th Cir.
1998) (jury properly instructed that it must accept translation of foreign-language
tape-recording when accuracy of translation is not in issue); United States v.
Fuentes-Montijo, 68 F.3d 352, 35556 (9th Cir. 1995).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 46
301.7 JURY TO BE GUIDED BY OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSCRIPT OF RECORDING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE
(ACCURACY NOT IN DISPUTE)
You are about to listen to a tape recording in (language used). Each of
you has been given a transcript of the recording which has been admitted into
evidence. The transcript is a translation of the foreign language tape
recording.
Although some of you may know (language used), it is important that all
jurors consider the same evidence. Therefore, you must accept the English
translation contained in the transcript and disregard any different meaning.
If, however, during the testimony there is a question as to the accuracy
of the English translation, you should bring this matter to my attention
immediately by raising your hand. You should not ask your question or make
any comment about the translation in the presence of the other jurors, or
otherwise share your question or concern with any of them. I will take steps to
see if your question can be answered and any discrepancy resolved. If,
however, after such efforts a discrepancy remains, I emphasize that you must
rely only upon the official English translation as provided by the court
interpreter and disregard any other contrary translation.
NOTE ON USE FOR 301.7
This instruction is appropriate immediately prior to the jury hearing a tape-
recorded conversation in a foreign language if the accuracy of the translation is not
an issue. See, e.g., United States v. Franco, 136 F.3d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1998);
United States v. Fuentes-Montijo, 68 F.3d 352, 35556 (9th Cir. 1995).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 47
301.8 JURY TO BE GUIDED BY OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION/INTERPRETATION TRANSCRIPT OF RECORDING
IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE (ACCURACY IN DISPUTE)
You are about to listen to a tape recording in (language used). Each of
you has been given a transcript of the recording. The transcripts were
provided to you by [the plaintiff] [the defendant] so that you could consider
the content of the recordings. The transcript is an English translation of the
foreign language tape recording.
Whether a transcript is an accurate translation, in whole or in part, is
for you to decide. In considering whether a transcript accurately describes the
meaning of a conversation, you should consider the testimony presented to
you regarding how, and by whom, the transcript was made. You may consider
the knowledge, training, and experience of the translator, as well as the nature
of the conversation and the reasonableness of the translation in light of all the
evidence in the case. You should not rely in any way on any knowledge you
may have of the language spoken on the recording; your consideration of the
transcripts should be based on the evidence introduced in the trial.
NOTE ON USE FOR 301.8
This instruction is appropriate immediately prior to the jury hearing a tape-
recorded conversation in a foreign language if the accuracy of the translation is an
issue. See, e.g., United States v. Jordan, 223 F.3d 676, 689 (7th Cir. 2000). See
also Seventh Circuit Federal Criminal Jury Instructions §3.18.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 48
301.9 DISREGARD STRICKEN MATTER
NOTE ON USE FOR 301.9
No standard instruction is provided. The court should give an instruction that
is appropriate to the circumstances. In drafting a curative instruction, the court
must decide on a measured response that will do more good than harm, going no
further than necessary. The language of curative instructions should be carefully
selected so as not to punish a party or attorney.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 49
301.10 INSTRUCTION BEFORE RECESS
We are about to take [our first] [a] recess. Remember that all of the
rules I have given you apply even when you are outside the courtroom, such as
at recess.
Remember the basic rule: Do not talk to anyone, including your fellow
jurors, friends, family or co-workers about anything having to do with this
trial, except to speak to court staff. This means no e-mailing, text messaging,
tweeting, blogging, or any other form of communication. You cannot do any
research about the case or look up any information about the case.
Remember to observe during our recess the other rules I gave you. If you
become aware of any violation of any of these rules at all, notify court
personnel of the violation.
After each recess, please double check to make sure [that your cell
phone or other electronic device is turned off completely] [that you do not
bring your cell phone or other electronic device into the courtroom or jury
room].
NOTES ON USE FOR 301.10
1. This instruction should be given before the first recess. Before later
recesses, the court has the discretion to give an abbreviated version of this
instruction.
2. The publication of this recommended instruction is not intended to
intrude upon the trial judge’s own style and manner of delivery. Instead, this
instruction is intended to remind jurors throughout the proceedings of the
importance of the rules limiting their use of cell phones and other electronic
devices.
(Revised December 4, 2014)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 50
301.11 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN EVIDENCE OR KEEP A RECORD
a. Adverse inference.
If you find that:
(Name of party) [lost] [destroyed] [mutilated] [altered] [concealed] or
otherwise caused the (describe evidence) to be unavailable, while it was within
[his] [her] [its] possession, custody, or control; and the (describe evidence)
would have been material in deciding the disputed issues in this case; then you
may, but are not required to, infer that this evidence would have been
unfavorable to (name of party). You may consider this, together with the other
evidence, in determining the issues of the case.
NOTES ON USE FOR 301.11a
1. This instruction is not intended to limit the trial court’s discretion to
impose additional or other sanctions or remedies against a party for either
inadvertent or intentional conduct in the loss, destruction, mutilation, alteration,
concealment, or other disposition of evidence material to a case. See, e.g., Golden
Yachts, Inc. v. Hall, 920 So. 2d 777, 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Am. Hosp. Mgmt.
Co. of Minnesota v. Hettiger, 904 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Jost v Lakeland
Reg. Med. Ctr., 844 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Nationwide Lift Trucks, Inc.
v. Smith, 832 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Torres v. Matsushita Elec. Corp.,
762 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); and Sponco Mfg, Inc. v. Alcover, 656 So. 2d
629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
2. The inference addressed in this instruction does not rise to the level of
a presumption. Pub. Health Tr. of Dade Cty. v. Valcin, 507 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1987),
and Instruction 301.11b.
3. This instruction may require modification in the event a factual
dispute exists as to which party or person is responsible for the loss of any
evidence.
b. Burden shifting presumption.
The court has determined that (name of party) had a duty to [maintain
(describe missing evidence)] [keep a record of (describe subject matter as to
which party had record keeping duty)]. (Name of party) did not [maintain
(describe missing evidence)] [or] [keep a record of (describe subject matter as to
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 51
which party had recordkeeping duty)].
Because (name of party) did not [maintain (describe missing evidence)]
[or] [keep a record of (describe subject matter as to which party had a record
keeping duty)], you should find that (name of invoking party) established [his]
[her] (describe applicable claim or defense) unless (name of party) proves
otherwise by the greater weight of the evidence.
NOTES ON USE FOR 301.11b
1. This instruction applies only when the court has determined that there
was a duty to maintain or preserve the missing evidence at issue and the party
invoking the presumption has established to the satisfaction of the court that the
absence of the missing evidence hinders the other party’s ability to establish its
claim or defense. See Pub. Health Tr. of Dade Cty. v. Valcin, 507 So. 2d 596 (Fla.
1987).
2. This instruction may require modification in the event a factual
dispute exists as to which party or person is responsible for the loss of any
evidence.
(Adopted April 21, 2016)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 52
SECTION 400 SUBSTANTIVE INSTRUCTIONS
401 General Negligence
402 Professional Negligence
403 Products Liability
404 Insurer’s Bad Faith
405 Defamation
406 Malicious Prosecution
407 False Imprisonment
408 Tortious Interference with Business Relationships
409 Misrepresentation
410 Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress
411 Civil Theft
412 Contribution Among Tortfeasors
413 Claim for Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Benefits (Medical
Benefits only)
414 Intentional Tort As an Exception to Exclusive Remedy of
Workers’ Compensation
415 Unlawful Retaliation
NOTE ON USE
These substantive instructions should be followed by the applicable sections
from Damages, Substantive Instructions General, and Closing Instructions
(Before Final Argument).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 53
401 GENERAL NEGLIGENCE
401.1 Introduction
401.2 Summary of Claims
401.3 Greater Weight of the Evidence
401.4 Negligence
401.5 Negligence of a Child
401.6 Negligence of a Common Carrier
401.7 Res Ipsa Loquitur
401.8 Violation of Non-Traffic Penal Statute as Negligence per Se
401.9 Violation of Statute, Ordinance, or Regulation as Evidence of
Negligence
401.10 Equal and Reciprocal Rights of Motorists and Pedestrians
401.11 Duty of Motorist Toward Children
401.12 Legal Cause
401.13 Preemptive Charges
401.14 Preliminary Issues Vicarious Liability
401.15 Preliminary Issues Common Carrier
401.16 Preliminary Issues Premises Liability
401.17 Burden of Proof on Preliminary Issues
401.18 Issues on Plaintiff’s Claim — General Negligence
401.19 Issues on Plaintiff’s Claim — Common Carrier
401.20 Issues on Plaintiff’s Claim — Premises Liability
401.21 Burden of Proof on Main Claim
401.22 Defense Issues
401.23 Burden of Proof on Defense Issues
401.24 Counterclaims, Cross Claims, and Third Party Claims
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 54
401.1 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.
NOTES ON USE FOR 401.1
1. When instructing the jury before taking evidence, use instruction
202.1 in lieu of instruction 401.1. See Model Instruction No. 1. Instruction 401.1 is
for instructing the jury after the evidence has been concluded. Use the bracketed
language in instruction 401.1 when the final instructions are different from the
instructions given at the beginning of the case. If the instructions at the end of the
case are different from those given at the beginning of the case, the committee
recommends that the court point out the differences with appropriate language in
the final instructions, including an explanation for the difference, such as where the
court has directed a verdict on an issue.
2. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b) authorizes instructing the jury during trial or
before or after final argument. The timing of instructions is within the sound
discretion of the trial judge, to be determined on a case-by-case basis, but the
committee strongly recommends instructing the jury before final argument.
3. Each juror must be provided with a full set of jury instructions for use
during their deliberations. Rule 1.470(b). The trial judge may find it useful to
provide these instructions to the jurors when the judge reads the instructions in
open court so that jurors can read along with the judge, as the judge reads the
instructions aloud.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 55
401.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
The claims [and defenses] in this case are as follows. (Claimant) claims
that (defendant) was negligent in (describe alleged negligence) which caused
[him] [her] harm.
(Defendant) denies that claim [and also claims that (claimant) was
[himself] [herself] negligent in (describe the alleged comparative negligence)
which caused [his] [her] harm]. [Additionally (describe any other affirmative
defenses).]
[The parties] [(claimant)] must prove [his] [her] [their] claims by the
greater weight of the evidence. I will now define some of the terms you will use
in deciding this case.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 56
401.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
“Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and
convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
NOTES ON USE FOR 401.3
1. Greater or lesser number of witnesses. The committee recommends
that no instruction be given regarding the relationship (or lack of relationship)
between the greater weight of the evidence and the greater or lesser number of
witnesses.
2. Circumstantial evidence. The committee recommends that no
instruction generally be given distinguishing circumstantial from direct evidence.
See Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 57
401.4 NEGLIGENCE
Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care, which is the care that a
reasonably careful person would use under like circumstances. Negligence is
doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do under like
circumstances or failing to do something that a reasonably careful person
would do under like circumstances.
NOTES ON USE FOR 401.4
1. No inference of negligence from mere fact of accident. The committee
recommends that no instruction be given to the effect that “negligence may not be
inferred from the mere happening of an accident alone.” Belden v. Lynch, 126 So.
2d 578, 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). Such an instruction is argumentative and
negative.
2. Unavoidable accident. The committee recommends that no instruction
be given on the subject of “unavoidable accident,” this being a more appropriate
subject for argument by counsel.
3. Presumption of reasonable care; right to assume others will exercise.
The committee recommends that no instruction be given to the effect that one is
presumed to have exercised reasonable care for one’s own safety or for the safety
of others or that one has the right to assume others will exercise reasonable care.
Whether a person is entitled so to assume and to act on that assumption ultimately
depends on whether a reasonably careful person in the same circumstances would
so assume and act. See 3 Fla. Jur. Automobiles §93 at 562; 23 Fla. Jur. Negligence
§79 at 319, also §§77 and 78; 65A C.J.S. Negligence §15 at 592, §118 at 30; 60
C.J.S. Motor Vehicles §249 at 610; 61 C.J.S. Motor Vehicles §459 at 13.
4. Sudden Emergency. The committee recommends that no instruction
be given on the subject of sudden emergency. In the circumstances of an
emergency, as in “ordinary circumstances,” the applicable standard of care is
reasonable care under the circumstances.
5. Traffic. The committee recommends that no instruction be given on
the following subjects: (a) duty to keep lookout; (b) duty to inspect vehicle or to
maintain vehicle in safe condition; or (c) the supposed “range of vision” rule.
Negligence is properly and completely defined as the failure to use that degree of
care which a reasonable person would use under like circumstances.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 58
6. Railroads. The committee recommends that no instruction be given on
the following subjects: (a) the supposed duty of a pedestrian or motorist to “yield
the right of way” to an approaching train; (b) reciprocal duties at railroad
crossings; or (c) the “standing train” doctrine. Negligence is properly and
completely defined as the failure to use that degree of care which a reasonable
person would use under like circumstances.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 59
401.5 NEGLIGENCE OF A CHILD
Reasonable care on the part of a child is the care that a reasonably
careful child of the same age, mental capacity, intelligence, training and
experience would use under like circumstances.
NOTE ON USE FOR 401.5
This instruction should be given, when applicable, immediately following
instruction 401.4. This instruction is applicable when the claim involves
negligence of a child occurring while that child is engaged in activities appropriate
to a child of his or her age, experience and wisdom. This instruction may not be
applicable when the claim involves negligence of a child occurring while he or she
is engaged in an activity normally undertaken principally by adults and for which
adult qualifications are usually required, such as operating an automobile, airplane,
motorboat, or motorcycle, e.g., Medina v. McAllister, 202 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1967).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 60
401.6 NEGLIGENCE OF A COMMON CARRIER
Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care. (Defendant) is a common
carrier. [The reasonable care required of (defendant) is different from the
reasonable care required of a passenger.]
The reasonable care required of a common carrier for the safety of a
passenger is the highest degree of care that is consistent with the type of
transportation used and the practical operation of the business of a common
carrier of passengers. Negligence of a common carrier is doing something that
a very careful person would not do under like circumstances or failing to do
something that a very careful person would do under like circumstances.
[In connection with (defendant’s) defense that (claimant) was [himself]
[herself] negligent, reasonable care is what a reasonably careful person would
do under like circumstances. Negligence is doing something that a reasonably
careful person would not do under like circumstances or failing to do
something that a reasonably careful person would do under like
circumstances.]
NOTE ON USE FOR 401.6
1. Instruction 401.6 should be given instead of instruction 401.4 in a
passenger’s case to define the standard of care applicable to a common carrier.
2. In cases involving multiple defendants, with non-common carrier
defendants, refer to instruction 401.4 for the applicable negligence instruction for
the non-common carrier defendants.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 61
401.7 RES IPSA LOQUITUR
If you find that ordinarily the [incident] [injury] would not have
happened without negligence,
[and that the (name the item) causing the injury was in the exclusive
control of (defendant) at the time it caused the injury,]*
[and that the (name the item) causing the injury was in the exclusive
control of (defendant) at the time the negligent act or omission, if any,
must have occurred and that the (name the item), after leaving
(defendant’s) control, was not improperly used or handled by others or
subjected to harmful forces or conditions,]*
you may infer that (defendant) was negligent unless, taking into consideration
all of the evidence in the case, you find that the (describe the event) was not due
to any negligence on the part of (defendant).
NOTE ON USE FOR 401.7
*Use the second bracketed paragraph in cases involving exploding bottles,
see, e.g., Burkett v. Panama City Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 93 So. 2d 580 (Fla.
1957), or other instrumentalities that are no longer in the defendant’s control at the
time of plaintiff’s injury. Compare Wagner v. Associated Shower Door Co., 99 So.
2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). Use the first bracketed paragraph in all other cases.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 62
401.8 VIOLATION OF NON-TRAFFIC PENAL STATUTE
AS NEGLIGENCE PER SE
Read or paraphrase the applicable statute or
refer to the ordinance admitted in evidence.
Violation of this [statute] [ordinance] is negligence. If you find that
(defendant or individual(s) claimed to have been negligent) violated this [statute]
[ordinance], then (defendant or individual(s) claimed to have been negligent)
[was] [were] negligent. You should then decide whether such negligence was a
legal cause of (claimant’s) [loss] [injury] [or] [damage].
NOTES ON USE FOR 401.8
1. This instruction should not be given in a case involving violation of a
traffic regulation prescribed by statute or ordinance or in other cases in which the
violation is only evidence of negligence. Use instruction 401.9 instead. It is
“negligence per se” to violate a penal statute or ordinance, not regulating traffic,
which was enacted to protect a particular class of persons from a particular injury
or type of injury. deJesus v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 281 So. 2d 198
(Fla. 1973). When the legislative authority enacts such a statute or ordinance, it
thereby prescribes a minimum standard of reasonable care to which every
reasonably careful person will adhere. The jury is not at liberty to determine that
the violation of such a standard is not negligence. Richardson v. Fountain, 154 So.
2d 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963), and cases cited at 154 So. 2d at 711; 38 AM.JUR.
Negligence §158, at 82729; but compare Mastrandrea v. J. Mann, Inc., 128 So.
2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).
2. This instruction should not be used in “strict liability” cases in which
liability is predicated on violation of a statute enacted to protect a particular class
of persons who are unable to protect themselves. In such cases, the violator is
strictly liable for the consequent injury, even though the violation was not the
“proximate” or “legal” cause by traditional tests. Sloan v. Coit International, Inc.,
292 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1974); Tamiami Gun Shop v. Klein, 109 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1959), cert. disch. 116 So. 2d 421; see deJesus.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 63
401.9 VIOLATION OF STATUTE, ORDINANCE, OR REGULATION AS
EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE
Read or paraphrase the applicable statute or refer
to the ordinance or regulation admitted in evidence.
Violation of this [statute] [ordinance] [regulation] is evidence of
negligence. It is not, however, conclusive evidence of negligence. If you find
that (defendant or individual(s) claimed to have been negligent) violated this
[statute] [ordinance] [regulation], you may consider that fact, together with
the other facts and circumstances, in deciding whether such person was
negligent.
NOTES ON USE FOR 401.9
1. This instruction as written renders it applicable in a generic sense to
all statutory or regulatory violations, which are determined to constitute evidence
of negligence, in addition to violations of traffic regulations. For instruction related
to statute or ordinance violations, which constitute negligence per se, see
instruction 401.8.
2. This instruction is to be used for the violation of both traffic and
nontraffic regulations, ordinances, or codes where the violation constitutes
evidence of negligence, for example: (1) building code violations, see Lindsey v.
Bill Arflin Bonding Agency Inc., 645 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Morowitz v.
Vistaview Apartments, Ltd., 613 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Holland v.
Baguette, Inc., 540 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); (2) OSHA regulations, see
Jupiter Inlet Corp. v. Brocard, 546 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); (3)
governmental statutes or ordinances, see Gabriel v. Tripp, 576 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1991) (statutory violation making it unlawful to knowingly transmit a
sexually transmissible disease); Bennett M. Lifter, Inc. v. Varnado, 480 So. 2d
1336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (violation of residential Landlord Tenant Act, F.S. 83.51
(1983)); Walt Disney World Co. v. Merritt, 404 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
(violation of State Fire Marshal’s rules); Hines v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., 383
So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (statutory violation of emission of gases and
noxious odors); Jones & Fla. East Coast R.R. Co., 220 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 4th DCA
1969) (violation of municipal ordinance requiring railroad crossing signals);
Conroy v. Briley, 191 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966) (violation of city ordinance
regarding handrail on stairways); Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Pollack, 154
So. 2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963) (city ordinance regulating speed of trains within
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 64
municipal limits).
3. This instruction should not be given if the statute or ordinance in
question provides that its violation is not evidence of negligence, e.g., F.S. 316.613
(1997) (failure to provide and use a child passenger restraint inadmissible in civil
action as evidence of negligence).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 65
401.10 EQUAL AND RECIPROCAL RIGHTS OF MOTORISTS AND
PEDESTRIANS
All persons [whether [pedestrians] [or] [motorists] [or] (other)] may use
the [street] [highway] but each has a duty [to comply with lawful regulations
of its use applicable to [him] [her] and]* to use reasonable care for [his] [her]
own safety and for the safety of others.
NOTE ON USE FOR 401.10
*The bracketed portion indicated with an asterisk should be given only when
such a regulation, applicable to a party, is referred to either in evidence or in the
court’s instruction.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 66
401.11 DUTY OF MOTORIST TOWARD CHILDREN
A motorist must use reasonable care to guard against the unpredictable
and erratic behavior of children on or near the [street] [highway] if [he] [she]
knows or should know of their presence.
NOTES ON USE FOR 401.11
1. This instruction is designed for use in cases involving a younger child
when the child is observed or is at a place where children may reasonably be
expected.
2. The committee recommends that this instruction not be given in cases
involving an older child in circumstances where youthful inattention or immaturity
is not involved.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 67
401.12 LEGAL CAUSE
a. Legal cause generally:
Negligence is a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] if it directly
and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially
to producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage], so that it can reasonably be
said that, but for the negligence, the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] would not
have occurred.
b. Concurring cause:
In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]
negligence need not be the only cause. Negligence may be a legal cause of [loss]
[injury] [or] [damage] even though it operates in combination with [the act of
another] [some natural cause] [or] [some other cause] if the negligence
contributes substantially to producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage].
c. Intervening cause:
Do not use the bracketed first sentence if this instruction is preceded by the
instruction on concurring cause:*
*[In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage], negligence need not be its only cause.] Negligence may also be a
legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] even though it operates in
combination with [the act of another] [some natural cause] [or] [some other
cause] occurring after the negligence occurs if [such other cause was itself
reasonably foreseeable and the negligence contributes substantially to
producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]] [or] [the resulting [loss] [injury]
[or] [damage] was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the negligence and
the negligence contributes substantially to producing it].
NOTES ON USE FOR 401.12
1. Instruction 401.12a (legal cause generally) is to be given in all cases.
Instruction 401.12b (concurring cause), to be given when the court considers it
necessary, does not set forth any additional standard for the jury to consider in
determining whether negligence was a legal cause of damage but only negates the
idea that a defendant is excused from the consequences of his or her negligence by
reason of some other cause concurring in time and contributing to the same
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 68
damage. Instruction 401.12c (intervening cause) is to be given only in cases in
which the court concludes that there is a jury issue as to the presence and effect of
an intervening cause.
2. The jury will properly consider instruction 401.12a not only in
determining whether defendant’s negligence is actionable but also in determining
whether claimant’s negligence contributed as a legal cause to claimant’s damage,
thus reducing recovery.
3. Instruction 401.12b must be given whenever there is a contention that
some other cause may have contributed, in whole or part, to the occurrence or
resulting injury. If there is an issue of aggravation of a preexisting condition or of
subsequent injuries/multiple events, instructions 501.5a or 501.5b should be given
as well. See Hart v. Stern, 824 So. 2d 927, 93234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Marinelli
v. Grace, 608 So. 2d 833, 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
4. Instruction 401.12c (intervening cause) embraces two situations in
which negligence may be a legal cause notwithstanding the influence of an
intervening cause: (1) when the damage was a reasonably foreseeable consequence
of the negligence although the other cause was not foreseeable, Mozer v. Semenza,
177 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), and (2) when the intervention of the other
cause was itself foreseeable, Gibson v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 386 So. 2d
520 (Fla. 1980).
5. “Probable” results. The committee recommends that the jury not be
instructed that the damage must be such as would have appeared “probable” to the
actor or to a reasonably careful person at the time of the negligence. In cases
involving an intervening cause, the term “reasonably foreseeable” is used in place
of “probable.” The terms are synonymous and interchangeable. See Sharon v.
Luten, 165 So. 2d 806, 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Prosser, Torts 291 (3d ed.); 2
Harper & James, The Law of Torts, 1137.
6. The term “substantially” is used throughout the instruction to describe
the extent of contribution or influence negligence must have in order to be
regarded as a legal cause. “Substantially” was chosen because the word has an
acceptable common meaning and because it has been approved in Florida as a test
of causation not only in relation to defendant’s negligence, Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So.
2d 185, 191 (Fla. 1953), but also in relation to plaintiff’s comparative negligence,
Shayne v. Saunders, 176 So. 495, 498 (Fla. 1937).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 69
401.13 PREEMPTIVE CHARGES
The court has determined and now instructs you that
a. Duty to use reasonable care:
the circumstances at the time and place of the incident involved in this
case were such that (defendant) had a duty to use reasonable care for
(claimant’s) safety.
(skip to instruction 401.18 on negligence issues)
NOTE ON USE FOR 401.13a
This preemptive instruction is not for use routinely, but only when the
reasonable care standard was contested before the jury, as by an instruction 401.14
issue now to be withdrawn as a matter of law. In that event instruction 401.13a
properly emphasizes reasonable care as embodied in instruction 401.17 or 401.19
and 401.4. Otherwise it is argumentative.
b. Vicarious liability:
(Defendant) is responsible for any negligence of (name) in (describe
alleged negligence).
(skip to instruction 401.18 on negligence issues)
c. Negligence:
(Defendant) was negligent. The issue for you to decide [on (claimant’s)
claim] is whether such negligence was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage] to (claimant or person on whose behalf the claim is made).
(skip to causation, damage issues and general instructions)
d. Directed verdict on liability:
(Defendant) was negligent and such negligence was a legal cause of [loss]
[injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant). (Claimant) is therefore entitled to recover
from (defendant) for the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] as is shown by the
greater weight of the evidence to have been caused by (defendant).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 70
(skip to damage issues and general instructions)
NOTE ON USE FOR 401.13d
This instruction should be given only when the sole issue to be determined
by the jury is damages.
NOTES ON USE FOR 401.13
1. This instruction covers only preemptive instructions on issues arising
on claims. Preemptive instructions on defense issues are covered in instruction
401.22 and should be given at that stage of the instruction.
2. It may be necessary or desirable in some cases for the court to
introduce this instruction by calling attention to the evidence or arguments of
counsel in which the issue now to be withdrawn was raised or discussed.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 71
401.14 PRELIMINARY ISSUES VICARIOUS LIABILITY
On the (claimant’s) claim there is a preliminary issue for you to decide.
That issue is:
a. Owner, lessee, or bailee of vehicle driven by another:
whether (defendant) was the [owner] [lessee] [or] [bailee] of the
vehicle driven by (driver) [or] whether (driver) was operating the
vehicle with the express or implied consent of (defendant). A
person who [owns] [is the lessee of] [or] [is the bailee of] a vehicle
and who expressly or impliedly consents to another’s use of it is
responsible for its operation.
[An owner of a vehicle is one who has legal title to the vehicle and
who has the right of control and authority over its use.]
[A lessee of a vehicle is one who has leased or rented the vehicle
from its owner.]
[A bailee of a vehicle is one to whom the vehicle has been
furnished or delivered by [its owner] [a person with authority
over its use] for a particular purpose, with the understanding that
it will be returned.]
NOTES ON USE FOR 401.14a
1. The general rules stated above will be appropriate in most cases in
which there is an issue concerning the status of a defendant under Florida’s
“dangerous instrumentality” doctrine. See generally Aurbach v. Gallina, 753 So.
2d 60 (Fla. 2000). They are subject to a number of exceptions, however. For
example, the owner of a vehicle who has delivered possession of it to another
under a conditional sales contract, and who has complied with all the requirements
of F.S. 319.22, is not liable for its negligent operation. See Aurbach; Palmer v. R.
S. Evans, Jacksonville, Inc., 81 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1955). The owner of a vehicle who
has leased it to another under a lease for one year or longer and who has complied
with all the requirements of F.S. 324.021(9)(b)1, is not liable for its negligent
operation. See Ady v. American Honda Finance Corp., 675 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1996).
Additional limitations upon vicarious liability are set forth in F.S. 324.021(9)(b)
and 324.021(9)(c). An owner or lessee who has delivered a vehicle to a repair shop
for maintenance is ordinarily not liable for its negligent operation during servicing,
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 72
service-related testing, or transport of the vehicle by the bailee. See Michalek v.
Shumate, 524 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1988); Castillo v. Bickley, 363 So. 2d 792 (Fla.
1978). Although an owner is liable for a personal injury or wrongful death
negligently inflicted by a bailee upon a third party, an owner is not liable for a
personal injury or wrongful death negligently inflicted by a bailee upon a co-
bailee. See Toombs v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 833 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 2002); Raydel,
Ltd. v. Medcalfe, 178 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1965); May v. Palm Beach Chemical Co., 77
So. 2d 468 (Fla. 1955). And proof of express or implied consent is not required
where an unattended vehicle has been stolen because the owner left the keys in the
ignition. See Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1978);
Vining v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 354 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 1977). Other
exceptions may exist for which special instructions may be required. See generally
4A FLA.JUR.2d, Automobiles and Other Vehicles, §§667690. The instruction may
also have to be tailored to fit the particular factual circumstances of the case.
2. Dangerous instrumentality. The committee recommends that the court
not instruct the jury that an automobile is a “dangerous instrumentality,” such an
instruction being unnecessary and essentially argumentative.
b. Agency.
(1). Agency, master and servant (independent contractor distinguished):
whether (name) was an agent of (defendant) and was acting within the
scope of [his] [her] employment at the time and place of the incident in
this case. [An agent is a person who is employed to act for another, and
whose actions are controlled by [his] [her] employer or are subject to
[his] [her] employer’s right of control.] An employer is responsible for
the negligence of [his] [her] [its] agent if such negligence occurs while
the agent is performing services which [he] [she] was employed to
perform or while the agent is acting at least in part because of a desire
to serve [his] [her] employer and is doing something that is reasonably
incidental to [his] [her] employment or something the doing of which
was reasonably foreseeable and reasonably to be expected of persons
similarly employed.
[But a person is not responsible for the negligence of an independent
contractor or of the agents or employees of an independent contractor.
An independent contractor is a [person] [business] who is engaged by
another to perform specific work according to [his] [her] [its] own
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 73
methods and whose methods of performing the work are not controlled
by the person engaging [him] [her] [it] and are not subject to that
person’s right of control.]
NOTE ON USE FOR 401.14b(1)
For purposes of defining liability for negligence, there is no reason to
distinguish between the relationship of principal and agent and the relationship of
master and servant. See Lynch v. Walker, 31 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1947).
(2). Apparent agency:
whether (name) was an apparent agent of (defendant) and was acting
within the scope of [his] [her] apparent authority at the time and place
of the incident in this case. [An agent is a person who is employed to act
for another, and whose actions are controlled by [his] [her] employer or
[is] [are] subject to [his] [her] employer’s right of control.] (Name) was
an apparent agent if (defendant) by [his] [her] [its] words or conduct
caused or allowed (claimant) to believe that (name) was an agent of and
had authority to act for (defendant) and if (claimant) justifiably relied
upon that belief in dealing with (name) as the agent of (defendant). A
person is responsible for the negligence of [his] [her] [its] apparent
agent occurring while the apparent agent is acting within the scope of
[his] [her] apparent authority.
NOTES ON USE FOR 401.14b(1) AND (2)
1. If the court determines that issues on both actual agency and apparent
agency should be submitted to the jury, give both instructions 401.14b(1) and b(2),
omitting the bracketed language in b(2). When instruction 401.14b(2) is used
alone, give the bracketed language.
2. For the rules which might be applicable if the independent contractor
is engaged in inherently dangerous work or using a dangerous instrumentality, see
Florida Power & Light Co. v. Price, 170 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1964).
c. Ultrahazardous work (exception to nonliability for negligence of
independent contractor):
whether (defendant) [authorized or permitted another to carry on] [or]
[knowingly assisted or participated in carrying on], upon premises
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 74
owned or possessed by [him] [her], an activity which (defendant) knew
or should have known was ultrahazardous. The performance of work is
ultrahazardous if there is a real and substantial danger inherent in the
work itself and if the work is of such a nature that, in the ordinary
course of events, performance of the work will probably cause injury if
proper precautions are not taken. A person who [authorizes or permits
another to carry on] [or] [knowingly assists or participates in carrying
on] ultrahazardous work on premises owned or possessed by the
employer is responsible for negligence in the performance of the work
by the other or by his or her agents and employees.
NOTE ON USE FOR 401.14c
Price v. Florida Power & Light Co., 159 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963),
rev’d 170 So. 2d 293. If the activity in question is ultrahazardous as a matter of
law, this instruction should be omitted and instruction 401.13b, the preemptive
instruction on vicarious liability, should be given.
d. Partnership:
whether (name) was a partner of (defendant) and was acting on behalf of
the partnership and within the scope of its business at the time and
place of the incident in this case. A partnership exists when two or more
persons join together or agree to join together in a business or venture
for their common benefit, each contributing property, money or services
and each having an interest in any profits. Each member of a
partnership is responsible for the negligence of any partner if such
negligence occurs while the partner is acting on behalf of the
partnership and within the scope of the partnership’s business.
e. Joint venture:
whether at the time and place of the incident complained of, (name) was
engaged in a joint venture with (defendant) and was acting on behalf of
the joint venture and within the scope of its business at the time and
place of the incident in this case. A joint venture exists when two or
more persons combine their resources or efforts and agree to undertake
some particular business transaction in which they have common
interests in the purposes to be accomplished, joint control or right of
control of the venture, joint ownership interest in the subject matter of
the venture and a common right and duty to share in profits and losses.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 75
Each member of a joint venture is responsible for the negligence of
another member if such other member’s negligence occurs while he or
she is acting on behalf of the joint venture and within the scope of its
business.
f. Joint enterprise (automobile):
whether (driver) was operating the automobile at the time and place of
the [collision] [incident complained of] to further the purposes of a joint
enterprise in which [he] [she] was engaged with (defendant passenger). A
joint enterprise exists when two or more persons agree, expressly or
impliedly, to engage in an activity in which they have a common interest
in the purposes to be accomplished and equal rights to control and
manage the operation of an automobile in the enterprise. Each member
of a joint enterprise is responsible for the negligence of another member
in the operation of the automobile if that negligence occurs while he or
she is acting under the agreement and to further the purposes of the
joint enterprise.
NOTE ON USE FOR 401.14
Instruction 401.14 should be followed by instruction 401.17, Burden of
Proof on Preliminary Issues, unless there are other preliminary issues, in which
case instruction 401.17 would follow all preliminary issue instructions.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 76
401.15 PRELIMINARY ISSUES COMMON CARRIER
On (claimant’s) claim there is [a preliminary] [another] issue for you to
decide. That issue is whether at the time and place of the incident in this case,
(claimant) was a passenger of (defendant), a common carrier. A person is a
passenger of a common carrier when
a. Passenger before boarding:
[intending to take passage, [he] [she] enters and occupies a station,
waiting room or other place provided by the carrier for the reception of
passengers at a time when such place is open for reception of persons
intending to take passage on the carrier’s vehicle or conveyance.] or
b. Passenger boarding or in transit:
[[he] [she] enters or occupies the carrier’s vehicle or conveyance for the
purpose of transportation with the carrier’s express or implied consent.]
or
c. Passenger temporarily leaving conveyance:
[[he] [she] enters or occupies the carrier’s vehicle or conveyance for the
purpose of transportation with the carrier’s express or implied consent.
Such a person does not cease to be a passenger by leaving the carrier’s
vehicle or conveyance temporarily for a reasonable purpose and
without intending to abandon the carrier’s transportation.] or
d. Passenger departing at destination:
[[he] [she] enters or occupies the carrier’s vehicle or conveyance for the
purpose of transportation with the carrier’s express or implied consent.
Such a person does not cease to be a passenger at [his] [her] destination
until [he] [she] has safely left the carrier’s vehicle or conveyance [or, if
[he] [she] is discharged at the station or premises of the carrier, until
[he] [she] has had a reasonable opportunity to leave the premises].]
NOTES ON USE FOR 401.15
1. Atlantic Greyhound Lines v. Lovett, 134 Fla. 505, 184 So. 133 (Fla.
1938); Florida Southern Railway Co. v. Hirst, 30 Fla. 1, 11 So. 506 (Fla. 1892);
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 77
Henderson v. Tarver, 123 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); Pividal v. City of
Miami, 105 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958).
2. Instruction 401.15 should be followed by instruction 401.17, Burden
of Proof on Preliminary Issues.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 78
401.16 PRELIMINARY ISSUES PREMISES LIABILITY
On (claimant’s) claim, there is a preliminary issue for you to decide.
That issue is:
a. Invitee or invited licensee:
whether, at the time and place of the incident in this case (claimant) was
invited on premises owned by or in the possession of (defendant). A
person is invited on land or premises of another when he enters or
remains there at the invitation of the owner or possessor. An invitation
may be either express or reasonably implied from the circumstances. [A
person remains invited as long as [he] [she] uses the premises in the
customary manner or in a manner which the owner or possessor of the
premises might reasonably have expected and at a place where the
visitor was invited or where [he] [she] was permitted to be or where [he]
[she] might reasonably have been expected by the owner or possessor.]
b. Discovered trespasser [or licensee (uninvited) whose presence is
foreseeable]:
Use the bracketed language indicated with an asterisk if claimant was a
licensee (uninvited) but not if claimant was a trespasser.*
whether, at the time and place of the incident in this case, (defendant)
had a duty to use reasonable care for the safety of (claimant). A person
who owns or has possession of land or premises who knows of a
condition on the premises which involves an unreasonable risk of harm
to another person on the premises has a duty to use reasonable care to
warn the other person of the condition and the risk involved, if the
presence of the other person is known *[or reasonably foreseeable] by
the owner or possessor and if the other neither knew nor should have
known of the condition and risk by the use of reasonable care.
NOTES ON USE FOR 401.16b
1. Byers v. Gunn, 81 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 1955); Crutchfield v. Adams, 152
So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963); Seaboard Air Line Railroad. Co. v. Branham, 99
So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958).
2. In the case of a person having an express or implied invitation, use
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 79
instruction 401.16a instead of instruction 401.16b. As a result of Wood v. Camp,
284 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1973), the former licensee category now consists only of
“uninvited licensees.”
c. Attractive nuisance:
The first clause, bracketed and indicated with an asterisk, and the last
clause, bracketed and indicated with a dagger, should be used only if there
are jury issues on those matters.*†
*[whether (defendant) [owned] [possessed] [or] [controlled] the land or
premises in question]; whether the (identify structure or other artificial
condition) was located at a place on the land or premises in question
where (defendant) knew or had reason to know children were likely to be
[as trespassers or otherwise]; whether the (identify structure or other
artificial condition) had an unreasonable risk of death or serious harm to
children who, because of their age, were not likely to discover the
condition or realize the risk involved in meddling with it or in coming
within the area made dangerous by it; [and] whether (defendant) knew
or had reason to know of the risk to the children; †[and whether
(claimant child), because of his age, did not discover the condition or
realize the risk involved in meddling with it or in coming within the
area made dangerous by it].
NOTE ON USE FOR 401.16c
Derived from RESTATEMENT (2d) OF TORTS §339; Cockerham v. Vaughan,
Inc., 82 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 1955); Banks v. Mason, 132 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 2d DCA
1961); Fouraker v. Mullis, 120 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). Considered
together, instructions 401.16c and 401.20c cover all elements of the attractive
nuisance doctrine. Since plaintiff must, in effect, negate negligence in order to
prevail on this doctrine, comparative negligence is not a defense. Larnel Builders,
Inc. v. Martin, 110 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1959).
NOTES ON USE FOR 401.16
1. Instruction 401.16 should be used when the jury could reasonably
decide either for claimant or for defendant on the issue of whether defendant owed
claimant the degree of care that is an essential part of the claim made by claimant,
e.g., as when claimant contends he was an invitee on the defendant’s premises and
defendant contends that plaintiff was a trespasser.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 80
2. Instruction 401.16 is intended to frame the issues determining
claimant’s status or defendant’s duty. It is not intended as a statement of the degree
of care owed. The matter of degree of care is covered in the instructions on
negligence issues.
3. The variations of instruction 401.16 state affirmatively the
circumstances that must be shown in order for claimant to prevail on this particular
issue. If these circumstances are not shown by the greater weight of the evidence,
claimant cannot prevail on a claim that depends on such a showing.
4. Instruction 401.16 should be followed by instruction 401.17, Burden
of Proof on Preliminary Issues.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 81
401.17 BURDEN OF PROOF ON PRELIMINARY ISSUES
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support (claimant’s) claim
on [this issue] [these issues], that (describe preliminary issue), then your verdict
on the claim of (claimant) *[because of the claimed negligence of (name)]
should be for (defendant).
However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports the claim of
(claimant) on [this issue] [these issues], that (describe preliminary issue), then
you shall decide the other issues on (claimant’s) claim.
NOTES ON USE FOR 401.17
1. Give instruction 401.17 if instructing the jury on any preliminary
issues from instructions 401.14, 401.15 or 401.16.
2. If there are multiple defendants, this instruction will have to be
modified to account for the issues related to each defendant.
3. *There is no need to give that portion of the instruction contained
within brackets unless the case involves multiple defendants or the claimant makes
an alternative claim not predicated on simple negligence. In such a case it is
necessary to distinguish between different claims or a claim of negligence from the
other claim.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 82
401.18 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM — GENERAL NEGLIGENCE
The [next] issues you must decide on (claimant’s) claim against
(defendant) are:
a. Negligence, generally:
whether (defendant) was negligent in (describe alleged negligence), and, if
so, whether that negligence was a legal cause of the [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage] to (claimant, decedent, or person for whose injury claim is made).
b. Two drivers’ negligence:
whether (defendant) or (defendant) was negligent or whether both were
negligent in operating the vehicles, and, if so, whether that negligence
was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent,
or person for whose injury claim is made).
c. Negligence of parent (damage caused by child):
whether (defendant parent(s)) negligently [provided] [left in the
possession of] [or] [left accessible to] [his] [her] child, (name), (name
item) which, because of the child’s age or lack of judgment or
experience, was an unreasonable risk of harm to others [or] [failed to
restrain or control [his] [her] child, (name),] [or] [directed or
encouraged [his] [her] child, (name), to do something involving an
unreasonable risk of harm to others]; and, if so, whether that negligence
was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent,
or person for whose injury claim is made)].
d. Railroad, airline, or bus line negligence:
whether (defendant) was negligent in the operation of its [train]
[airplane] [bus], and, if so, whether that negligence was a legal cause of
[loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent, or person for whose
injury claim is made).
NOTE ON USE FOR 401.18d
For the degree of care required for passengers of common carriers, see
instruction 401.6. If the claimant is a passenger of railroad, airline, bus line, or
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 83
other common carrier, use instruction 401.9 instead of this instruction.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 84
401.19 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM — COMMON CARRIER
The [next] issues on (claimant’s) claim, for you to decide are: whether
(defendant) in (describe conduct) failed to exercise the highest degree of care for
the safety of (claimant); and, if so, whether that failure was a legal cause of the
[loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent, or person for whose injury
claim is made).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 85
401.20 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM — PREMISES LIABILITY
The [next] issues on (claimant’s) claim, for you to decide are:
a. Landowner or possessor’s negligence (toward invitee and invited licensee):
whether (defendant) [negligently failed to maintain the premises in a
reasonably safe condition], [or] [negligently failed to correct a
dangerous condition about which (defendant) either knew or should
have known, by the use of reasonable care,] [or] *[negligently failed to
warn (claimant) of a dangerous condition about which (defendant) had,
or should have had, knowledge greater than that of (claimant)]; and, if
so, whether such negligence was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage] to (claimant, decedent or person for whose injury claim is made).
NOTES ON USE FOR 401.20a
1. If there is an issue of whether claimant had status as an invitee or
invited licensee, give instructions 401.16a and 401.17 as preliminary instructions
before giving instruction 401.20a. The final segment of instruction 401.20a,
marked with an asterisk (*), is inapplicable when plaintiff does not proceed on a
theory of defendant’s failure to warn.
2. The phrase “. . . about which (defendant) either knew or should have
known by use of reasonable care . . .” may be inappropriate in cases involving
“transitory foreign objects.” F.S. 768.0710; Markowitz v. Helen Homes of Kendall
Corp., 826 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 2002); Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So. 2d
315 (Fla. 2001); Melkonian v. Broward County Board of County Commissioners,
844 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
b. Landowner or possessor’s negligence (toward discovered trespasser or
foreseeable licensee):
whether (defendant) negligently failed to warn (claimant) of a dangerous
condition and risk which were known to (defendant) and of which
(claimant) neither knew nor should have known, by the use of
reasonable care; and, if so, whether such negligence was a legal cause of
[loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent or person for whose
injury claim is made).
NOTE ON USE FOR 401.20b
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 86
Give preliminary instructions 401.16b and 401.17 before giving instruction
401.20b if there is a jury question of whether defendant owned or had possession
of the land or premises, or whether he knew of the dangerous condition, or whether
he knew of claimant’s presence (if claimant was a trespasser) or should have
foreseen claimant’s presence (if claimant was a licensee).
c. Attractive nuisance:
whether (defendant) was negligent in maintaining or in failing to protect
(claimant child) from the (describe structure or other artificial condition) on
the land or premises in question; and, if so, whether that negligence was
a legal cause of the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent or
person for whose injury claim is made).
NOTE ON USE FOR 401.20c
This instruction and instruction 401.16c, taken together, state all elements of
the attractive nuisance doctrine. The committee considers subsections (d) and (e)
of RESTATEMENT (2d) OF TORTS §339 to be unnecessary to the instruction because
negligence is otherwise defined by instruction 401.4.
d. Landlord’s negligence (toward tenant):
(1). When leased premises are not residential:
whether (defendant landlord) negligently failed to disclose to
(claimant tenant) a dangerous condition on the leased premises
which was known to (defendant), which was not known to
(claimant) or discoverable by [him] [her] by the use of reasonable
care, and which (defendant) had reason to believe (claimant) could
not discover; and, if so, whether that negligence was a legal cause
of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent or person for
whose injury claim is made).
(2). When leased premises are residential (not common areas):
whether, [before allowing (claimant tenant) to take possession of
the dwelling, (defendant landlord) negligently failed to repair a
defect that was discoverable by a reasonable inspection] [or]
[after (claimant tenant) took possession of the dwelling, (defendant
landlord) negligently failed to repair a dangerous or defective
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 87
condition on the premises of which [he] [she] [it] had actual
notice]; and, if so, whether that negligence was a legal cause of
[loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent or person for
whose injury claim is made).
NOTES ON USE FOR 401.20d
1. This instruction, reflecting a greater duty by landlord to tenant on
leased residential premises, was derived from Mansur v. Eubanks, 401 So. 2d 1328
(Fla. 1981), overruling to that extent Brooks v. Peters, 25 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1946).
See also F.S. 83.51 (1981), which may impose on the landlord greater duties, in
respect to conditions arising after a tenant’s possession, than were addressed in
Mansur. If other or greater duties are imposed by the statute, this instruction should
be modified to express those duties in the terms of the case. This instruction
pertains to the landlord’s duties, not the tenant’s, but the committee calls attention
to statutes in F.S. Chapter 83 imposing certain duties on the tenant, which may
affect the landlord’s duties as expressed in this instruction.
2. Common areas. With respect to common areas, the landlord’s duty to
the tenant is stated in instruction 401.20d. The landlord’s duty to others in common
areas is the same as that owed by any landowner or possessor of land, e.g.,
instructions 401.16a, 401.16b.
3. Persons invited on leased residential premises by tenant. The land-
lord’s duty to persons invited on leased residential premises by the tenant is the
same as the landlord’s duty to the tenant. Mansur v. Eubanks, 401 So. 2d 1328
(Fla. 1981).
4. Waiver. The committee expresses no opinion about whether a tenant
may waive duties owed him by the landlord. Compare Mansur v. Eubanks, 401 So.
2d 1328 (Fla. 1981), with F.S. 83.51(1)(b), 83.51(4), and 83.47 (1981).
e. Municipality’s negligence in maintenance of sidewalks and streets:
whether the city negligently failed to maintain its [sidewalk] [or] [street]
in a reasonably safe condition or failed to correct or warn (claimant) of a
dangerous condition of which the city either knew or should have
known, by the use of reasonable care; and, if so, whether that negligence
was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent or
person for whose injury claim is made).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 88
NOTE ON USE FOR 401.20e
City of Tampa v. Johnson, 114 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959); Schutzer v.
City of Miami, 105 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958).
401.21 BURDEN OF PROOF ON MAIN CLAIM
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support [one or more of]
(claimant’s) claim[s], your verdict should be for (defendant)(s) [on [that] [those]
claim(s)].
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports [one or more
of] (claimant’s) claim[s], then your verdict should be for (claimant) and against
(defendant) [on [that] [those] claim(s).]
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports (claimant’s)
claim against one [or] [both] [more] of the defendants, then you should decide
and write on the verdict form the percentage of the total negligence of [both]
[all] defendants that you apportion to each of them.]
NOTE ON USE FOR 401.21
Use the first paragraph in all cases. If there is an affirmative defense to the
claim that is the subject of the instruction, do not use either of the bracketed
paragraphs; instead, turn to instruction 401.22. If there is no affirmative defense,
use the first or the second bracketed paragraph depending on whether there is one
defendant or more than one.
(Revised February 1, 2018)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 89
401.22 DEFENSE ISSUES
If, however, the greater weight of the evidence supports [(claimant’s)
claim] [one of more of (claimant’s) claims], then you shall consider the
defense[s] raised by (defendant).
On the [first]* defense, the issue[s] for you to decide [is] [are]:
*The order in which the defenses are listed below is not necessarily the
order in which the instructions should be given.
a. Comparative negligence generally:
whether (claimant or person for whose injury or death claim is made) was
[himself] [herself] negligent in (describe alleged negligence) and, if so,
whether that negligence was a contributing legal cause of injury or
damage to (claimant).
NOTES ON USE FOR 401.22a
1. Instruction 401.4, defining negligence, is applicable both to
defendant’s negligence and claimant’s negligence. The consequences of negligence
on claimant’s part are explained to the jury by instruction 401.22a. There being no
need to give claimant’s negligence the special designation “comparative
negligence,” the committee recommends that “comparative negligence” not be
referred to in the instruction and that the term not be defined.
2. Special verdicts and special interrogatories. Special verdicts are
required in all jury trials involving comparative negligence. Lawrence v. Florida
East Coast Railway Co., 346 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 1977).
3. Presumption of reasonable care. The committee recommends that no
instruction be given to the effect that a deceased person or an injured person or
either party is presumed to have exercised reasonable care for his own safety or for
the safety of others. If such a presumption is thought to take the place of evidence
and make a prima facie case for the party having the burden of proof, the
presumption “disappears” upon the introduction of any evidence tending to
overcome it. Gulle v. Boggs, 174 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1965). If the presumption is
thought to operate against the party having the burden of proof, as in the case of
the presumption that a decedent was not comparatively negligent but was
exercising reasonable care for his own safety, such an instruction is merely a way
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 90
(and a confusing way, at that) of stating that the burden of proving comparative
negligence is on the party asserting it. In either case, an instruction on the subject is
superfluous. But compare Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Yniestra, 21 Fla.
700 (1886); Jacksonville Electric Co. v. Sloan, 52 Fla. 257, 42 So. 516 (Fla. 1906);
and Martin v. Makris, 101 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958).
b. Driver’s comparative negligence (when owner sues third party):
whether (driver), while operating a vehicle owned by (claimant) *[with
[his] [her] consent, express or implied,] was [himself] [herself] negligent
in the operation of the vehicle and, if so, whether that negligence was a
contributing legal cause of the injury or damage to (claimant).
*The phrase within brackets should be used only if there is an issue as to the
owner’s knowledge and consent.
c. Joint enterprise (driver’s negligence):
whether (driver) was operating the automobile at the time and place of
the [collision] [incident in this case] to further the purposes of a joint
enterprise in which [he] [she] was engaged with (claimant passenger); if
so, whether (driver) was negligent in the operation of the automobile;
and, if so, whether that negligence was a contributing legal cause of
[loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant). A joint enterprise exists when
two or more persons agree, expressly or impliedly, to engage in an
activity in which they have a common interest in the purposes to be
accomplished and equal rights to control and manage the operation of
an automobile in the enterprise. Each member of a joint enterprise is
responsible for the negligence of another member in the operation of the
automobile if that negligence occurs while [he] [she] is acting under the
agreement and to further the purposes of the joint enterprise.
d. Comparative negligence of parent predicated on other parent’s negligence
(claim for death of child):
whether (parent) was negligent in caring for and supervising the child,
(name); if so, whether that negligence was a contributing legal cause of
the death of (child), and, if so, whether (other parent), in the exercise of
reasonable care, should have anticipated that negligence on the part of
(parent).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 91
e. Comparative negligence of custodian of child other than parent:
whether, before the incident in this case, (claimant) placed (child) in the
care and custody of (custodian), if so, whether (custodian) was negligent
in caring for and supervising the child, (name); and, if so, whether that
negligence was a contributing legal cause of [injury] [and] [death] to
(child).
NOTE ON USE FOR 401.22e
Wynne v. Adside, 163 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964). See also Winner v.
Sharp, 43 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1950).
f. Apportionment of fault:
whether (identify additional person(s) or entit(y)(ies)) [was] [were] also
[negligent] [at fault] [responsible] [(specify other type of conduct)]; and, if
so, whether that [negligence] [fault] [responsibility] was a contributing
legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent or
person for whose injury claim is made).
NOTE ON USE FOR 401.22f
See F.S. 768.81 (1993); Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993). In
most cases, use of the term “negligence” will be appropriate. If another type of
fault is at issue, it may be necessary to modify the instruction and the verdict form
accordingly. In strict liability cases, the term “responsibility” may be the most
appropriate descriptive term.
g. Assumption of risk:
whether (claimant) knew of the existence of the danger complained of;
realized and appreciated the possibility of injury as a result of such
danger; and, having a reasonable opportunity to avoid it, voluntarily
and deliberately exposed [himself] [herself] to such danger.
NOTE ON USE FOR 401.22g
Blackburn v. Dorta, 348 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1977), abolished the assumption of
risk defense except in cases identified in that opinion.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 92
401.23 BURDEN OF PROOF ON DEFENSE ISSUES
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support (defendant’s)
defense[s] and the greater weight of the evidence does support (claimant’s)
claim, then [your verdict should be for (claimant) in the total amount of [his]
[her] damages] *[you should decide and write on the verdict form what
percentage of the total negligence of [both] [all] defendants you apportion to
each defendant whose negligence you find was a legal cause of loss, injury, or
damage to (claimant)].
*Use second bracketed alternative above when there is more than one
defendant.
If, however, the greater weight of the evidence shows that both
(claimant) and [(defendant)] [one or more of (defendants)] were negligent and
that the negligence of each contributed as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage] sustained by (claimant), you should decide and write on the verdict
form what percentage of the total negligence of [both] [all] parties to this
action you apportion to each of them.
Use the following instruction in cases with a comparative negligence
defense and an apportionment of a non-party defense:
If, however, the greater weight of the evidence shows that (claimant) and
[(defendant)] [one or more of (defendants)] and (identify additional person(s) or
entit(y)(ies)) were negligent and that the negligence of each contributed as a
legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] sustained by (claimant), you should
decide and write on the verdict form what percentage of the total negligence
of [both] [all] parties to this action and (identify additional person(s) or
entit(y)(ies)) you apportion to each of them.
Use the following instruction in cases without a comparative negligence
defense but with an apportionment of a non-party defense:
If, however, the greater weight of the evidence shows that [(defendant)]
[one or more of (defendants)] and (identify additional person(s) or entit(y)(ies))
were negligent and that the negligence of each contributed as a legal cause of
[loss] [injury] [or] [damage] sustained by (claimant), you should decide and
write on the verdict form what percentage of the total negligence of
[(defendant)] and (identify additional person(s) or entit(y)(ies)) you apportion to
each of them.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 93
NOTES ON USE FOR 401.23
1. Preemptive instructions on defense issues. If a preemptive instruction
for claimant is appropriate on a defense issue, as when comparative negligence or
assumption of risk has been brought to the jury’s attention on voir dire or by
opening statements or argument and is now to be withdrawn, an instruction in the
form of instruction 401.13 should be given immediately following instruction
401.21. If a preemptive instruction for defendant is required on some aspect of a
defense, as when, for example, the court holds that any comparative negligence of
the driver will reduce claimant’s recovery, a preemptive instruction announcing the
ruling should be given immediately after framing the defense issues (instruction
401.22a).
2. Instructions on issues raised by replies to affirmative defenses.
Plaintiff bears the burden of proof on issues raised by any replies to affirmative
defenses, and instruction 401.23 should be modified as appropriate for those
issues.
(Revised February 1, 2018)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 94
401.24 COUNTERCLAIMS, CROSS CLAIMS, AND THIRD PARTY
CLAIMS
NOTE ON USE FOR 401.24
Generally counterclaims, cross claims, and third party claims should follow
the same pattern of issues, applicable rules, burden of proof, and defenses as on the
main claim. For an example of how a counterclaim can be integrated into an
instruction, see Model Instruction No. 4.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 95
402 PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
402.1 Introduction
402.2 Summary of Claims
402.3 Greater Weight of the Evidence
402.4 Medical Negligence
402.5 Other Professional Negligence
402.6 Legal Cause
402.7 Legal Cause (Treatment Without Informed Consent)
402.8 Preemptive Charges
402.9 Preliminary Issues Vicarious Liability
402.10 Burden of Proof on Preliminary Issues
402.11 Issues on Main Claim
402.12 Issues on Claim of Attorney Malpractice Arising Out of Civil
Litigation
402.13 Burden of Proof on Main Claim
402.14 Defense Issues
402.15 Burden of Proof on Defense Issues
NOTES ON USE
1. Professional negligence claims are, for the most part, similar. The
committee has, therefore, included all such claims in a single section. There are,
however, some specific instructions that deal with issues unique to certain
professions, such as instruction 402.4(d) (missing medical records) and instruction
402.12 (issues involved in certain legal malpractice claims). For cases involving
allegations of negligence of professions other than medical or legal, instructions
402.11(a) and (b) and 402.12(a) and (b) should be appropriately modified.
2. If a professional malpractice case involves a claim of product defect,
jury instructions for such claims should be adopted from the applicable sections of
this book.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 96
402.1 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.
NOTES ON USE FOR 402.1
1. When instructing the jury before taking evidence, use instruction
202.1 in lieu of instruction 402.1. See Model Instruction No. 1. Instruction 402.1 is
for instructing the jury after the evidence has been concluded. Use the bracketed
language in instruction 402.1 when the final instructions are different from the
instructions given at the beginning of the case. If the instructions at the end of the
case are different from those given at the beginning of the case, the committee
recommends that the court point out the differences with appropriate language in
the final instructions, including an explanation for the difference, such as where the
court has directed a verdict on an issue.
2. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b) authorizes instructing the jury during trial or
before or after final argument. The timing of instructions is within the sound
discretion of the trial judge, to be determined on a case-by-case basis, but the
committee strongly recommends instructing the jury before final argument.
3. Each juror must be provided with a full set of jury instructions for use
during their deliberations. Rule 1.470(b). The trial judge may find it useful to
provide these instructions to the jurors when the judge reads the instructions in
open court so that jurors can read along with the judge, as the judge reads the
instructions aloud.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 97
402.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
The claims [and defenses] in this case are as follows. (Claimant) claims
that (defendant) was negligent in (describe alleged negligence) which caused
[him] [her] harm.
(Defendant) denies that claim [and also claims that (claimant) was
[himself] [herself] negligent in (describe the alleged comparative negligence)
which caused [his] [her] harm]. [Additionally (describe any other affirmative
defenses).]
The parties must prove all claims [and defenses] by the greater weight
of the evidence. I will now define some of the terms you will use in deciding
this case.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 98
402.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
“Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and
convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
NOTES ON USE FOR 402.3
1. Greater or lesser number of witnesses. The committee recommends
that no charge be given regarding the relationship (or lack of relationship) between
the greater weight of the evidence and the greater or lesser number of witnesses.
2. Circumstantial evidence. The committee recommends that no charge
generally be given distinguishing circumstantial from direct evidence. See Nielsen
v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 99
402.4 MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE
a. Negligence (physician, hospital or other health provider):
Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care. Reasonable care on the
part of a [physician] [hospital] [health care provider] is that level of care, skill
and treatment which, in light of all relevant surrounding circumstances, is
recognized as acceptable and appropriate by similar and reasonably careful
[physicians] [hospitals] [health care providers]. Negligence on the part of a
[physician] [hospital] [health care provider] is doing something that a
reasonably careful [physician] [hospital] [health care provider] would not do
under like circumstances or failing to do something that a reasonably careful
[physician] [hospital] [health care provider] would do under like
circumstances.
[If you find that (describe treatment or procedure) involved in this case
was carried out in accordance with the prevailing professional standard of
care recognized as acceptable and appropriate by similar and reasonably
careful [physicians] [hospitals] [health care providers], then, in order to
prevail, (claimant) must show by the greater weight of the evidence that his or
her injury was not within the necessary or reasonably foreseeable results of
the treatment or procedure.]
NOTES ON USE FOR 402.4a
1. See F.S. 766.102. Instruction 402.4a is derived from F.S. 766.102(1)
and is intended to embody the statutory definition of “prevailing professional
standard of care” without using that expression itself, which is potentially
confusing.
2. The second bracketed paragraph is derived from F.S. 766.102(2)(a)
and should be given only in cases involving a claim of negligence in affirmative
medical intervention.
b. Negligence (treatment without informed consent):
[Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care.] Reasonable care on
the part of a [physician] [health care provider] in obtaining the [consent]
[informed consent] to treatment of a patient consists of
(1). When issue is whether consent was obtained irregularly:
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 100
obtaining the consent of the patient [or one whose consent is as effective as the
patient’s own consent such as (describe)], at a time and in a manner in
accordance with an accepted standard of medical practice among members of
the profession with similar training and experience in the same or a similar
medical community.
(2). When issue is whether sufficient information was given:
providing the patient [or one whose informed consent is as effective as the
patient’s informed consent, such as (describe)] information sufficient to give a
reasonable person a general understanding of the proposed treatment or
procedure, of any medically acceptable alternative treatments or procedures,
and of the substantial risks and hazards inherent in the proposed treatment or
procedure which are recognized by other [physicians] [health care providers]
in the same or a similar community who perform similar treatments or
procedures.
NOTE ON USE FOR 402.4b
This instruction is derived from the provisions of F.S. 766.103.
c. Foreign bodies:
[Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care.] The presence of (name
of foreign body) in (patient’s) body establishes negligence unless (defendant(s))
prove(s) by the greater weight of the evidence that [he] [she] [it] was not
negligent.
NOTES ON USE FOR 402.4c
1. This instruction is derived from F.S. 766.102(3). The statute uses the
term “prima facie evidence of negligence.” The committee recommends that term
not be used as not helpful to a jury. Rather, the committee has used the definition
of prima facie. See, e.g., State v. Kahler, 232 So. 2d 166, 168 (Fla. 1970) (“prima
facie” means “evidence sufficient to establish a fact unless and until rebutted”).
2. Before this instruction is given, the court must make a finding that the
foreign body is one that meets the statutory definition. See Kenyon v. Miller, 756
So. 2d 133 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
d. Failure to maintain evidence or keep a record:
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 101
(1). Adverse Inference.
If you find that:
(Name of party) [lost] [destroyed] [mutilated] [altered] [concealed] or
otherwise caused the (describe evidence) to be unavailable, while it was within
[his] [her] [its] possession, custody, or control; and the (describe evidence)
would have been material in deciding the disputed issues in this case; then you
may, but are not required to, infer that this evidence would have been
unfavorable to (name of party). You may consider this, together with the other
evidence, in determining the issues of the case.
NOTES ON USE FOR 402.4d(1)
1. This instruction is not intended to limit the trial court’s discretion to
impose additional or other sanctions or remedies against a party for either
inadvertent or intentional conduct in the loss, destruction, mutilation, alteration,
concealment, or other disposition of evidence material to a case. See, e.g., Golden
Yachts, Inc. v. Hall, 920 So. 2d 777, 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Am. Hosp. Mbmt.
Co. of Minnesota v. Hettiger, 904 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Jost v Lakeland
Reg. Med. Ctr., 844 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Nationwide Lift Trucks, Inc.
v. Smith, 832 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Torres v. Matsushita Elec. Corp.,
762 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); and Sponco Mfg., Inc. v. Alcover, 656 So.
2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
2. The inference addressed in this instruction does not rise to the level of
a presumption. Pub. Health Tr. of Dade Cty. v. Valcin, 507 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1987),
and Instruction 402.4d(2).
3. This instruction may require modification in the event a factual
dispute exists as to which party or person is responsible for the loss of any
evidence.
(2). Burden shifting presumption.
The court has determined that (name of party) had a duty to [maintain
(describe missing evidence)] [keep a record of (describe subject matter as to
which party had record keeping duty)]. (Name of party) did not [maintain
(describe missing evidence)] [or] [keep a record of (describe subject matter as to
which party had record keeping duty)].
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 102
Because (name of party) did not [maintain (describe missing evidence)]
[or] [keep a record of (describe subject matter as to which party had a record
keeping duty)], you should find that (name of invoking party) established [his]
[her] (describe applicable claim or defense) unless (name of party) proves
otherwise by the greater weight of the evidence.
NOTES ON USE FOR 402.4d(2)
1. This instruction applies only when the court has determined that there
was a duty to maintain or preserve the missing evidence at issue and the party
invoking the presumption has established to the satisfaction of the court that the
absence of the missing evidence hinders the other party’s ability to establish its
claim or defense. See Pub. Health Tr. of Dade Cty. v. Valcin, 507 So. 2d 596 (Fla.
1987).
2. This instruction may require modification in the event a factual
dispute exists as to which party or person is responsible for the loss of any
evidence.
e. Res Ipsa Loquitur:
[Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care.] If you find that
ordinarily the [incident] [injury] would not have happened without
negligence, and that the (describe the item) causing the injury was in the
exclusive control of (defendant) at the time it caused the injury, you may infer
that (defendant) was negligent unless, taking into consideration all of the
evidence in the case, you find that the (describe event) was not due to any
negligence on the part of (defendant).
(Revised April 21, 2016)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 103
402.5 OTHER PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care. Reasonable care on the
part of a (identify professional) is the care that a reasonably careful (identify
professional) would use under like circumstances. Negligence is doing
something that a reasonably careful (identify professional) would not do under
like circumstances or failing to do something that a reasonably careful
(identify professional) would do under like circumstances.
NOTE ON USE FOR 402.5
This instruction should be used, appropriately adapted or revised, for all
nonmedical professional negligence claims, as for example, claims of accountant,
architect or attorney malpractice. The committee, however, expresses no opinion as
to what undertakings constitute a “profession.”
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 104
402.6 LEGAL CAUSE
a. Legal cause generally:
Negligence is a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] if it directly
and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially
to producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage], so that it can reasonably be
said that, but for the negligence, the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] would not
have occurred.
b. Concurring cause:
In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]
negligence need not be the only cause. Negligence may be a legal cause of [loss]
[injury] [or] [damage] even though it operates in combination with [the act of
another] [some natural cause] [or] [some other cause] if the negligence
contributes substantially to producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage].
c. Intervening cause:
Do not use the bracketed first sentence if this charge is preceded by the
charge on concurring cause:*
*[In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage], negligence need not be its only cause.] Negligence may also be a
legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] even though it operates in
combination with [the act of another] [some natural cause] [or] [some other
cause] occurring after the negligence occurs if [such other cause was itself
reasonably foreseeable and the negligence contributes substantially to
producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]] [or] [the resulting [loss] [injury]
[or] [damage] was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the negligence and
the negligence contributes substantially to producing it].
NOTES ON USE FOR 402.6
1. Instruction 402.6a (legal cause generally) is to be given in all cases.
Instruction 402.6b (concurring cause), to be given when the court considers it
necessary, does not set forth any additional standard for the jury to consider in
determining whether negligence was a legal cause of damage but only negates the
idea that a defendant is excused from the consequences of his negligence by reason
of some other cause concurring in time and contributing to the same damage.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 105
Instruction 402.6c (intervening cause) is to be given only in cases in which the
court concludes that there is a jury issue as to the presence and effect of an
intervening cause.
2. The jury will properly consider instruction 402.6a not only in
determining whether defendant’s negligence is actionable but also in determining
whether claimant’s negligence contributed as a legal cause to claimant’s damage,
thus reducing recovery.
3. Instruction 402.6b must be given whenever there is a contention that
some other cause may have contributed, in whole or in part, to the occurrence or
resulting injury. If there is an issue of aggravation of a preexisting condition or of
subsequent injuries or multiple events, instruction 501.5a or 501.5b should be
given as well. See Hart v. Stern, 824 So. 2d 927, 93234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002);
Marinelli v. Grace, 608 So. 2d 833, 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
4. Instruction 402.6c (intervening cause) embraces two situations in
which negligence may be a legal cause notwithstanding the influence of an
intervening cause: (1) where the damage was a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of the negligence although the other cause was not foreseeable,
Mozer v. Semenza, 177 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), and (2) where the
intervention of the other cause was itself foreseeable, Ellingson v. Willis, 170 So.
2d 311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964).
5. Probable results. The committee recommends that the jury not be
charged that the damage must be such as would have appeared “probable” to the
actor or to a reasonably careful person at the time of the negligence. In cases
involving an intervening cause, the term “reasonably foreseeable” is used in place
of “probable.” The terms are synonymous and interchangeable. See Sharon v.
Luten, 165 So. 2d 806, 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Prosser, Torts (3d ed.) 291; 2
Harper & James, The Law of Torts 1137.
6. The term “substantially” is used throughout the charge to describe the
extent of contribution or influence negligence must have in order to be regarded as
a legal cause. “Substantially” was chosen because the word has an acceptable
common meaning and because it has been approved in Florida as a test of
causation not only in relation to defendant’s negligence, Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So. 2d
185, 191 (Fla. 1953), but also in relation to plaintiff’s comparative negligence,
Shayne v. Saunders, 129 Fla. 355, 176 So. 495, 498 (Fla. 1937).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 106
402.7 LEGAL CAUSE (TREATMENT WITHOUT INFORMED CONSENT)
Negligence is a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] if it directly
and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes to producing
such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] so that it can reasonably be said that, but for
the negligence, the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] would not have occurred. The
negligent failure to obtain [informed] consent to a medical treatment or
procedure is a legal cause of injury resulting from the treatment or procedure
if, as a result of such negligence, the patient was induced to undergo a medical
treatment or procedure to which the patient would not reasonably have
consented had he been adequately informed.
NOTES ON USE FOR 402.7
1. Instruction 402.7 is to be used in conjunction with instruction 402.4b
defining negligence (treatment without informed consent).
2. See Notes On Use for instruction 402.6.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 107
402.8 PREEMPTIVE CHARGES
The court has determined and now instructs you that
a. Duty to use reasonable care:
the circumstances at the time and place of the incident complained of
were such that (name) had a duty to use reasonable care for (claimant’s) safety.
(skip to instruction 402.11 on negligence issues)
NOTE ON USE FOR 402.8a
This preemptive charge is not for use routinely, but only when the
reasonable care standard was contested before the jury, as by an instruction 402.9
issue now to be withdrawn as a matter of law. In that event instruction 402.8a
properly emphasizes reasonable care. Otherwise, it is argumentative.
b. Vicarious liability:
(Defendant) is responsible for any negligence of (name) in (describe
alleged negligence).
(skip to instruction 402.11 on negligence issues)
c. Negligence:
(Defendant) was negligent. The issue for your determination [on the
claim of (name)] is:
(skip to damage issues)
d. Directed verdict on liability:
(Defendant) was negligent and that negligence was a legal cause of [loss]
[injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant). (Claimant) is therefore entitled to recover
from (defendant) for the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] as is shown by the
greater weight of the evidence to have thus been caused by (defendant).
NOTE ON USE FOR 402.8d
This charge should be given only when the sole issue to be determined by
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 108
the jury is damages.
NOTES ON USE FOR 402.8
1. This charge covers only preemptive charges on issues arising on
claims. Preemptive charges on defense issues are covered in instruction 402.14 and
should be given at that stage of the charge.
2. It may be necessary or desirable in some cases for the court to
introduce this charge by calling attention to the evidence or arguments of counsel
in which the issue now to be withdrawn was raised or discussed.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 109
402.9 PRELIMINARY ISSUES VICARIOUS LIABILITY
On (claimant’s) claim there is a preliminary issue for you to decide. That
issue is:
a. Agency:
(1). Employment, including independent contractor and exceptions:
whether (name) was an employee of (defendant) and was acting within the
scope of [his] [her] employment at the time and place of the incident in this
case. An employee is a person who is hired by (defendant) to act on behalf of
(defendant), and whose actions are controlled by (defendant) or are subject to
(defendant’s) right of control. An employer is responsible for the negligence of
an employee if the negligence occurs while the employee is performing
services which [he] [she] was employed to perform or while the employee is
acting at least in part because of a desire to serve [his] [her] employer and is
doing something that is reasonably incidental to [his] [her] employment or
something the doing of which was reasonably foreseeable and reasonably to be
expected of persons similarly employed.
[But a person is not responsible for the negligence of an independent
contractor or of the agents or employees of an independent contractor. An
independent contractor is a [person] [business] engaged by another to
perform specific work according to [his] [her] [its] own methods and whose
methods of performing the work are not controlled by the person engaging
[him] [her] [it] and are not subject to that person’s right of control. Whether a
[person] [business] is an independent contractor is to be determined on the
basis of all of the circumstances of the parties’ dealings with each other and
not on the labels used by them.
A person is, however, responsible for the negligence of an independent
contractor if [the independent contractor is an [actual] [or] [apparent] agent
of that person], [the employer did not exercise due care in the [selection] [or]
[retention] of the independent contractor] [or] [the employer undertook to
perform the services resulting in the injury to (claimant).]*
*The bracketed language contained in the last two paragraphs is only to be
used when there is a claim of independent contractor status. See Carlisle v.
Carnival Corp., 864 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2003); Villazon v. Prudential Health
Care Plan, Inc., 843 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2003). If an exception to independent
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 110
contractor status is claimed, then the applicable portions of the following
provisions should also be given.
[(Name) is an agent if (defendant) authorized [him] [her] to act on
(defendant’s) behalf.] [(Name) is an apparent agent if, by words or conduct,
(defendant) caused or allowed (claimant) to believe that (name) was an agent of
and had authority to act for (defendant).] A person is responsible for the
negligence of [his] [her] independent contractor if, at the time and place of the
incident, the independent contractor was an [agent] [or] [apparent agent] of
the employer and was acting within the scope of his or her [apparent]
authority.*
*If the court determines that issues on both actual agency and apparent
agency should be submitted to the jury, both bracketed sections should be used
with appropriate transitional language.
[In [hiring] [or] [retaining] another to perform services, the employer
must exercise due care to assure that the person is competent to perform the
services. A person is responsible for the negligence of [his] [her] independent
contractor if, in [hiring] [or] [retaining] the independent contractor, the
employer failed to exercise due care.]
Insigna v. LaBella, 543 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 1989); F.S. 766.110.
[When a [person] [facility] undertakes to perform services, [he] [she] [it]
cannot transfer the obligation to perform those services to an independent
contractor and remains responsible for the negligence of [his] [her]
independent contractor.]
As to nondelegable duties for treatment, see Wax v. Tenet Health Systems
Hospital, Inc., 955 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Pope v. Winter Park Healthcare
Group, 939 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Shands Teaching Hospital Clinic,
Inc. v. Juliana, 863 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Irving v. Doctors Hospital of
Lake Worth, Inc., 415 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). There is, however, no civil
liability under F.S. 458.320(2)(b) to ensure that staff physicians are financially
responsible. Horowitz v. Plantation General Hospital Limited Partnership, 959 So.
2d 176 (Fla. 2007).
(2). Agency without claim of independent contractor:
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 111
whether (name) is an agent of (defendant) [(name) is an agent of (defendant) if
(defendant) authorized [him] [her] to act on (defendant’s) behalf.] [(name) is an
apparent agent if, by words or conduct, (defendant) caused or allowed
(claimant) to believe that (name) was an agent of and had authority to act for
(defendant).] A person is responsible for the negligence of an [agent] [or]
[apparent agent] if at the time and place of the incident complained of the
[agent] [or] [apparent agent] is acting within the scope of [his] [her]
[apparent] authority.
NOTE ON USE FOR 402.9a(2)
Roessler v. Novak, 858 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Orlando Regional
Medical Center v. Chmielewski, 573 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). If the court
determines that issues on both actual agency and apparent agency should be
submitted to the jury, both bracketed sections should be used with appropriate
transitional language.
b. Joint venture:
whether at the time and place of the incident complained of, (name) was
engaged in a joint venture with (defendant) and was acting on behalf of the
joint venture and within the scope of its business at the time and place of the
incident in this case. A joint venture exists when two or more persons combine
their resources or efforts and agree to undertake some particular business
transaction in which they have common interests in the purposes to be
accomplished, joint control or right of control of the venture, joint ownership
interest in the subject matter of the venture and a common right and duty to
share in profits and losses. Each member of a joint venture is responsible for
the negligence of another member if the other member’s negligence occurs
while [he] [she] is acting on behalf of the joint venture and to further the
purpose of the joint venture.
NOTE ON USE FOR 402.9b
Arango v. Reyka, 507 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 112
402.10 BURDEN OF PROOF ON PRELIMINARY ISSUES
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support (claimant’s) claim
on [this issue] [these issues], that (describe preliminary issue), then your verdict
on the claim of (claimant) *[because of the claimed negligence of (name)]
should be for (defendant).
If, however, the greater weight of the evidence supports (claimant’s)
claim on [this issue] [these issues], that (describe preliminary issue), then you
shall consider the other issues on (claimant’s) claim.
NOTES ON USE FOR 402.10
1. Give instruction 402.10 if instructing the jury on any preliminary
issues.
2. If there are multiple defendants, this instruction will have to be
modified to account for the issues related to each defendant.
3. *There is no need to give that portion of the charge contained within
brackets unless the claimant makes multiple claims involving other defendants. In
such a case it is necessary to distinguish this claim from claims against other
defendants.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 113
402.11 ISSUES ON MAIN CLAIM
The [next] issues you must decide on (claimant’s) claim against
(defendant) are:
a. Negligence of physician or hospital, generally:
whether (defendant physician or hospital) was negligent in (describe
conduct in question), and, if so, whether that negligence was a legal cause of the
[loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent or person for whose injury
claim is made).
b. Negligence of multiple defendants:
whether (defendant) or (defendant) was negligent or whether both were
negligent in (describe alleged negligence) and, if so, whether that negligence
was a legal cause of the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent or
person for whose injury claim is made).
c. Negligence of physician, osteopath, chiropractor, podiatrist or dentist in
treatment without informed consent:
whether Doctor (name) negligently failed to obtain the informed consent
of (claimant or person whose consent would be effective) to the medical
treatment or procedure complained of, and, if so whether that negligence was
a legal cause of the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent or person
for whose injury claim is made).
NOTE ON USE FOR 402.11c
The committee recognizes that, depending on circumstances, the tort of
injury by treatment without informed consent may be pleaded, proved, and
presented to the jury as an assault or battery, rather than in terms of negligence.
Brown v. Wood, 202 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Chambers v. Nottebaum, 96
So. 2d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957). When the issues on such a claim are to be
presented in terms of negligence, instruction 402.4b is to be used in conjunction
with instruction 402.11c, defining negligence in these circumstances, and
instruction 402.7, defining legal cause in terms appropriate to these cases. Together
these three instructions contain all of the elements of the tort as specified in F.S.
766.103. When it is appropriate to charge the jury instead in terms of assault or
battery, appropriate instructions may be derived from the same source.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 114
d. Negligence of health care facility to assure comprehensive risk management
and competence of medical staff:
whether (defendant facility) was negligent in failing to assure
[comprehensive risk management] [and] [the competence of its medical staff],
and, if so, whether that negligence was a legal cause of the [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage] to (claimant, decedent or person for whose injury claim is made).
NOTE ON USE FOR 402.11d
Derived from F.S. 766.110.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 115
402.12 ISSUES ON CLAIM OF ATTORNEY MALPRACTICE
ARISING OUT OF CIVIL LITIGATION
The [next] issue(s) for you to decide on (claimant’s) claim against
(defendant) [is] [are] whether (defendant) was negligent in (describe alleged
negligence) and, if so, if (defendant) had not been negligent, whether (claimant)
would [have been successful] [have obtained a more favorable outcome] in
[his] [her] [their] [its] [claim against (original adverse party)] [defense in
(original proceedings)].
a. Negligence of plaintiff’s counsel:
In (claimant’s) claim against (original defendant) (claimant) would have
had to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that (original defendant) was
negligent in (describe conduct involved in original claim) and that (original
defendant’s) negligence was a legal cause of the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to
(claimant).
Depending on the particular cause of action in the original proceeding, add
appropriate substantive law instructions from section 400 to frame the appropriate
issues from the original proceeding.
[To have been successful in [his] [her] [their] [its] claim against (original
defendant) (claimant) must show that any judgment would have been
collectible.]
b. Negligence of defendant’s counsel:
In (claimant’s) defense in the case of (identify original case) (claimant)
would have had to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that [(original
claimant) was negligent and that [his] [her] [their] [its] negligence was a
contributing legal cause of the injury or damage to (original claimant)]
(describe issues in other applicable defenses).
Depending on the particular cause of action in the original proceeding, add
appropriate substantive law instructions from section 400 to frame the appropriate
issues from the original proceeding.
NOTES ON USE FOR 402.12
1. When defendant’s professional negligence deprives a party of a
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 116
chance to resolve a contested claim or defense and the circumstances do not readily
permit determining the value of the lost claim or defense, the party may have to
prove the value of the claim or defense in the form of a “trial within a trial.”
Freeman v. Rubin, 318 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Fernandes v. Barrs, 641
So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). In such circumstances, instruction 402.12 should
be used to describe the issues instead of instruction 402.11. The committee
expresses no opinion on the type of evidence that may be used to prove such a
claim. Farish v. Bankers Multiple Line Insurance Co., 425 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1983); Tarleton v. Arnstein & Lehr, 719 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
When defendant’s professional negligence results in other kinds of direct loss, such
as the loss of an inheritance or insurance benefits, the normal issue instruction,
402.11, should be used.
2. Use the last bracketed paragraph in instruction 402.12a when there is
an issue as to the collectibility of any judgment that could have been obtained in
the original action. When, however, an attorney’s negligence makes it impossible
to prove the collectibility of a claim, the burden shifts to the attorney defendant to
prove that the judgment or any portion thereof was uncollectible. Fernandes v.
Barrs, 641 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
3. This instruction should be followed by instruction 402.13,
appropriately modified to describe the burden of proof in both the pending claim as
well as the original proceedings.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 117
402.13 BURDEN OF PROOF ON MAIN CLAIM
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support [one or more of]
(claimant’s) claim(s), then your verdict should be for (defendant)(s) [on [that]
[those] claim(s)].
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports [one or more
of] (claimant’s) claim(s), then your verdict should be for (claimant) and against
(defendant)(s) [on [that] [those] claim(s).]
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports (claimant’s)
claim against one [or] [both] [more] of the defendants, then you should
determine and write on the verdict form what percentage of the total
negligence of [both] [all] defendants you apportion to each of them.]
NOTE ON USE FOR 402.13
Use the first paragraph in all cases. If there is an affirmative defense to the
claim that is the subject of the charge, do not use either of the bracketed
paragraphs; instead, use instruction 402.14. If there is no affirmative defense, use
the first or the second bracketed paragraph depending on whether there is one
defendant or more than one, then proceed to Damages.
(Revised February 1, 2018)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 118
402.14 DEFENSE ISSUES
If, however, the greater weight of the evidence supports [(claimant’s)
claim] [one or more of (claimant’s) claims], then you shall consider the
defense(s) raised by (defendant).
On the [first]* defense, the issue(s) for you to decide [is] [are]:
*The order in which the defenses are listed below is not necessarily the
order in which the instruction should be given.
a. Statute of limitations:
whether (claimant)* knew, or by the use of reasonable care should have
known, before (date) that [he] [she] [(person for whose injury the claim is made)]
had been injured or damaged and that there was a reasonable possibility that
the injury or damage was caused by [medical] [legal] [(other profession)]
negligence.
*In some cases, it may be necessary to insert the name of a person other
than the claimant. The committee expresses no opinion as to whose
knowledge may trigger the statute of limitations. See, e.g., Stone v.
Rosenthal, 665 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Arthur v. Unicare Health
Facilities, Inc., 602 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
If the greater weight of the evidence supports (defendant’s) defense on
this issue, the plaintiff’s claim is time barred and your verdict is for the
defendant. If, however, the greater weight of the evidence does not support
(defendant’s) defense on this issue [you shall consider the following additional
defenses] [your verdict should be for (claimant) in the full amount of [his] [her]
damages].
NOTES ON USE FOR 402.14a
1. When the statute of limitations is asserted as a defense, it should
ordinarily be the first defense.
2. In medical negligence actions the date inserted in the instruction will
ordinarily be two years before the date on which either the notice of intent was
served or the petition to extend the statute of limitations was filed. F.S.
95.11(4)(b), 766.106, and 766.104(2). In legal negligence actions predicated on
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 119
acts committed in the course of litigation, the statute of limitations does not begin
to run until the underlying litigation is concluded by final judgment and the final
disposition of any appeal. See Silvestrone v. Edell, 721 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1998).
This may be extended if there is an issue regarding whether the client knew or
should have known that the litigation was concluded. F.S. 95.11(4)(a).
b. Comparative negligence generally:
whether (claimant or person for whose injury or death claim is made) was
[himself] [herself] negligent in (describe conduct in question) and, if so, whether
that negligence was a contributing legal cause of the injury or damage to
(claimant).
NOTE ON USE FOR 402.14b
1. Conduct on a patient’s part prior to seeking treatment, which furnishes
the need for medical treatment, is not a defense to malpractice in the treatment.
Whitehead v. Linkous, 404 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); see Swamy v. Hodges,
583 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
2. Special verdicts and special interrogatories. Special verdicts are
required in all jury trials involving comparative negligence. Lawrence v. Florida
East Coast Railway Co., 346 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 1977).
c. Comparative negligence of parent predicated on other parent’s negligence
(claim for death of child):
whether (parent) was negligent in caring for and supervising (child), and
if so, whether that negligence was a contributing legal cause of the death of
(child); and, if so, whether (other parent), in the exercise of reasonable care,
should have anticipated such negligence on the part of (parent).
d. Comparative negligence of custodian of child other than parent:
whether, before the incident in this case, (claimant) placed (child) in the
care and custody of (custodian), and if so, whether (custodian) was negligent in
caring for and supervising the child, (name); and, if so, whether that
negligence was a contributing legal cause of the [injury] [and] [death] of
(child).
NOTE ON USE FOR 402.14d
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 120
Wynne v. Adside, 163 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); see also Winner v.
Sharp, 43 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1949).
e. Apportionment of fault:
whether (identify additional person(s) or entit(y)(ies)) [was] [were] also
[negligent] in [(specify other type of conduct)]; and, if so, whether that
[negligence] [fault] [responsibility] was a contributing legal cause of the [loss]
[injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent or person for whose injury claim is
made).
NOTE ON USE FOR 402.14e
See F.S. 768.81 (1993); Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993).
Conduct of third parties, however, who cause the need for medical treatment is not
to be compared to any malpractice in the treatment. DAmario v. Ford Motor Co.,
806 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2001); Jackson v. York Hannover Nursing Centers, 876 So.
2d 8 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
f. Defense to claim of lack of informed consent:
whether (claimant) would reasonably, under all the circumstances, have
undergone such treatment or procedure had [he] [she] been advised by
(defendant) of the substantial risks and hazards inherent in the proposed
treatment or procedure which are recognized by other [physicians] [health
care providers] in the same or similar community who perform similar
treatments or procedures.
NOTE ON USE FOR 402.14f
Derived from F.S. 766.103(3)(b).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 121
402.15 BURDEN OF PROOF ON DEFENSE ISSUES
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support (defendant’s)
defense[s] of (describe defense) and the greater weight of the evidence supports
(claimant’s) claim, then [your verdict should be for (claimant) in the total
amount of [his] [her] damages] [you should determine and write on the
verdict form what percentage of the total negligence of [both] [all] defendants
you apportion to each defendant whose negligence you find was a legal cause
of loss, injury, or damage to (claimant)].*
*Use second bracketed alternative above when there is more than one
defendant.
If, however, the greater weight of the evidence shows that both
(claimant) and [(defendant)] [one or more of (defendants)] [was] [were]
negligent and that the negligence of each contributed as a legal cause of [loss]
[injury] [or] [damage] sustained by (claimant), you should decide and write on
the verdict form what percentage of the total negligence of [both] [all] parties
to this action you apportion to each of them.
Use the following instruction in cases with a comparative negligence
defense and an apportionment of a nonparty defense:
[If, however, the greater weight of the evidence shows that (claimant)
and [(defendant)] [one or more of (defendants)] and (identify additional person(s)
or entit(y)(ies)) were negligent and that the negligence of each contributed as a
legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] sustained by (claimant), you should
decide and write on the verdict form what percentage of the total negligence
of [both] [all] parties to this action and (identify additional person(s) or
entit(y)(ies)) you apportion to each of them.]
Use the following paragraph in cases without a comparative negligence
defense but with an apportionment of nonparty defense:
[If, however, the greater weight of the evidence shows that [(defendant)]
[one or more of (defendants)] and (identify additional person(s) or entit(y)(ies))
were negligent and that the negligence of each contributed as a legal cause of
[loss] [injury] [or] [damage] sustained by (claimant), you should decide and
write on the verdict form what percentage of the total negligence of
[(defendant)] and (identify additional person(s) or entit(y)(ies)) you apportion to
each of them.]
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 122
NOTES ON USE FOR 402.15
1. Preemptive charges on defense issues. If a preemptive charge for
claimant is appropriate on a defense issue, as when comparative negligence has
been brought to the jury’s attention on voir dire or by opening statements or
argument and is now to be withdrawn, an instruction in the form of 402.8 should be
given immediately following instruction 402.13. If a preemptive charge for
defendant is required on some aspect of a defense, as when the court holds that
comparative negligence will reduce claimant’s recovery, a preemptive charge
announcing the ruling should be given immediately after framing the applicable
defense issue.
2. Charges on issues raised by replies to affirmative defenses. Plaintiff
bears the burden of proof on issues raised by any replies to affirmative defenses,
and instruction 402.15 should be modified as appropriate for those issues.
(Revised February 1, 2018)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 123
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
403.12 Legal Cause
403.13 Preliminary Issue
403.14 Burden of Proof on Preliminary Issue
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
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 124
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.
NOTES ON USE FOR 403.1
1. When instructing the jury before taking evidence, use instruction
202.1 in lieu of instruction 403.1. Instruction 403.1 is for instructing the jury after
the evidence has been concluded. Use the bracketed language in instruction 403.1
when the final instructions are different from the instructions given at the
beginning of the case. If the instructions at the end of the case are different from
those given at the beginning of the case, the committee recommends that the court
point out the differences, with appropriate language in the final instructions,
including an explanation for the difference, such as when the court has directed a
verdict on an issue.
2. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b) authorizes instructing the jury during trial or
before or after final argument. The timing of instructions is within the sound
discretion of the trial judge, to be determined on a case-by-case basis, but the
committee strongly recommends instructing the jury before final argument.
3. Each juror must be provided with a full set of jury instructions for use
during their deliberations. Rule 1.470(b). The trial judge may find it useful to
provide these instructions to the jurors when the judge reads the instructions in
open court so that jurors can read along with the judge as the judge reads the
instructions aloud.
(Adopted March 26, 2015)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 125
403.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
The claims [defenses] in this case are as follows. (Claimant) claims that
the (describe product) [designed] [manufactured] [distributed] [imported]
[sold] [or] [supplied] by (defendant) was defective and that the defect in the
(describe product) caused [him] [her] harm.
[(Claimant) [also] claims that [he] [she] sustained greater injuries than
what [he] [she] would have sustained in the (describe accident) if the (describe
product) had not been defective.]
[(Claimant) [also] claims that (defendant) was negligent in (describe
alleged negligence), which caused [him] [her] to be injured by (the product).]
(Defendant) denies [that] [those] claim(s) [and also claims that (claimant)
was [himself] [herself] negligent in (describe the alleged comparative
negligence), which caused [his] [her] harm]. [Additionally (describe any other
affirmative defenses).]
[The parties] [(claimant)] must prove [his] [her] [their] claims by the
greater weight of the evidence. I will now define some of the terms you will use
in deciding this case.
NOTE ON USE FOR 403.2
Use the second paragraph for crashworthiness claims. See instruction
403.16. Use the first bracketed phrase in the fourth paragraph when there is a claim
of comparative negligence. Use the second bracketed sentence where there are
additional affirmative defenses.
(Adopted March 26, 2015)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 126
403.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
“Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and
convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
NOTES ON USE FOR 403.3
1. Greater or lesser number of witnesses. The committee recommends
that no instruction be given regarding the relationship (or lack of relationship)
between the greater weight of the evidence and the greater or lesser number of
witnesses.
2. Circumstantial evidence. The committee recommends that no
instruction generally be given distinguishing circumstantial from direct evidence.
See Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960).
(Adopted March 26, 2015)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 127
403.4 EXPRESS WARRANTY
A product is defective 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.
[The representation must be one of fact, rather than opinion.]
(Adopted March 26, 2015)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 128
403.5 IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY
A product is defective if it is not reasonably fit for either the uses
intended or the uses reasonably foreseeable by (defendant).
(Adopted March 26, 2015)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 129
403.6 IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS
FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE
A product is defective if it is not reasonably fit for the specific purpose
for which (defendant) knowingly sold the product and for which, in reliance on
the judgment of (defendant), the purchaser bought the product.
(Adopted March 26, 2015)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 130
403.7 STRICT LIABILITY
a. Manufacturing defect
A product is defective because of a manufacturing defect if 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 or consumer
without substantial change affecting that condition.
A product is unreasonably dangerous because of a manufacturing
defect if it is different from its intended design and fails to perform as safely
as the intended design would have performed.
b. Design defect
A product is defective because of a design defect if 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
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 when used in a manner reasonably foreseeable by the
manufacturer] [and] [or] [the risk of danger in the design outweighs the
benefits].
NOTES ON USE FOR 403.7
1. The risk/benefit test does not apply in cases involving claims of
manufacturing defect. See Cassisi v. Maytag Co., 396 So. 2d 1140, 1146 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1981). Instruction 403.7a retains the definition of manufacturing defect
found in former instruction PL 4. The minor changes from the definition found in
PL 4 are intended to make this instruction more understandable to jurors without
changing its meaning.
2. Foreseeability of injured bystander. Strict liability applies to all
foreseeable bystanders. When the injured person is a bystander, use the language a
person in the vicinity of the product” instead of the user.” Strict liability does
not depend on whether the defendant foresaw the particular bystanders presence.
See West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. Inc., 336 So. 2d 80, 89 (Fla. 1976) (Injury
to a bystander is often feasible. A restriction of the doctrine to the users and
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 131
consumers would have to rest on the vestige of the disappearing privity
requirement.”). See also Sanchez v. Hussey Seating Co., 698 So. 2d 1326 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1997). When there is an issue regarding whether the presence of bystanders
was foreseeable,
additional instructions may be needed.
3. This instruction retains the consumer expectations test and the
risk/benefit test for product defect, both of which previously appeared in PL 5.
Florida recognizes the consumer expectations test. See McConnell v. Union
Carbide Corp., 937 So. 2d 148, 151 n.4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Force v. Ford Motor
Co., 879 So. 2d 103, 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Adams v. G. D. Searle & Co., 576
So. 2d 728, 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Cassisi v. Maytag Co., 396 So. 2d 1140,
114546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Other decisions have relied upon the RESTATEMENT
(THIRD) OF TORTS: Products Liability to define a product defect. See Union
Carbide Corp. v. Aubin, 97 So. 3d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Agrofollajes, S.A. v.
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 48 So. 3d 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). One decision
held that in a design defect case, the jury should be instructed only on the
risk/benefit test and not the consumer expectations test. See Agrofollajes, 48 So.
3d at 997. Pending 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.
The risk/benefit instruction is provided in both this instruction and the defense
instruction, 403.18, to illustrate how it is used in either case. See Instruction
403.18(b) and the corresponding Note on Use. If a court determines that the
risk/benefit test is a test for product defect, the committee takes no position on
whether both the consumer expectations and risk/benefit tests should be given
alternatively or together. The committee notes, however, that the two-issue rule
may be implicated if both tests of design defect are used. Zimmer Inc. v. Birnbaum,
758 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
4. In Force v. Ford Motor Co., 879 So. 2d 103, 107 (Fla. 5th DCA
2004), the parties agreed to a risk/benefit instruction based on section 2(b) of the
RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS, Products Liability. The decision in Force did
not directly address the correctness of these instructions. As discussed above in
note 3, pending further development in the law, the committee takes no position on
this issue.
5. When strict liability and negligence claims are tried together, to clarify
differences between them it may be necessary to add language to the strict liability
instructions to the effect that a product is defective if unreasonably dangerous even
though the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of the
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 132
product. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) TORTS, § 402A(2)(a). In cases involving claims
of both negligence and defective design, submission of both claims may result in an
inconsistent verdict. See, e.g., Consolidated Aluminum Corp. v. Braun, 447 So. 2d
391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Ashby Division of Consolidated Aluminum Corp. v.
Dobkin, 458 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). See also Moorman v. American
Safety Equip., 594 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); North American Catamaran
Racing
Assn v. McCollister, 480 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
6. In some cases, it may be appropriate to instruct the jury that, in
addition to the designer and manufacturer, any distributor, importer, or seller in the
chain of distribution is liable for injury caused by a defective product. Samuel
Friedland Family Enterprises v. Amoroso, 630 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 1994); Rivera v.
Baby Trend, Inc., 914 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Porter v. Rosenberg, 650
So. 2d 79
(Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
(Adopted March 26, 2015)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 133
403.8 STRICT LIABILITY FAILURE TO WARN
A product is defective when the foreseeable risks of harm from the
product could have been reduced or avoided by providing reasonable
instructions or warnings, and the failure to provide those instructions or
warnings makes the product unreasonably dangerous.
NOTES ON USE FOR 403.8
1. The following cases recognize strict liability for a failure to warn of
defects. Union Carbide Corp. v. Aubin, 97 So. 3d 886, 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012);
McConnell v. Union Carbide Corp., 937 So. 2d 148, 15152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006);
Union Carbide Corp. v. Kavanaugh, 879 So. 2d 42, 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004);
Scheman-Gonzalez v. Saber Manufacturing Co., 816 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA
2002); Ferayorni v. Hyundai Motor Co., 711 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
2. When strict liability and negligent failure to warn claims are tried
together, to clarify differences between them it may be necessary to add language
to the strict liability instruction to the effect that a product is defective if
unreasonably dangerous even though the seller has exercised all possible care in
the preparation and sale of the product. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) TORTS, §
402A(2)(a).
(Adopted March 26, 2015)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 134
403.9 NEGLIGENCE
Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care, which is the care that a
reasonably careful [designer] [manufacturer] [seller] [importer] [distributor]
[supplier] would use under like circumstances. Negligence is doing something
that a reasonably careful [designer] [manufacturer] [seller] [importer]
[distributor] [supplier] would not do under like circumstances or failing to do
something that a reasonably careful [designer] [manufacturer] [seller]
[importer] [distributor] [supplier] would do under like circumstances.
NOTES ON USE FOR 403.9
1. If a product fails under circumstances precluding any other reasonable
inference other than a defect in the product, a plaintiff is not required to pinpoint
any specific defect in the product. See, e.g., Armor Elevator Co. v. Wood, 312 So.
2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Ford Motor Co. v. Cochran, 205 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1967).
2. In order to clarify the differences between strict liability and
negligence when the two claims are tried together, it may be necessary to add
language to the strict liability instructions to the effect that a product is defective if
unreasonably dangerous even though the seller has exercised all possible care in
the preparation and sale of the product. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) TORTS, §
402A(2)(a).
(Adopted March 26, 2015)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 135
403.10 NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN
[Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care, which is the care that a
reasonably careful [designer] [manufacturer] [seller] [importer] [distributor]
[supplier] would use under like circumstances.] Reasonable care on the part
of (defendant) requires that (defendant) give appropriate warning(s) about
particular risks of (the product) which (defendant) knew or should have known
are involved in the reasonably foreseeable use(s) of the product.
NOTES ON USE FOR 403.10
1. The cases recognize a claim for negligent failure to warn. Ferayorni v.
Hyundai, 711 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). When strict liability and negligent
failure to warn claims are tried together, to clarify differences between them it may
be necessary to add language to the strict liability instruction to the effect that a
product is defective if unreasonably dangerous even though the seller has exercised
all possible care in the preparation and sale of the product. RESTATEMENT
(SECOND) TORTS, § 402A(2)(a).
2. Under certain circumstances, a manufacturer has a duty to warn about
particular risks of a product even after the product has left the manufacturer’s
possession, and has been sold or transferred to a consumer or end-user. See High v.
Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 610 So. 2d 1259, 1263 (Fla. 1992) (finding the
defendant had a duty to timely notify the entity to whom it sold the electrical
transformers . . . once it was advised of the PCB contamination”); Sta-Rite
Indus., Inc. v. Levey, 909 So. 2d 901, 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (jury question
existed on failure to warn claim in the light of similar severe accidents which
occurred both before and after the sale of the pump in question”). A special
instruction may be
needed in cases raising issues of a post-manufacture or post-sale
duty to warn.
3. The bracketed list of potential defendants in this instruction is
intended to be illustrative and may be modified to fit the facts of each case.
(Adopted March 26, 2015)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 136
403.11 INFERENCE OF PRODUCT DEFECT OR NEGLIGENCE
NOTES ON USE FOR 403.11
1. F.S. 768.1256 provides for a rebuttable presumption in the event of
compliance or noncompliance with government rules. The statute does not state
whether the presumption is a burden-shifting or a vanishing presumption. See F.S.
90.30190.304; University Insurance Co. of North America v. Warfel, 82 So. 3d 47
(Fla. 2012); Birge v. Charron, 107 So. 3d 350 (Fla. 2012). Pending further
development in the law, the committee offers no standard instruction on this
presumption, leaving it up to the parties to propose instructions on a case-by-case
basis.
2. Cassisi v. Maytag Co., 396 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), held that
when a product malfunctions during normal operation, a legal inference of product
defectiveness arises, and the injured plaintiff has thereby established a prima facie
case for jury consideration. Pending further development of Florida law, the
Committee takes no position on the sufficiency of these instructions in cases in
which the Cassisi inference applies. See Gencorp, Inc. v. Wolfe, 481 So. 2d 109
(Fla. 1st DCA 1985); see also Parke v. Scottys, Inc., 584 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1st
DCA
1991); Miller v. Allstate Insurance Co., 650 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
(Adopted March 26, 2015)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 137
403.12 LEGAL CAUSE
a. Legal cause generally:
[A defect in a product] [Negligence] is a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage] if it directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or
contributes substantially to producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage], so
that it can reasonably be said that, but for the [defect] [negligence], the [loss]
[injury] [or] [damage] would not have occurred.
b. Concurring cause:
In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage],
[a defect in a product] [negligence] need not be the only cause. [A defect in a
product] [Negligence] may be a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]
even though it operates in combination with [the act of another] [some natural
cause] [or] [some other cause] if the [defect] [negligence] contributes
substantially to producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage].
c. Intervening cause:
*Do not use the bracketed first sentence if this charge is preceded by the
charge on concurring cause:
*[In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage], [a defect in a product] [negligence] need not be its only cause.] [A
defect in a product] [Negligence] may also be a legal cause of [loss] [injury]
[or] [damage] even though it operates in combination with [the act of another]
[some natural cause] [or] [some other cause] occurring after the [product
defect] [negligence] occurs if such other cause was itself reasonably
foreseeable and the [product defect] [negligence] contributes substantially to
producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] [or] [the resulting [loss] [injury]
[or] [damage] was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the [product
defect] [negligence] and the [product defect] [negligence] contributes
substantially to producing it].
NOTES ON USE FOR 403.12
1. Instruction 403.12a (legal cause generally) is to be given in all cases.
Instruction 403.12b (concurring cause), to be given when the court considers it
necessary, does not set forth any additional standard for the jury to consider in
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 138
determining whether negligence was a legal cause of damage but only negates the
idea that a defendant is excused from the consequences of his or her negligence by
reason of some other cause concurring in time and contributing to the same
damage. Instruction 403.12c (intervening cause) is to be given only in cases in
which the court concludes that there is a jury issue as to the presence and effect of
an intervening cause.
2. The jury will properly consider instruction 403.12a not only in
determining whether defendants negligence is actionable but also in determining
whether claimants negligence contributed as a legal cause to claimants damage,
thus reducing recovery.
3. Instruction 403.12b must be given whenever there is a contention that
some other cause may have contributed, in whole or part, to the occurrence or
resulting injury. If there is an issue of aggravation of a preexisting condition or of
subsequent injuries or multiple events, instruction 501.2h(1) or (2) should be given
as well. See Hart v. Stern, 824 So. 2d 927, 93234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Marinelli
v. Grace, 608 So. 2d 833, 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
4. Instruction 403.12c (intervening cause) embraces two situations in
which negligence may be a legal cause notwithstanding the influence of an
intervening cause: (1) where the damage was a reasonably foreseeable consequence
of the negligence although the other cause was not foreseeable, Mozer v. Semenza,
177 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); and (2) when the intervention of the other
cause was itself foreseeable, Gibson v. Avis Rent-A-Car System Inc., 386 So. 2d
520 (Fla. 1980).
5. Probable” results. The committee recommends that the jury not be
charged that the damage must be such as would have appeared probable” to the
actor or to a reasonably careful person at the time of the negligence. In cases
involving an intervening cause, the term reasonably foreseeable” is used in place
of probable.” The terms are synonymous and interchangeable. See Sharon v.
Luten, 165 So. 2d 806, 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Prosser, TORTS (3d ed.) 291; 2
Harper and James, THE LAW OF TORTS 1137.
6. The term substantially” is used throughout the instruction to describe
the extent of contribution or influence negligence must have in order to be regarded
as a legal cause. Substantiallywas chosen because the word has an acceptable
common meaning and because it has been approved in Florida as a test of causation
not only in relation to defendants negligence, Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So. 2d 185, 191
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 139
(Fla. 1953), but also in relation to plaintiffs contributory negligence, Shayne v.
Saunders, 129 Fla. 355, 176 So. 495, 498 (Fla. 1937).
(Adopted March 26, 2015)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 140
403.13 PRELIMINARY ISSUE
NOTES ON USE FOR 403.13
1. At this time, the Committee does not propose a standard instruction on
preliminary issues in products liability cases. See note on use 6 to instruction
403.7 for cases where there is an issue of whether a defendant was in a position to
correct the defect in the product. Samuel Friedland Family Enters. v. Amoroso, 630
So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 1994); Rivera v. Baby Trend, Inc., 914 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2005); Porter v. Rosenberg, 650 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
2. Privity. In general, plaintiffs are not required to prove privity to
establish strict liability. Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 520 So. 2d 37, 39 (Fla.
1988). These instructions on products liability issues assume that if there is any
question of privity, it has been resolved in favor of the claimant. If it is necessary to
submit a factual issue on privity to the jury, the committee recommends that it be
submitted in the style of a preliminary charge on status or duty. For the effect of the
strict liability doctrine on claims of warranty previously requiring privity, see F.S.
672.318 and Kramer, 520 So. 2d at 39 & n.4.
(Adopted March 26, 2015)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 141
403.14 BURDEN OF PROOF ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support (claimant’s) claim
on this issue, then your verdict [on this issue] [on the claim of (claimant)]
should be for (defendant) [and you should decide the other issues on
(claimant’s) claim].
However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports (claimant’s)
claim [on this issue], then you shall decide whether (the product) was defective
[and also decide the other issues on (claimant’s) claim].
NOTE ON USE FOR 403.14
The bracketed language is for use if claimant makes alternative claim(s) of
liability.
(Adopted March 26, 2015)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 142
403.15 ISSUES ON MAIN CLAIM
The [next] issues you must decide on (claimant’s) claim against
(defendant) are:
a. Express Warranty:
whether (the product) failed to 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, and, if so,
whether that failure was a legal cause of the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to
(claimant, decedent, or person for whose injury claim is made).
b. Implied Warrant of Merchantability:
whether (the product) was not reasonably fit for either the uses intended
or the uses reasonably foreseeable by (defendant) and, if so, whether that lack
of fitness was a legal cause of the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant,
decedent, or person for whose injury claim is made).
c. Implied Warranty of Fitness for Particular Purpose:
whether (the product) was not reasonably fit for the specific purpose for
which (defendant) knowingly sold (the product) and for which (claimant) bought
(the product) in reliance on the judgment of (defendant) and, if so, whether that
lack of fitness was a legal cause of the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to
(claimant, decedent, or person for whose injury claim is made).
d. Strict Liability Manufacturing Defect:
whether (the product) [was made differently than its intended design and
thereby failed to perform as safely as intended and (the product) reached
(claimant) without substantial change affecting the condition and, if so,
whether that failure was a legal cause of the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to
(claimant, decedent, or person for whose injury claim is made).
e. Strict Liability Design Defect:
whether [(the product) failed to perform as safely as an ordinary
consumer would expect when used as intended or in a manner reasonably
foreseeable by the manufacturer] [and] [or] [the risk of danger in the design
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 143
of the product outweighs the benefits of the product] and (the product) reached
(claimant) without substantial change affecting the condition and, if so,
whether that failure was a legal cause of the [loss] [injury] or [damage] to
(claimant, decedent, or person for whose injury claim is made).
f. Strict Liability Failure to Warn:
whether the foreseeable risks of harm from (the product) could have
been reduced or avoided by providing reasonable instructions or warnings
and the failure to provide those warnings made (the product) unreasonably
dangerous and, if so, whether that failure was a legal cause of the [loss]
[injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent, or person for whose injury claim is
made).
g. Negligence:
whether (defendant) was negligent in (describe alleged negligence), and, if
so, whether that was a legal cause of the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to
(claimant, decedent, or person for whose injury claim is made).
h. Negligent Failure to Warn:
whether (defendant) negligently failed to warn about particular risks
involved in the use of (the product), and, if so, whether that failure to warn was
a legal cause of the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent, or
person for whose injury claim is made).
NOTE ON USE FOR 403.15
Instruction 403.15(e) retains the consumer expectations test and the
risk/benefit test for product defect, both of which previously appeared in PL 5. See
Instruction 403.7(b) and Note on Use 3. Pending further development in the law,
the committee takes no position on whether the consumer expectations and
risk/benefit tests should be given alternatively or together.
(Adopted March 26, 2015)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 144
403.16 ISSUES ON CRASHWORTHINESS AND
“ENHANCED INJURY CLAIMS
NOTE ON USE FOR 403.16
In 2011, the legislature amended F.S. 768.81 to state that in a products
liability case in which the plaintiff claims that a defect in the product increased the
injury, the defendant should be treated the same as all other defendants for the
purposes of apportionment of fault. The legislative history states that the
legislature intended this amendment to overrule the decision in DAmario v. Ford
Motor Co., 806 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2001). See Ch. 2011215, §2, Laws of Fla. As
explained in the note on use to instruction 403.2, the summary of claims in a
crashworthiness case should explain that the plaintiff claims to have sustained
greater injuries than would have been sustained if the product were not defective.
Otherwise, the standard instructions applicable in other cases should be given in
crashworthiness cases.
(Adopted March 26, 2015)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 145
403.17 BURDEN OF PROOF ON MAIN CLAIM
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support [one or more of]
(claimant’s) claim[s], your verdict should be for (defendant(s)) [on [that] [those]
claim(s)].
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports [one or more
of] (claimant’s) claim[s], then your verdict should be for (claimant) and against
(defendant) [on [that] [those] claim(s)].]
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports (claimant’s)
claim against one or [both] [more] of the defendants, then you should decide
and write on the verdict form the percentage of the total fault of [both] [all]
defendants that was caused by each of them.]
NOTE ON USE FOR 403.17
Use the first paragraph in all cases. If there is an affirmative defense to the
claim, do not use either of the bracketed paragraphs; instead turn to instruction
403.18. If there is no affirmative defense, use the first or second bracketed
paragraph depending on whether there is one defendant or more than one.
(Revised November 22, 2017)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 146
403.18 DEFENSE ISSUES
If, however, the greater weight of the evidence supports [(claimant’s)
claim] [one or more of (claimant’s) claims], then you shall consider the
defense[s] raised by (defendant).
On the [first]* defense, the issue[s] for you to decide [is] [are]:
*The order in which the defenses are listed below is not necessarily the
order in which the instruction should be given.
a. Comparative Negligence:
whether (claimant or person for whose injury or death claim is made) was
[himself] [herself] negligent *in (describe alleged negligence) and, if so, whether
that negligence was a contributing legal cause of the injury or damage to
(claimant).
*If the jury has not been previously instructed on the definition of
negligence, instruction 401.4 should be inserted here.
b. Risk/Benefit Defense:
whether, on balance, the [benefits] [or] [value] of (the product) outweigh
the risks or danger connected with its use.
NOTE ON USE FOR 403.18b
In a strict liability defective design case, a defendant may be entitled to an
affirmative defense based on the risk/benefit test. See Force v. Ford Motor Co.,
879 So. 2d 103, 106 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Adams v. G. D. Searle & Co., 576 So. 2d
728, 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Cassisi v. Maytag Co., 396 So. 2d 1140, 114546
(Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Pending 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. The court should not, however, instruct on risk/benefit as both a test of
defectiveness under 403.7 and as an affirmative defense under 403.18.
c. Government Rules Defense:
No instruction provided.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 147
NOTE ON USE FOR 403.18c
F.S. 768.1256 provides for a rebuttable presumption in the event of
compliance or noncompliance with government rules. The statute does not state
whether the presumption is a burden-shifting or a vanishing presumption. See F.S.
90.30190.304; Universal Insurance Co. of North America v. Warfel, 82 So. 3d 47
(Fla. 2012); Birge v. Charron, 107 So. 3d 350 (Fla. 2012). Pending further
development in the law, the committee offers no standard instruction on this
presumption, leaving it up to the parties to propose instructions on a case-by-case
basis.
d. State-of-the-art Defense:
In deciding whether (the product) was defective because of a design
defect, you shall consider the state-of-the-art of scientific and technical
knowledge and other circumstances that existed at the time of (the product’s)
manufacture, not at the time of the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage].
NOTE ON USE FOR 403.18d
Instruction 403.18d applies only in defective design cases. F.S. 768.1257.
e. Apportionment of fault:
whether (identify additional person(s) or entit(y)(ies)) [was] [were] also
[negligent] [at fault] [responsible] [(specify other type of conduct)]; and, if so,
whether that [negligence] [fault] [responsibility] [(specify other type of
conduct)] was a contributing legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to
(claimant, decedent or person for whose injury claim is made).
NOTE ON USE FOR 403.18e
See F.S. 768.81; Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993). In most cases,
use of the term negligence” will be appropriate. If another type of fault is at
issue, it may be necessary to modify the instruction and the verdict form
accordingly. In strict liability cases, the term responsibility may be the most
appropriate
descriptive term.
NOTES ON USE FOR 403.18
1. Comparative negligence is a defense to strict liability claims if based
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 148
on grounds other than the failure of the user to discover the defect or to guard
against the possibility of its existence. West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So. 2d
80, 90 (Fla. 1976).
2. The patent danger doctrine” is not an independent defense but, to the
extent applicable (see note 1), it is subsumed in the defense of contributory
negligence. Auburn Machine Works Inc. v. Jones, 366 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1979).
(Adopted March 26, 2015)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 149
403.19 BURDEN OF PROOF ON DEFENSE ISSUES
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support (defendant’s)
defense[s] and the greater weight of the evidence supports (claimant’s) [claim]
[one or more of (claimant’s) claims], then [your verdict should be for (claimant)
in the total amount of [his] [her] damages.] *[you should decide and write on
the verdict form what percentage of the total [negligence] [fault]
[responsibility] of [both] [all] defendants was caused by each defendant.]
*Use the second bracketed language when there is more than one defendant.
If, however, the greater weight of the evidence shows that both
(claimant) and [(defendant)] [one or more of the defendants] [and] [(identify
additional person(s) or entit(y)(ies))] were [negligent] [at fault] [responsible] and
that the [negligence] [fault] [responsibility] of each contributed as a legal
cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] sustained by (claimant), you should
decide and write on the verdict form what percentage of the total [negligence]
[fault] [responsibility] of [both] [all] parties to this action was caused by each
of them.
Use the following instruction in cases with a comparative negligence
defense and an apportionment of a non-party defense:
[If, however, the greater weight of the evidence shows that (claimant)
and [(defendant)] [one or more of (defendants)] [and] [(identify additional
person(s) or entit(y)(ies))] were [negligent] [at fault] [responsible] and that the
[negligence] [fault] [responsibility] of each contributed as a legal cause of
[loss] [injury] [or] [damage] sustained by (claimant), you should decide and
write on the verdict form what percentage of the total [negligence] [fault]
[responsibility] of [both] [all] parties to this action [and] [(identify additional
person(s) or entit(y)(ies))] was caused by each of them.]
Use the following paragraph in cases without a comparative negligence
defense but with an apportionment of non-party defense:
[If, however, the greater weight of the evidence shows that [(defendant)]
[one or more of (defendants)] and [(identify additional person(s) or entit(y)(ies))]
were [negligent] [at fault] [responsible] and that the [negligence] [fault]
[responsibility] of each contributed as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage] sustained by (claimant), you should decide and write on the verdict
form what percentage of the total [negligence] [fault] [responsibility] of
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 150
[(defendant(s))] [and] [(identify additional person(s) or entit(y)(ies))] was caused
by each of them.]
NOTES ON USE FOR 403.19
1. Preemptive instructions on defense issues. If a preemptive instruction
for claimant is appropriate on a defense issue, as when comparative negligence or
assumption of risk has been brought to the jurys attention on voir dire or by
opening statements or argument and is now to be withdrawn, an instruction in the
form of instruction 401.13 should be given immediately following instruction
403.15. If a preemptive instruction for defendant is required on some aspect of a
defense, as when, for example, the court holds that any comparative negligence of
the driver will reduce claimants recovery, a preemptive instruction announcing the
ruling should be given immediately after framing the defense issues (instruction
403.18).
2. In most cases, use of the term negligencewill be appropriate. If
another type of fault is at issue, it may be necessary to modify the instruction and
the verdict form accordingly. In strict liability cases, the term responsibility
may be the most appropriate descriptive term.
(Adopted March 26, 2015)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 151
404 INSURER’S BAD FAITH
404.1 Introduction
404.2 Summary of Claims or Contentions
404.3 Greater Weight of the Evidence
404.4 Insurer’s Bad Faith (Failure to Settle)
404.5 Medical Malpractice Insurer’s Bad Faith Failure to Settle
404.6 Legal Cause
404.7 Issues on Claim
404.8 Burden of Proof
404.9 Concluding Instruction when Court to Award Damages
404.10 Damages (Cases with Claims for Mental Distress)
404.11 Burden of Proof on Mental Distress Claim
404.12 Damages on Mental Distress Claim
404.13 Punitive Damages
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 152
404.1 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.
NOTES ON USE FOR 404.1
1. When instructing the jury before taking evidence, use instruction
202.1 in lieu of 404.1. See Model Instruction No. 1. Instruction 404.1 is for
instructing the jury after the evidence has been concluded. Use the bracketed
language in instruction 404.1 when the final instructions are different from the
instructions given at the beginning of the case. If the instructions at the end of the
case are different from those given at the beginning of the case, the committee
recommends that the court point out the differences with appropriate language in
the final instructions, including an explanation for the difference, such as where the
court has directed a verdict on an issue.
2. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b) authorizes instructing the jury during trial or
before or after final argument. The timing of instructions is within the sound
discretion of the trial judge, to be determined on a case-by-case basis, but the
committee strongly recommends instructing the jury before final argument.
3. Each juror must be provided with a full set of jury instructions for use
during their deliberations. Rule 1.470(b). The trial judge may find it useful to
provide these instructions to the jurors when the judge reads the instructions in
open court so that jurors can read along with the judge, as the judge reads the
instructions aloud.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 153
404.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS OR CONTENTIONS
The claims [and defenses] in this case are as follows. (Claimant) claims
that (defendant/insurer) acted in bad faith in (describe alleged bad faith) [which
caused [him] [her] [it] harm].
(Defendant) denies that claim [and also claims that (describe any
affirmative defenses)].
(Claimant) [(Defendant)] must prove [his] [her] [their] claim(s) [and
defenses] by the greater weight of the evidence.
NOTE ON USE FOR 404.2
Use the bracketed clause in the first paragraph on causation and instruction
404.6 if the issue of damages is going to be submitted to the jury. If the court is
going to determine damages (see instruction 404.9), or the only damages are those
already determined in the underlying action, then the bracketed clause in the first
paragraph and instruction 404.6 should be omitted.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 154
404.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
“Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and
convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
NOTES ON USE FOR 404.3
1. Greater or lesser number of witnesses. The committee recommends
that no instruction be given regarding the relationship (or lack of relationship)
between the greater weight of the evidence and the greater or lesser number of
witnesses.
2. Circumstantial evidence. The committee recommends that no
instruction generally be given distinguishing circumstantial from direct evidence.
See Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 155
404.4 INSURER’S BAD FAITH (FAILURE TO SETTLE)
Bad faith on the part of an insurance company is failing to settle a claim
when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it
acted fairly and honestly toward [its policyholder] [its insured] [an excess
carrier] and with due regard for [his] [her] [its] [their] interests.
NOTES ON USE FOR 404.4
1. Instruction 404.4 does not distinguish statutory claims from common
law claims or first party claims from third party claims. See State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Co. v. LaForet, 658 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1995).
2. Instruction 404.4 is applicable when the particular matter in issue is
the insurance company’s failure to settle a claim. This instruction does not exhaust
the subject. Other instructions may be necessary if liability is asserted for the
insurance company’s violation of some other duty. See, e.g., Boston Old Colony
Insurance Co. v. Gutierrez, 386 So. 2d 783, 785 (Fla. 1980) (duty “to advise the
insured of settlement opportunities, to advise as to the probable outcome of the
litigation, to warn of the possibility of an excess judgment, and to advise the
insured of any steps he might take to avoid same”).
3. In cases brought under F.S. 624.155, issues of notice and cure
generally will be determined by the court. See Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna
Casualty & Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Therefore, no standard jury
instruction is provided on those issues.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 156
404.5 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURER’S BAD FAITH FAILURE TO
SETTLE
In determining whether (defendant) acted in bad faith, you shall consider the
following factors or circumstances;
(Defendant’s) willingness to negotiate with (claimant) in anticipation of
settlement,
the propriety of (defendant’s) methods of investigating and evaluating
the claim of (claimant),
whether (defendant) timely informed (insured) of an offer to settle within
the limits of coverage, the right to retain personal counsel, and the risk
of litigation,
whether (insured) denied liability or requested that the case be defended
after (defendant) fully advised (insured) as to the facts and risks,
whether (claimant) imposed any condition, other than the tender of the
policy limits, on the settlement of the claim,
whether (claimant) provided relevant information to (defendant) on a
timely basis,
whether and when other defendants in the case settled or were
dismissed from the case,
whether there were multiple claimants seeking, in the aggregate,
compensation in excess of policy limits from (insured) or from
(defendant),
whether (insured) misrepresented material facts to (defendant) or made
material omissions of fact to (defendant),
and (list such additional factors as the court may determine to be relevant).
NOTE ON USE FOR 404.5
1. This instruction implements F.S. 766.1185(2), and should be used
only in cases to which that statute applies. It should be given in conjunction with
and immediately after instruction 404.4.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 157
2. The statute requires that the jury “shall consider” all of the
enumerated factors. The absence of a factor may be relevant for the jury’s
consideration. The court should therefore instruct on all factors unless there is no
issue as to a particular factor.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 158
404.6 LEGAL CAUSE
a. Legal cause generally:
Bad faith conduct is a legal cause of [loss] [damage] [or] [harm] if it
directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes
substantially to producing such [loss] [damage] [or] [harm], so that it can
reasonably be said that, but for the bad faith conduct, the [loss] [damage] [or]
[harm] would not have occurred.
b. Concurring cause:
In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [damage] [or] [harm]
bad faith conduct need not be the only cause. Bad faith conduct may be a legal
cause of [loss] [damage] [or] [harm] even though it operates in combination
with [the act of another] [some natural cause] [or] [some other cause] if the
bad faith conduct contributes substantially to producing such [loss] [damage]
[or] [harm].
c. Intervening cause:
Do not use the bracketed first sentence if this instruction is preceded by the
instruction on concurring cause.*
*[In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [damage] [or] [harm],
bad faith conduct need not be its only cause.] Bad faith conduct may also be a
legal cause of [loss] [damage] [or] [harm] even though it operates in
combination with [the act of another] [some natural cause] [or] [some other
cause] occurring after the bad faith conduct occurs if [such other cause was
itself reasonably foreseeable and the bad faith conduct contributes
substantially to producing such [loss] [damage] [or] [harm] [or] [the resulting
[loss] [damage] [or] [harm] was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the
bad faith conduct and the bad faith conduct contributes substantially to
producing it].
NOTES ON USE FOR 404.6
1. Instruction 404.6a (legal cause generally) is to be given in all cases in
which the issue of damages is submitted to the jury. No part of this instruction
should be given if the court is going to determine damages (see instruction 404.9).
Instruction 404.6b (concurring cause), to be given when the court considers it
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 159
necessary, does not set forth any additional standard for the jury to consider in
determining whether bad faith conduct was a legal cause of damage but only
negates the idea that a defendant is excused from the consequences of his or her
bad faith conduct by reason of some other cause concurring in time and
contributing to the same damage. Instruction 404.6c (intervening cause) is to be
given only in cases in which the court concludes that there is a jury issue as to the
presence and effect of an intervening cause.
2. Instruction 404.6b must be given whenever there is a contention that
some other cause may have contributed, in whole or part, to the occurrence or
resulting injury. If there is an issue of aggravation of a preexisting condition or of
subsequent injuries/multiple events, instruction 501.5a or 501.5b should be given
as well. See Hart v. Stern, 824 So. 2d 927, 93234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Marinelli
v. Grace, 608 So. 2d 833, 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
3. Instruction 404.6c (intervening cause) embraces two situations in
which bad faith conduct may be a legal cause notwithstanding the influence of an
intervening cause: (1) when the damage was a reasonably foreseeable consequence
of the bad faith conduct although the other cause was not foreseeable, Mozer v.
Semenza, 177 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), and (2) when the intervention of the
other cause was itself foreseeable, Gibson v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 386 So.
2d 520 (Fla. 1980).
4. “Probable” results. The committee recommends that the jury not be
instructed that the damage must be such as would have appeared “probable” to the
actor or to a reasonably careful person at the time of the bad faith conduct. In cases
involving an intervening cause, the term “reasonably foreseeable” is used in place
of “probable.” The terms are synonymous and interchangeable. See Sharon v.
Luten, 165 So. 2d 806, 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Prosser, Torts 291 (3d ed.); 2
Harper & James, The Law of Torts 1137.
5. The term “substantially” is used throughout the instruction to describe
the extent of contribution or influence bad faith conduct must have in order to be
regarded as a legal cause. “Substantially” was chosen because the word has an
acceptable common meaning and because it has been approved in Florida as a test
of causation not only in relation to defendant’s negligence, Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So.
2d 185, 191 (Fla. 1953), but also in relation to plaintiff’s comparative negligence,
Shayne v. Saunders, 176 So. 495, 498 (Fla. 1937).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 160
404.7 ISSUES ON CLAIM
The issue you must decide on (claimant’s) claim against (defendant) is
whether (defendant) acted in bad faith in failing to settle the claim [of]
[against] (insured) [and, if so, whether that bad faith was a legal cause of [loss]
[damage] [or] [harm] to (claimant)].
NOTE ON USE FOR 404.7
For cases in which the court will determine damages, or the only damages
are those already determined in the underlying action, omit the bracketed phase on
causation. If the issue of damages is being submitted to the jury for determination,
then the entire instruction should be given.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 161
404.8 BURDEN OF PROOF
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)]
[you shall consider the defense raised by (defendant)].
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 162
404.9 CONCLUDING INSTRUCTION WHEN COURT TO AWARD
DAMAGES
If your verdict is for (claimant), the court will award damages in an
amount allowable under Florida law.
NOTE ON USE FOR 404.9
This instruction does not ask the jury to insert on the verdict form the
amounts of the judgment, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees in the underlying case,
because these amounts, in many cases, will be decided by the court as a matter of
law. The committee does not intend the omission of these issues from the
instructions to affect the admissibility of such amounts. When any damages are to
be determined by the jury, appropriate instructions and verdict form will be
needed. See instruction 404.1013.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 163
404.10 DAMAGES (CASES WITH CLAIMS FOR MENTAL DISTRESS)
If your verdict is for (claimant), you will next decide (claimant’s) claim
for mental distress. On (claimant’s) claim for mental distress, the issues for
your determination are:
whether (defendant’s) [denial of] [failure to timely pay] the claim
resulted in (insured’s) failure to receive necessary or timely health care;
and if so
whether this failure caused or aggravated (insured’s) [medical]
[psychiatric] condition; and if so
whether (insured) suffered mental distress related to the condition or the
aggravation of the condition.
NOTES ON USE FOR 404.10
1. Use this instruction only if the court determines that there is a
sufficient predicate to support a claim for mental distress. See Time Insurance Co.
v. Burger, 712 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1998). The committee takes no position on whether
claims for mental distress may be available in other situations.
2. This instruction should be followed by instructions 404.11 and 404.12.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 164
404.11 BURDEN OF PROOF ON MENTAL DISTRESS CLAIM
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support the claim of
(claimant) for mental distress, your verdict should be for (defendant) on this
issue.
However, if the greater weight of the evidence does support the claim of
(claimant) for mental distress, then your verdict should be for (claimant) and
against (defendant) on this issue.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 165
404.12 DAMAGES ON MENTAL DISTRESS CLAIM
If you find for (claimant) on the claim for mental distress, then you
should award (claimant) an amount of damages that the evidence shows will
fairly compensate claimant for [his] [or] [her] [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] as
a result of the mental distress. Your damage award should be for mental
distress only. The court will enter judgment for other damages to which
(claimant) is entitled under the law.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 166
404.13 PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Punitive damages are warranted if you find by clear and convincing
evidence that:
the acts giving rise to the violation occurred with such frequency as to
indicate a general business practice; and
these acts were willful, wanton, and malicious, or in reckless disregard
for the rights of the (insured) (beneficiary).
“Clear and convincing evidence” differs from the “greater weight of the
evidence” in that it is more compelling and persuasive. “Clear and convincing
evidence” is evidence that is precise, explicit, lacking in confusion, and of such
weight that it produces a firm belief or conviction, without hesitation, about
the matter in issue.
NOTES ON USE FOR 404.13
1. If a claim for punitive damages is made pursuant to F.S. 624.155, use
this instruction instead of instructions 503.1 and 503.2. For common law punitive
damages claims, see instructions 503.1 and 503.2.
2. The committee has assumed that the clear and convincing evidence
burden of proof provided in F.S. 768.725 applies to punitive damages claims made
pursuant to F.S. 624.155.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 167
405 DEFAMATION
405.1 Introduction
405.2 Summary of Claims and Contentions
405.3 Greater Weight of the Evidence
405.4 Clear and Convincing Evidence
405.5 Negligence
405.6 Legal Cause
405.7 Issues on Plaintiff’s Claim Plaintiff a Public Official or
Public Figure
405.8 Issues on Plaintiff’s Claim Plaintiff a Private Individual
and a Media Defendant
405.9 Issues on Plaintiff’s Claim Private Claimant, Non-Media
Defendant
405.10 Defamation Damages
NOTES ON USE
1. There are three alternative instructions on defamation liability issues,
405.7, 405.8 and 405.9. Instruction 405.7 is for claims in which the claimant is a
public official or a public figure and by First Amendment standards must prove
that defendant made a false defamatory statement with “actual malice.” Instruction
405.8 is for claims in which the claimant is not a public person but defendant is a
member of the press or broadcast media publishing on a matter of public concern,
who by First Amendment standards cannot be held liable for a false publication
without proof of fault. Instruction 405.9 is for all other claims and it invokes
Florida’s truth and good motives defense and the qualified privilege to speak
falsely but without “express malice.”
2. These categories and their boundaries are debatable and in flux, due to
the unique influence upon them of both federal and Florida constitutional law as
well as the common law. To enable assessment of the instructions, the committee
has explained its reasoning in the general notes following the instructions, and calls
attention to areas of evident dispute.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 168
405.1 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.
NOTES ON USE FOR 405.1
1. When instructing the jury before taking evidence, use instruction
202.1 in lieu of instruction 405.1. See Model Instruction No. 1. Instruction 405.1 is
for instructing the jury after the evidence has been concluded. Use the bracketed
language in instruction 405.1 when the final instructions are different from the
instructions given at the beginning of the case. If the instructions at the end of the
case are different from those given at the beginning of the case, the committee
recommends that the court point out the differences with appropriate language in
the final instructions, including an explanation for the difference, such as where the
court has directed a verdict on an issue.
2. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b) authorizes instructing the jury during trial or
before or after final argument. The timing of instructions is within the sound
discretion of the trial judge, to be determined on a case-by-case basis, but the
committee strongly recommends instructing the jury before final argument.
3. Each juror must be provided with a full set of jury instructions for use
during their deliberations. Rule 1.470(b). The trial judge may find it useful to
provide these instructions to the jurors when the judge reads the instructions in
open court so that jurors can read along with the judge, as the judge reads the
instructions aloud.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 169
405.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS
The claims [and defenses] in this case are as follows. (Claimant) claims
that (defendant) [made] [published] [broadcast] a false statement about [him]
[her] [it] which caused [him] [her] [it] harm. (Claimant) claims the statement
was (identify the alleged defamatory statement and its alleged defamatory
meaning).
(Defendant) denies that claim [and also claims that (describe any
affirmative defenses)].
[(Claimant)] [the parties] must prove [his] [her] [its] [all] claim[s] [and
defenses] by [clear and convincing evidence] [the greater weight of the
evidence]. I will now define some of the terms you will use in deciding this
case.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 170
405.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
“Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and
convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
NOTES ON USE FOR 405.3
1. Greater or lesser number of witnesses. The committee recommends
that no instruction be given regarding the relationship (or lack of relationship)
between the greater weight of the evidence and the greater or lesser number of
witnesses.
2. Circumstantial evidence. The committee recommends that no
instruction generally be given distinguishing circumstantial from direct evidence.
See Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 171
405.4 CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
[“Clear and convincing evidence” differs from the “greater weight of
the evidence” in that it is more compelling and persuasive.] “Clear and
convincing evidence” is evidence that is precise, explicit, lacking in confusion,
and of such weight that it produces a firm belief or conviction, without
hesitation, about the matter in issue.
NOTE ON USE FOR 405.4
Use the first bracketed sentence if there are issues or other claims in the case
that invoke the greater weight of the evidence standard.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 172
405.5 NEGLIGENCE
Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care, which is the care that a
reasonably careful person would use under like circumstances. Negligence is
doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do under like
circumstances or failing to do something that a reasonably careful person
would do under like circumstances.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 173
405.6 LEGAL CAUSE
a. Legal cause generally:
A [statement] [publication] is a legal cause of [loss] [injury [or]
[damage] if it directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or
contributes substantially to producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage], so
that it can reasonably be said that, but for the [statement] [publication], the
[loss] [injury] [or] [damage] would not have occurred.
b. Concurring cause:
In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] a
[statement] [publication] need not be the only cause. A [statement]
[publication] may be a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] even though
it operates in combination with [the act of another] [some natural cause] [or]
[some other cause] if the [statement] [publication] contributes substantially to
producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage].
c. Intervening cause:
Do not use the bracketed first sentence if this instruction is preceded by the
instruction on concurring cause.*
*[In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage], [a statement] [publication] need not be its only cause.] A
[statement] [publication] may also be a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage] even though it operates in combination with [the act of another]
[some natural cause] [or] [some other cause] occurring after the [statement]
[publication] occurs if [such other cause was itself reasonably foreseeable and
the [statement] [publication] contributes substantially to producing such [loss]
[injury] [or] [damage]] [or] [the resulting [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] was a
reasonably foreseeable consequence of the [statement] [publication] and the
[statement] [publication] contributes substantially to producing it].
NOTES ON USE FOR 405.6
1. Instruction 405.6a (legal cause generally) is to be given in all cases.
Instruction 405.6b (concurring cause), to be given when the court considers it
necessary, does not set forth any additional standard for the jury to consider in
determining whether a defamation was a legal cause of damage but only negates
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 174
the idea that a defendant is excused from the consequences of his defamation by
reason of some other cause concurring in time and contributing to the same
damage. Instruction 405.6c (intervening cause) is to be given only in cases in
which the court concludes that there is a jury issue as to the presence and effect of
an intervening cause.
2. The jury will properly consider instruction 405.6a not only in
determining whether defendant’s defamation is actionable but also in determining
whether claimant’s conduct contributed as a legal cause to claimant’s damage, thus
reducing recovery.
3. Instruction 405.6b must be given whenever there is a contention that
some other cause may have contributed, in whole or part, to the occurrence or
resulting injury. If there is an issue of aggravation of a preexisting condition or of
subsequent injuries/multiple events, instruction 501.5a or 501.5b should be given
as well. See Hart v. Stern, 824 So. 2d 927, 93234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Marinelli
v. Grace, 608 So. 2d 833, 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
4. Instruction 405.6c (intervening cause) embraces two situations in
which defamation may be a legal cause notwithstanding the influence of an
intervening cause: (1) when the damage was a reasonably foreseeable consequence
of the defamation although the other cause was not foreseeable, Mozer v. Semenza,
177 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), and (2) when the intervention of the other
cause was itself foreseeable, Gibson v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 386 So. 2d
520 (Fla. 1980).
5. “Probable” results. The committee recommends that the jury not be
instructed that the damage must be such as would have appeared “probable” to the
actor or to a reasonably careful person at the time of the defamation. In cases
involving an intervening cause, the term “reasonably foreseeable” is used in place
of “probable.” The terms are synonymous and interchangeable. See Sharon v.
Luten, 165 So. 2d 806, 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Prosser, Torts 291 (3d ed.); 2
Harper & James, The Law of Torts 1137.
6. The term “substantially” is used throughout the instruction to describe
the extent of contribution or influence negligence must have in order to be
regarded as a legal cause. “Substantially” was chosen because the word has an
acceptable common meaning and because it has been approved in Florida as a test
of causation not only in relation to defendant’s negligence, Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So.
2d 185, 191 (Fla. 1953), but also in relation to plaintiff’s comparative negligence,
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 175
Shayne v. Saunders, 176 So. 495, 498 (Fla. 1937).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 176
405.7 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM — PLAINTIFF A PUBLIC
OFFICIAL OR PUBLIC FIGURE
The issues you must decide on the claim of (claimant) against (defendant)
are:
a. Issue whether publication concerning claimant was made as claimed:
whether (defendant) [made] [published] [broadcast] the statement
concerning (claimant) as (claimant) claims; and, if so,
b. Issue whether publication was false and defamatory:
whether (defendant’s) statement concerning (claimant) was in some
significant respect a false statement of fact* and [tended to expose
(claimant) to hatred, ridicule, or contempt] [or] [tended to injure
(claimant) in [his] [her] business, reputation, or occupation] [or]
[charged that (claimant) committed a crime].
*In some instances a statement of opinion may be interpretable as a false
statement of fact expressly stated or implied from an expression of opinion.
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 110 S.Ct. 2695, 111 L.Ed.2d 1
(1990); Florida Medical Center, Inc. v. New York Post Co., 568 So. 2d 454
(Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
A statement is in some significant respect false if its substance or gist
conveys a materially different meaning than the truth would have conveyed.
In making this determination, you should consider the context in which the
statement is made and disregard any minor inaccuracies that do not affect the
substance of the statement.
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support (claimant’s) claim
on these issues, then your verdict should be for (defendant). However, if the
greater weight of the evidence supports (claimant’s) claim on these issues,
then:
c. Issue whether defendant acted with actual malice:
You must decide whether clear and convincing evidence shows that at
the time the statement was made (defendant) knew the statement was false or
had serious doubts as to its truth.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 177
If clear and convincing evidence does not show that (defendant) knew
when the statement was made that it was false, or that [he] [she] [it] had
serious doubts as to its truth, your verdict should be for (defendant).
However, if clear and convincing evidence supports (claimant’s) claim
that (defendant) knew when the statement was made that it was false, or that
[he] [she] [it] had serious doubts as to its truth, and the greater weight of the
evidence supports (claimant’s) claim on the other issues on which I have
instructed you, then your verdict should be for (claimant).
(Proceed to 405.10, Defamation Damages.)
NOTE ON USE FOR 405.7
An additional instruction on the “publication” issue, not included here, will
be necessary if there is an issue whether the statement was in fact heard or read by
someone other than the claimant.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 178
405.8 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM — PLAINTIFF A PRIVATE
INDIVIDUAL AND A MEDIA DEFENDANT
The issues for you to decide on the claim of (claimant) against (defendant)
are:
a. Issue whether publication concerning claimant was made as claimed:
whether (defendant) [published] [broadcast] the statement concerning
(claimant) as (claimant) claims; and, if so,
b. Issue whether publication was false and defamatory:
whether (defendant’s) statement concerning (claimant) was in some
significant respect a false statement of fact* and [tended to expose
(claimant) to hatred, ridicule, or contempt] [or] [tended to injure
(claimant) in [his] [her] business, reputation, or occupation] [or]
[charged that (claimant) committed a crime]; and, if so,
*In some instances a statement of opinion may be interpretable as a false
statement of fact expressly stated or implied from an expression of opinion.
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 110 S.Ct. 2695, 111 L.Ed.2d 1
(1990); Florida Medical Center, Inc. v. New York Post Co., 568 So. 2d 454
(Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
c. Issue whether defendant was negligent:
whether (defendant) was negligent in making that statement.
A statement is in some significant respect false if its substance or gist
conveys a materially different meaning than the truth would have conveyed.
In making this determination, you should consider the context in which the
statement is made and disregard any minor inaccuracies that do not affect the
substance of the statement.
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support (claimant’s) claim
on these issues, then your verdict should be for (defendant). However, if the
greater weight of the evidence supports (claimant’s) claim on these issues, then
your verdict should be for (claimant) and against (defendant).
Proceed to 405.10, Defamation Damages.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 179
NOTE ON USE FOR 405.8
An additional instruction on the “publication” issue, not here included, will
be necessary if there is an issue whether the statement was in fact heard or read by
someone other than the claimant.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 180
405.9 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM — PRIVATE CLAIMANT,
NON-MEDIA DEFENDANT
The issues for you to decide on the claim of (claimant) against (defendant)
are:
a. Issue whether a defamatory publication concerning claimant was made as
claimed:
whether (defendant) made the statement concerning (claimant) as
(claimant) claims; and, if so, whether the statement [tended to expose
(claimant) to hatred, ridicule, or contempt] [or] [tended to injure
(claimant) in [his] [her] business, reputation, or occupation] [or]
[charged that (claimant) committed a crime].
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support (claimant’s) claim
on these issues, then your verdict should be for (defendant). However, if the
greater weight of the evidence supports (claimant’s) claim on these issues, then
[your verdict should be for (claimant) in the total amount of [his] [her] [its]
damages] [you shall consider [the defense of truth and good motives] [and]
[the defense of privilege] raised by (defendant)].
b. Defense issues of truth and good motives:
On the [first] defense, the issue for your determination is whether the
statement made by (defendant) was substantially true and was made by
(defendant) with good motives.
A statement is substantially true if its substance or gist conveys
essentially the same meaning that the truth would have conveyed. In making
this determination, you should consider the context in which the statement is
made and disregard any minor inaccuracies that do not affect the substance of
the statement.
If the greater weight of the evidence supports this defense, your verdict
should be for (defendant).
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support this defense, [and
the greater weight of the evidence supports (claimant’s) claim on these issues,
then your verdict should be for (claimant) in the total amount of [his] [her]
[its] damages.] [then you shall consider the defense of privilege raised by
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 181
(defendant).]
c. Defense issue whether defendant had qualified privilege:
If defendant has a qualified privilege as a matter of law, skip to instruction
405.9d.
On the defense of privilege, I instruct you that provided one does not
speak with improper motives, which I shall explain in a moment, a person
such as (defendant) is privileged to make a statement to [someone such as
(name)] [an audience such as (describe)] about another such as (claimant), even
if the statement is untrue, under the following circumstances:
Describe in general terms, sufficient for the jury to understand the interests
protected by law, the facts which if proved would give rise to a qualified
privilege. See General Note 6.
If the greater weight of the evidence does not show that these
circumstances existed, then you must find that (defendant) had no privilege to
make such a statement even with proper motives. However, if the greater
weight of the evidence does show that (defendant) spoke under circumstances
creating such a privilege, then you should decide whether, as (claimant) claims,
(defendant) made the statement with improper motives abusing that privilege.
d. Issue whether defendant abused qualified privilege:
(Defendant) had a privilege to make a statement even if untrue, provided
he did so with proper motives. Such a privilege exists because
Describe in general terms, sufficient for the jury to understand the interests
protected by law, the facts giving rise to the qualified privilege. See Note 6
following instruction 405.10.
The issue for you to decide is therefore whether, as (claimant) claims,
(defendant) made the statement with improper motives abusing that privilege.
One makes a false statement about another with improper motives if one’s
primary motive and purpose in making the statement is to gratify one’s ill
will, hostility and intent to harm the other, rather than [to advance or protect
(defendant’s) interest, right or duty to speak to (name) on that subject] [or] [to
advance or protect the interests of the person to whom the statement was
made].
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 182
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support (claimant’s) claim
that (defendant) abused any privilege [he] [she] [it] had [and the greater
weight of the evidence does support the defense of privilege], then your verdict
should be for (defendant).
However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports (claimant’s)
claim that (defendant) abused any privilege [he] [she] [it] had, then your
verdict should be for (claimant) in the total amount of [his] [her] [its] damages.
(Proceed to instruction 405.10, Defamation Damages.)
NOTE ON USE FOR 405.9
An additional instruction on the “publication” issue, not here included, will
be necessary if there is an issue whether the statement was in fact heard or read by
someone other than the claimant.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 183
405.10 DEFAMATION DAMAGES
If you find for (defendant), you will not consider the matter of damages.
But, if you find for (claimant), you should award (claimant) an amount of
money that will fairly and adequately compensate (claimant) for such [loss]
[injury] [or] [damage] as the greater weight of the evidence shows was caused
by the [statement] [publication] in question. You shall consider the following
elements of damage:
a. Injury to reputation or health; shame, humiliation, mental anguish, hurt
feelings:
Any injury to reputation or health and any shame, humiliation, mental
anguish, and hurt feelings experienced in the past [or to be experienced in the
future]. There is no exact standard for fixing the compensation to be awarded
on account of such elements of damage. Any award should be fair and just in
the light of the evidence.
b. Aggravation or activation of disease or physical defect:
Any aggravation of an existing disease or physical defect [or activation
of any such latent condition], resulting from such [statement] [publication]. If
you find that there was such an aggravation, you should determine, if you can,
what portion of (claimant’s) condition resulted from the aggravation and make
allowance in your verdict only for the aggravation. However, if you cannot
make that determination or if it cannot be said that the condition would have
existed apart from the [statement] [publication], you should consider and
make allowance in your verdict for the entire condition.
c. Medical expenses:
The reasonable [value] [or] [expense] of [hospitalization and] medical
[and nursing] care and treatment necessarily or reasonably obtained by
(claimant) [or] [and] [his wife] [her husband] in the past [or to be so obtained
in the future].
d. Lost earnings, lost working time, lost earning capacity:
(1). When lost earnings or lost working time shown:
Any [earnings] [working time] lost in the past [and any loss of ability to
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 184
earn money in the future].
(2). When earnings or lost working time not shown:
Any loss of ability to earn money sustained in the past [and any such
loss in the future].
e. Reduction to present value:
Any amounts which you allow in damages for [loss of ability to earn
money in the future] [or] [(describe any other future economic loss subject to
reduction to present value)] should be reduced to their present money value
[and only the present money value of such amounts should be included in your
verdict] [and you should state in the verdict form provided to you both the
total of such future damages and their present value].
f. Nominal damages:
If you find for (claimant) but find that no [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]
has been proved, you [should] [may] award nominal damages. Nominal
damages are damages of an inconsequential amount which are awarded to
vindicate a right where a wrong is established but no damage is proved.
g. Punitive damages:
(1). Bifurcated procedure:
If you find for (claimant) and against (name person or entity whose
conduct may warrant punitive damages), you should consider whether, in
addition to compensatory damages, punitive damages are warranted in the
circumstances of this case as punishment and as a deterrent to others.
The trial of the punitive damages issue is divided into two parts. In this
first part, you will decide whether the conduct of (name defendant whose
conduct may warrant punitive damages) is such that punitive damages are
warranted. If you decide that punitive damages are warranted, we will
proceed to the second part during which the parties may present additional
evidence and argument on the issue of punitive damages. I will then give you
additional instructions, after which you will decide whether in your discretion
punitive damages will be assessed and, if so, the amount.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 185
Standard if statement was on a matter of public concern:
Punitive damages are warranted if you find by clear and convincing
evidence that at the time of making the statement (defendant) knew the
statement was false or had serious doubts as to its truth; and if the greater
weight of the evidence shows that (defendant’s) primary purpose in making the
statement was to indulge ill will, hostility, and an intent to harm (claimant).
Standard if statement was not a matter of public concern:
Punitive damages are warranted if you find by the greater weight of the
evidence that (defendant’s) primary purpose in making the statement was to
indulge ill will, hostility, and an intent to harm (claimant).
[You may determine that punitive damages are warranted against one
defendant and not the other[s] or against more than one defendant.]
Use 503.1b(2)b(4) as necessary for direct and vicarious liability.
Use 503.1c for second stage of bifurcated punitive damages procedure.
(2). Non-bifurcated procedure:
If you find for (claimant) and against (name person or entity whose
conduct may warrant punitive damages), you should consider whether, in
addition to compensatory damages, punitive damages are warranted in the
circumstances of this case as a punishment and as a deterrent to others.
Standard if statement was on a matter of public concern:
Punitive damages are warranted if you find by clear and convincing
evidence that at the time of making the statement (defendant) knew the
statement was false or had serious doubts as to its truth; and if the greater
weight of the evidence shows that (defendant’s) primary purpose in making the
statement was to indulge ill will, hostility, and an intent to harm (claimant).
Standard if statement was not a matter of public concern:
Punitive damages are warranted if you find by the greater weight of the
evidence that (defendant’s) primary purpose in making the statement was to
indulge ill will, hostility, and an intent to harm (claimant).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 186
[You may determine that punitive damages are warranted against one
defendant and not the other[s] or against more than one defendant.]
Use 503.2b(2)b(4) as necessary for direct and vicarious liability.
Use 503.2c for determination of amount of damages.
NOTES ON USE ON DEFAMATION INSTRUCTIONS
1. Status of claimant or defendant decisive of First Amendment
standards. As set forth in instruction 405.7, if claimant was a public official or was
a public figure for all or for the limited purposes in the case at hand, the First
Amendment requires claimant to prove that defendant’s statement was false,
Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 85 S.Ct. 209, 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964), and that
defendant made it with “actual malice.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S.
254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686, 95 A.L.R.2d 1412 (1964). As set forth in 405.8,
if defendant was a member of the press or broadcast media publishing on a matter
of public concern, the First Amendment requires claimant to prove falsity and
fault. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 77576, 106 S.Ct.
1558, 89 L.Ed.2d 783 (1986); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 347, 94
S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). In Florida, a defendant is at fault if he was at
least negligent. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Ane, 458 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1984).
Until a standard for identifying “speech on a matter of public concern” is made
clearer and manageable as a matter of law or fact, the committee treats any media
defendant as entitled to instruction 405.8 status and assumes that any nonmedia
defendant is governed by instruction 405.9. Despite criticism of the categorical
distinction both on First Amendment grounds, Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v.
Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 78384, 105 S.Ct. 2939, 86 L.Ed.2d 593
(1985) (dissenting opinion), and for want of evenhandedness at common law, infra
Note 3, neither the United States nor Florida Supreme Court has yet denied any
media defendant instruction 405.8 status holding that the publication was not on a
matter of public concern; and neither Court has yet exempted a non-media
defendant from instruction 405.9 standards governing compensatory damage
liability by declaring defendant’s statement to be, as a matter of law or fact, of
public concern. Status issues determining the choice of instructions 405.7, 405.8,
and 405.9 are commonly decided as a matter of law, and therefore are omitted
from these instructions. Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 88, 86 S.Ct. 669, 15
L.Ed.2d 597 (1966); Friedgood v. Peters Publishing Co., 521 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1988); Della-Donna v. Gore Newspapers Co., 489 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA
1986). If a status issue is deemed a jury question, it may be submitted by a
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 187
preliminary instruction modeled after instruction 401.14 et seq. The court then
must frame alternative liability issues chosen from instructions 405.7, 405.8, and
405.9.
2. Actual malice, clear and convincing proof. “Actual malice” has
connotations other than its First Amendment meaning, so instruction 405.7 avoids
the term and uses the definition instead: whether defendant in making the
defamatory statement (about the public person claimant) knew his statement was
false or seriously doubted its truth. Defendant’s state of mind can be proved
circumstantially. St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 732, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 20
L.Ed.2d 262 (1968); Hunt v. Liberty Lobby, 720 F.2d 631, 643 (11th Cir. 1983).
Claimant’s burden is proof by “clear and convincing” evidence. Philadelphia
Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 773, 106 S.Ct. 1558, 89 L.Ed.2d 783,
(1986); Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 109
S.Ct. 2678, 105 L.Ed.2d 562 (1989).
3. Truth or falsity, preponderance of evidence. The First Amendment
requires plaintiff to prove falsity in instructions 405.7 and 405.8 cases. Defendant
must prove truth in instruction 405.9 cases because the common law presumes any
statement made with defaming effect was false. Jones, Varnum & Co. v.
Townsend’s Administratrix, 21 Fla. 431 (1885). Accord, Firestone v. Time, Inc.,
460 F.2d 712, 722 (5th Cir. 1972) (Bell, J. concurring); Curtis Publishing Co. v.
Fraser, 209 F.2d 1, 9 n. 6 (5th Cir. 1954); Drennen v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.,
328 So. 2d 52, 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v.
Brautigam, 127 So. 2d 718, 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Moreover, Florida may have
made truth a “defense” issue constitutionally, Note 5 infra. The issue is phrased as
whether the statement “was false in some significant respect,” instructions 405.7
and 405.8, or “was substantially true,” instruction 405.9, not turning on
insignificant detail, e.g., Times Publishing Co. v. Huffstetler, 409 So. 2d 112, 113
(Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Whether the First Amendment requires proof of falsity by a
simple preponderance or by clear and convincing evidence (as on the actual malice
issue), is unclear. Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc., 491 U.S. 657, n. 2. The
committee assumes “the greater weight” suffices for proof of falsity in instructions
405.7 and 405.8, as it does for proof of truth in instruction 405.9. The clear and
convincing standard, instruction 405.4, is as defined in Slomowitz v. Walker, 429
So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
4. Nodar’s dictum: How does the First Amendment fault standard apply
in 405.9? In Nodar v. Galbreath, 462 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 1984), the Florida Supreme
Court held that if the First Amendment requires proof of negligence against the
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 188
media, the common law should extend the same protection to all: “If common-law
remedies for defamation are to be constitutionally restricted in actions against
media defendants, they should also be restricted in actions against private, non-
media speakers and publishers.” Nodar, 462 So. 2d at 808. Nodar was decided,
however, on “common-law principles of qualified privilege,” id., so it was
unnecessary to decide “how the negligence standard applies in this case.” Id.
Pending further implementation in Florida of Nodar’s dictum, or a decision that
one’s media status is not decisive, instruction 405.8 continues to distinguish media
defendants, publishing on matters of public concern, from all other defendants;
instruction 405.7 applies to public person claimants; and all other cases fall under
instruction 405.9, which makes no reference to negligence.
5. Florida’s truth “and good motives” defense. Article I, §4, Florida
Constitution (1968) provides what the 1885 Constitution referred to in the title to
§13 of the Declaration of Rights as a “defense to libel”: “In all . . . actions for
defamation the truth may be given in evidence. If the matter charged as defamatory
is true and was published with good motives, the party shall be . . . exonerated.”
“Truth and good motives,” despite its history, is not well elaborated by the case
law. (Note that the United States Supreme Court has reserved the question whether
in a First Amendment context it can ever be actionable, whatever the motive, to
speak the truth. The Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524, 109 S.Ct. 2603, 105
L.Ed.2d 443 (1989).) Pending a Florida decision explaining its meaning and effect,
the committee assumes that the “truth and good motives” provision tolerates at
least as wide a range of motives for speaking the truth as the common law tolerates
for speaking untruthfully in a privileged situation. Instruction 405.9b therefore
frames the issue as to whether defendant spoke both truthfully and with “good
motives” and, if so, requires a verdict for defendant. Only if the jury finds
otherwise is it then directed, instructions 405.9c and 405.9d, to decide whether
defendant had a qualified privilege and, if so, whether he or she spoke with express
malice resulting in liability despite the privilege. Truth-or-falsity is not submitted a
second time because proof of truth is not necessary to a qualified privilege defense.
6. Qualified privilege for defendant under Florida law. Defendant has a
qualified privilege to make a false defamatory statement if he or she has reason to
speak concerning claimant to an appropriate audience on a particular subject or
occasion. Such a person is not liable without proof of “express malice” as
described in instruction 405.9c. Nodar, 462 So. 2d at 811 n.8; Boehm v. Kovens,
554 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Nodar describes the qualified privilege as
granted to one having an interest or a legal, moral, or social duty in regard to a
certain subject, when speaking to another “having a corresponding interest or
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 189
duty.” Examples: “a communication to an employer regarding his employee’s
performance”; “communications for bona fide commercial purposes where the
interest to be protected is the recipient’s”; “statements of a citizen to a political
authority regarding matters of public concern.” Whether there was a privilege,
apart from the question of its abuse, may be determined by the court if the
evidence is undisputed. But if not, a threshold instruction as in 405.9b is necessary,
followed by instructions 405.9c or 405.9d or both. See, e.g., Knepper v. Genstar
Corp., 537 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Drennen v. Westinghouse Electrical
Corp., 328 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Contrast Nodar, 462 So. 2d at 810.
7. Nominal and punitive damages. Nominal damages for “presumed”
injury, as distinguished from a small actual injury, cannot be recovered against
media defendants without showing actual malice as required by instruction 405.7
of public claimants. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 34950, 347, 94
S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974); Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders, 472
U.S. 749, 76061, 105 S.Ct. 2939, 86 L.Ed.2d 593 (1985). In instruction 405.9
cases, punitive damages may be awarded upon a finding of liability. See Ault v.
Lohr, 538 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1989). Potential confusion in a general verdict form
may be reduced by requiring a special verdict on liability, as in Ault.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 190
406 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
406.1 Introduction
406.2 Summary of Claims
406.3 Greater Weight of the Evidence
406.4 Probable Cause
406.5 Malice
406.6 Instituting or Continuing a Proceeding
406.7 Legal Cause
406.8 Issues on Claim
406.9 Burden of Proof on Claim
406.10 Defense Issues
406.11 Burden of Proof on Defense Issues
406.12 Malicious Prosecution Damages
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 191
406.1 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.
NOTES ON USE FOR 406.1
1. When instructing the jury before taking evidence, use instruction
202.1 in lieu of instruction 406.1. See Model Instruction No. 1. Instruction 406.1 is
for instructing the jury after the evidence has been concluded. Use the bracketed
language in instruction 406.1 when the final instructions are different from the
instructions given at the beginning of the case. If the instructions at the end of the
case are different from those given at the beginning of the case, the committee
recommends that the court point out the differences with appropriate language in
the final instructions, including an explanation for the difference, such as where the
court has directed a verdict on an issue.
2. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b) authorizes instructing the jury during trial or
before or after final argument. The timing of instructions is within the sound
discretion of the trial judge, to be determined on a case-by-case basis, but the
committee strongly recommends instructing the jury before final argument.
3. Each juror must be provided with a full set of jury instructions for use
during their deliberations. Rule 1.470(b). The trial judge may find it useful to
provide these instructions to the jurors when the judge reads the instructions in
open court so that jurors can read along with the judge, as the judge reads the
instructions aloud.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 192
406.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
The claims [and defenses] in this case are as follows. (Claimant) claims
that (defendant) maliciously and without probable cause [filed] [and]
[continued] (describe the claim or proceeding) against [him] [her] [it] which
later terminated in favor of (claimant) and which caused [him] [her] [it] harm.
(Defendant) denies that claim [and also claims that [he] [she] [it] was
acting on the advice of [his] [her] [its] lawyer]. [Additionally (describe any
other affirmative defenses).]
The parties must prove all claims [and defenses] by the greater weight
of the evidence. I will now define some of the terms you will use in deciding
this case.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 193
406.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
“Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and
convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
NOTES ON USE FOR 406.3
1. Greater or lesser number of witnesses. The committee recommends
that no instruction be given regarding the relationship (or lack of relationship)
between the greater weight of the evidence and the greater or lesser number of
witnesses.
2. Circumstantial evidence. The committee recommends that no
instruction generally be given distinguishing circumstantial from direct evidence.
See Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 194
406.4 PROBABLE CAUSE
Probable cause means that at the time of [instituting] [or] [continuing] a
[criminal] [civil] proceeding against another, the facts and circumstances
known to [(defendant)] [(other person)] were sufficiently strong to support a
reasonable belief that (claimant) [had committed a criminal offense] [the
[claim] [proceeding] was supported by existing facts].
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 195
406.5 MALICE
One acts maliciously in [instituting] [continuing] a [criminal] [civil]
proceeding against another if he or she does so for the primary purpose of
injuring the other, or recklessly and without regard for whether the
proceeding is justified, or for any primary purpose except [to bring an
offender to justice] [to establish what he or she considers to be a meritorious
claim]. In determining whether (defendant) acted maliciously, you may
consider all the circumstances at the time of the conduct complained of,
including any lack of probable cause to [institute] [continue] the proceeding.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 196
406.6 INSTITUTING OR CONTINUING A PROCEEDING
One is regarded as having [instituted] [continued] a [criminal] [civil]
proceeding against another if the proceeding resulted directly and in natural
and continuous sequence from his or her actions, so that it reasonably can be
said that, but for his or her actions, the proceeding would not have been
[instituted] [continued]. [One is not regarded as having [instituted]
[continued] a criminal proceeding against another if in good faith he or she
made a full and fair disclosure of what he or she knew to the proper
authorities and left the decision to [institute] [continue] the prosecution
entirely to the judgment of the authorities.]
NOTE ON USE FOR 406.6
See Kilburn v. Davenport, 286 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Zippy Mart,
Inc. v. Mercer, 244 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 197
406.7 LEGAL CAUSE
a. Legal cause generally:
The malicious [institution] [continuation] of a proceeding is a cause of
[loss] [injury] [or] [damage] if it directly and in natural and continuous
sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such [loss]
[injury] [or] [damage], so that it can reasonably be said that, but for the
malicious [institution] [continuation] of a proceeding, the [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage] would not have occurred.
b. Concurring cause:
In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]
the malicious [institution] [continuation] of such a proceeding need not be the
only cause. The malicious [institution] [continuation] of a proceeding may be a
legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] even though it operates in
combination with [the act of another] [some natural cause] [or] [some other
cause] if the malicious [institution] [continuation] of a proceeding contributes
substantially to producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage].
c. Intervening cause:
Do not use the bracketed first sentence if this instruction is preceded by the
instruction on concurring cause.*
*[In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage], the malicious [institution] [continuation] of a proceeding need not
be its only cause.] The malicious [institution] [continuation] of a proceeding
may also be a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] even though it
operates in combination with [the act of another] [some natural cause] [or]
[some other cause] occurring after the malicious [institution] [continuation] of
a proceeding occurs if [such other cause was itself reasonably foreseeable and
the malicious [institution] [continuation] of a proceeding contributes
substantially to producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]] [or] [the
resulting [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] was a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of the malicious [institution] [continuation] of a proceeding and
the malicious [institution] [continuation] of a proceeding contributes
substantially to producing it].
NOTES ON USE FOR 406.7
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 198
1. Instruction 406.7a (legal cause generally) is to be given in all cases.
Instruction 407.6b (concurring cause), to be given when the court considers it
necessary, does not set forth any additional standard for the jury to consider in
determining whether the malicious prosecution was a legal cause of damage but
only negates the idea that a defendant is excused from the consequences of his
malicious prosecution by reason of some other cause concurring in time and
contributing to the same damage. Instruction 406.7c (intervening cause) is to be
given only in cases in which the court concludes that there is a jury issue as to the
presence and effect of an intervening cause.
2. The jury will properly consider instruction 406.7a not only in
determining whether defendant’s malicious prosecution is actionable but also in
determining whether claimant’s conduct contributed as a legal cause to claimant’s
damage, thus reducing recovery.
3. Instruction 406.7b must be given whenever there is a contention that
some other cause may have contributed, in whole or part, to the occurrence or
resulting injury. If there is an issue of aggravation of a preexisting condition or of
subsequent injuries/multiple events, instruction 501.5a or b should be given as
well. See Hart v. Stern, 824 So. 2d 927, 93234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Marinelli v.
Grace, 608 So. 2d 833, 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
4. Instruction 406.7c (intervening cause) embraces two situations in
which malicious prosecution may be a legal cause notwithstanding the influence of
an intervening cause: (1) when the damage was a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of the malicious prosecution although the other cause was not
foreseeable, Mozer v. Semenza, 177 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), and (2) when
the intervention of the other cause was itself foreseeable, Gibson v. Avis Rent-A-
Car System, Inc., 386 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1980).
5. “Probable” results. The committee recommends that the jury not be
instructed that the damage must be such as would have appeared “probable” to the
actor or to a reasonably careful person at the time of the malicious prosecution. In
cases involving an intervening cause, the term “reasonably foreseeable” is used in
place of “probable.” The terms are synonymous and interchangeable. See Sharon
v. Luten, 165 So. 2d 806, 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Prosser, Torts 291 (3d ed.); 2
Harper & James, The Law of Torts 1137.
6. The term “substantially” is used throughout the instruction to describe
the extent of contribution or influence malicious prosecution must have in order to
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 199
be regarded as a legal cause. “Substantially” was chosen because the word has an
acceptable common meaning and because it has been approved in Florida as a test
of causation not only in relation to defendant’s conduct, Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So. 2d
185, 191 (Fla. 1953), but also in relation to a plaintiff’s comparative negligence
Shayne v. Saunders, 176 So. 495, 498 (Fla. 1937).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 200
406.8 ISSUES ON CLAIM
The issues you must decide on (claimant’s) claim against (defendant) are
whether (defendant) maliciously and without probable cause [instituted] [or]
[continued] a [criminal] [civil] proceeding against (claimant) which later
terminated in favor of (claimant) and, if so, whether that action was a legal
cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant).
NOTE ON USE FOR 406.8
If a fact question exists concerning whether the prior proceeding terminated
in favor of the claimant, an additional instruction on that issue will be necessary.
See Shidlowsky v. National Car Rental Systems, Inc., 344 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA
1977); Freedman v. Crabro Motors, Inc., 199 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 201
406.9 BURDEN OF PROOF ON CLAIM
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support (claimant’s) claim,
your verdict should be for (defendant).
However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports (claimant’s)
claim, [then your verdict should be for (claimant) and against (defendant)]
[then you shall consider the defense raised by (defendant)].
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 202
406.10 DEFENSE ISSUES
On the defense, the issues for you to decide are whether before
[instituting] [continuing] the [criminal] [civil] proceeding complained of,
(defendant) in good faith sought the advice of a lawyer, gave the lawyer a full
and fair statement of what he knew, and relied on the lawyer’s advice in
[instituting] [continuing] the proceeding.
NOTE ON USE FOR 406.10
Advice of counsel becomes an issue only when raised by the defendant, who
must prove the defense. See Glass v. Parrish, 51 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1951). The
lawyer’s interest or prejudice may vitiate the defense. See RESTATEMENT (2d) OF
TORTS §666, cmt.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 203
406.11 BURDEN OF PROOF ON DEFENSE ISSUES
If the greater weight of the evidence supports the defense, your verdict
should be for (defendant). However, if the greater weight of the evidence does
not support the defense and does support (claimant’s) claim, your verdict
should be for (claimant) and against (defendant).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 204
406.12 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION DAMAGES
If you find for (defendant), you will not consider the matter of damages.
But, if you find for (claimant), you should award (claimant) an amount of
money that the greater weight of the evidence shows will fairly and adequately
compensate (claimant) for such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] as the greater
weight of the evidence shows was caused by the [institution] [continuation] of
the proceeding complained of.
If you find for (claimant), you shall consider the following elements of
damage:
Proceed to Section 500 for applicable elements of damage, other
appropriate damage instructions and instructions on punitive damages, if
applicable. In addition to the elements listed in Section 500, the following is
a proper element of damage in an action for malicious prosecution:
The reasonable expenses, including lawyers’ fees, necessarily incurred
by (claimant) in the proceeding complained of.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 205
407 FALSE IMPRISONMENT
407.1 Introduction
407.2 Summary of Claims
407.3 Greater Weight of the Evidence
407.4 Intentional Restraint
407.5 Legal Cause
407.6 Issues on Claim
407.7 Burden of Proof on Claim
407.8 Defense Issues
407.9 Burden of Proof on Defense Issues
407.10 False Imprisonment Damages
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 206
407.1 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.
NOTES ON USE FOR 407.1
1. When instructing the jury before taking evidence use instruction 202.1
in lieu of instruction 407.1. See Model Instruction No. 1. Instruction 407.1 is for
instructing the jury after the evidence has been concluded. Use the bracketed
language in instruction 407.1 when the final instructions are different from the
instructions given at the beginning of the case. If the instructions at the end of the
case are different from those given at the beginning of the case, the committee
recommends that the court point out the differences with appropriate language in
the final instructions, including an explanation for the difference, such as where the
court has directed a verdict on an issue.
2. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b) authorizes instructing the jury during trial or
before or after final argument. The timing of instructions is within the sound
discretion of the trial judge, to be determined on a case-by-case basis, but the
committee strongly recommends instructing the jury before final argument.
3. Each juror must be provided with a full set of jury instructions for use
during their deliberations. Rule 1.470(b). The trial judge may find it useful to
provide these instructions to the jurors when the judge reads the instructions in
open court so that jurors can read along with the judge, as the judge reads the
instructions aloud.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 207
407.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
The claims [and defenses] in this case are as follows. (Claimant) claims
that (defendant) intentionally restrained [him] [her], under circumstances that
were unreasonable and unwarranted and without legal authority, which
caused [him] [her] harm.
(Defendant) denies that claim [and also claims that (describe any
affirmative defenses)].
The parties must prove all claims [and defenses] by the greater weight
of the evidence. I will now define some of the terms you will use in deciding
this case.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 208
407.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
“Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and
convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
NOTES ON USE FOR 407.3
1. Greater or lesser number of witnesses. The committee recommends
that no instruction be given regarding the relationship (or lack of relationship)
between the greater weight of the evidence and the greater or lesser number of
witnesses.
2. Circumstantial evidence. The committee recommends that no
instruction generally be given distinguishing circumstantial from direct evidence.
See Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 209
407.4 INTENTIONAL RESTRAINT
“Intentional restraint” means that [(defendant) restrained (claimant)
with the purpose of causing the restraint] [(defendant) acted with knowledge
that the (claimant’s) restraint would, to a substantial certainty, result from
(defendant’s) acts].
To be restrained means that (claimant) was held against [his] [her] will
and did not consent to the restraint. In other words, a person is restrained
when [he] [she] [is not free] [does not reasonably believe [he] [she] is free], to
leave the place to which [he] [she] had been confined. [To be restrained, a
person must be aware of the restraint.]* However, a person is not
“restrained” when there is a reasonable means of escape, which is apparent or
known to the person.
A restraint is without “lawful authority” if (defendant) did not act under
color of or claim of lawful authority.
[A person who makes a mistake in reporting or identifying another
person to law enforcement officers is not liable for causing the other person to
be restrained, if the person making the mistaken report or identification acts
in good faith and does not instigate, persuade, or request the officers to
restrain the other person.]**
NOTES ON USE FOR 407.4
1. *Consciousness of restraint. The bracketed language should be given
if there is an issue whether plaintiff was aware of the restraint. RESTATEMENT (2d)
OF TORTS §42.
2. **The bracketed language should be given if there is a factual issue of
whether defendant’s report to the police was an actionable cause of claimant’s
restraint. Pokorny v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, 382 So. 2d 678 (Fla.
1980).
3. Claimant is restrained if claimant reasonably believes he or she is,
though claimant may in fact be free to leave. See RESTATEMENT §§41, 42. See
Gatto v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 387 So. 2d 377, 37980 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Though claimant’s belief that claimant is completely restrained is unreasonable,
restraint may nevertheless occur if claimant is peculiarly susceptible and defendant
acts to exploit that susceptibility. See, by analogy, RESTATEMENT §27.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 210
407.5 LEGAL CAUSE
a. Legal cause generally:
An unlawful and intentional restraint is a cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage] if it directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or
contributes substantially to producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage], so
that it can reasonably be said that, but for the unlawful and intentional
restraint, the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] would not have occurred.
b. Concurring cause:
In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]
an unlawful and intentional restraint need not be the only cause. An unlawful
and intentional restraint may be a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]
even though it operates in combination with [the act of another] [some natural
cause] [or] [some other cause] if the unlawful and intentional restraint
contributes substantially to producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage].
c. Intervening cause:
*Do not use the bracketed first sentence if this instruction is preceded by the
instruction on concurring cause:
*[In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage], the unlawful and intentional restraint need not be its only cause.]
An unlawful and intentional restraint may also be a legal cause of [loss]
[injury] [or] [damage] even though it operates in combination with [the act of
another] [some natural cause] [or] [some other cause] occurring after the
unlawful and intentional restraint occurs if [such other cause was itself
reasonably foreseeable and the unlawful and intentional restraint contributes
substantially to producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]] [or] [the
resulting [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] was a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of the unlawful and intentional restraint and the unlawful and
intentional restraint contributes substantially to producing it].
NOTES ON USE FOR 407.5
1. Instruction 407.5a (legal cause generally) is to be given in all cases.
Instruction 407.6b (concurring cause), to be given when the court considers it
necessary, does not set forth any additional standard for the jury to consider in
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 211
determining whether the false imprisonment was a legal cause of damage but only
negates the idea that a defendant is excused from the consequences of his or her
false imprisonment by reason of some other cause concurring in time and
contributing to the same damage. Instruction 407.5c (intervening cause) is to be
given only in cases in which the court concludes that there is a jury issue as to the
presence and effect of an intervening cause.
2. The jury will properly consider instruction 407.5a not only in
determining whether defendant’s false imprisonment is actionable but also in
determining whether claimant’s conduct contributed as a legal cause to claimant’s
damage, thus reducing recovery.
3. Instruction 407.5b must be given whenever there is a contention that
some other cause may have contributed, in whole or part, to the occurrence or
resulting injury. If there is an issue of aggravation of a preexisting condition or of
subsequent injuries/multiple events, instructions 501.5a or b should be given as
well. See Hart v. Stern, 824 So. 2d 927, 93234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Marinelli v.
Grace, 608 So. 2d 833, 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
4. Instruction 407.5c (intervening cause) embraces two situations in
which false imprisonment may be a legal cause notwithstanding the influence of an
intervening cause: (1) when the damage was a reasonably foreseeable consequence
of the false imprisonment although the other cause was not foreseeable, Mozer v.
Semenza, 177 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), and (2) when the intervention of the
other cause was itself foreseeable, Gibson v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 386 So.
2d 520 (Fla. 1980).
5. “Probable” results. The committee recommends that the jury not be
instructed that the damage must be such as would have appeared “probable” to the
actor or to a reasonably careful person at the time of the false imprisonment. In
cases involving an intervening cause, the term “reasonably foreseeable” is used in
place of “probable.” The terms are synonymous and interchangeable. See Sharon
v. Luten, 165 So. 2d 806, 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Prosser, Torts 291 (3d ed.); 2
Harper & James, The Law of Torts 1137.
6. The term “substantially” is used throughout the instruction to describe
the extent of contribution or influence false imprisonment must have in order to be
regarded as a legal cause. “Substantially” was chosen because the word has an
acceptable common meaning and because it has been approved in Florida as a test
of causation not only in relation to defendant’s conduct, Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So. 2d
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 212
185, 191 (Fla. 1953), but also in relation to a plaintiff’s comparative negligence,
Shayne v. Saunders, 176 So. 495, 498 (Fla. 1937).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 213
407.6 ISSUES ON CLAIM
The issues for you to decide on (claimant’s) claim against (defendant) are
whether (defendant), without legal authority, intentionally caused (claimant) to
be restrained against [his] [her] will in a manner that was unreasonable and
unwarranted under the circumstances, and, if so, whether that restraint was a
legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 214
407.7 BURDEN OF PROOF ON CLAIM
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support (claimant’s) claim,
your verdict should be for (defendant).
However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports (claimant’s)
claim, [then your verdict should be for (claimant) and against (defendant)]
[then you shall consider the defense[s] raised by (defendant)].
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 215
407.8 DEFENSE ISSUES
On the [first] defense, the issue you must decide is whether [(defendant)]
[(defendant’s employee)] had probable cause to believe that goods held for sale
by (defendant) had been unlawfully taken by (claimant) and could be recovered
by restraining (claimant) for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner.
“Probable cause” means that at the time of the [incident] [restraint]
[arrest] the facts and circumstances known to (defendant) (other person) were
sufficiently strong to support a reasonable belief that (claimant) had
committed a criminal offense.
NOTES ON USE FOR 407.8
1. Probable cause is a complete defense to an allegation of false
imprisonment. See, e.g., Wille v. Raymond, 487 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
If other defenses are asserted which may not constitute a complete defense,
instruction 407.8 should be re-worded accordingly.
2. Arrest pursuant to warrant. An arrest pursuant to warrant or other
court order is privileged unless the instrument is void on its face. Willingham v.
City of Orlando, 929 So. 2d 43, 4849 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Jackson v. Navarro,
665 So. 2d 340, 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). If claimant seeks to avoid the effect of a
warrant or court order for his arrest, the issue will ordinarily be one of law, but if a
jury question arises, an appropriate instruction should be given allocating the
burden of proof to claimant.
3. Arrest without warrant or court order. The burden of pleading and
proving probable cause or other justification for restraint made without warrant or
court order is on defendant. Rivers v. Dillard’s Dept. Store, Inc., 698 So. 2d 1328,
1331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Rotte v. City of Jacksonville, 509 So. 2d 1252, 1253
(Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Various statutes justify restraint under stated circumstances,
e.g., F.S. 812.015, 901.15, 901.151 (2006).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 216
407.9 BURDEN OF PROOF ON DEFENSE ISSUES
If the greater weight of the evidence supports [one or more of]
(defendant’s) defense[s], your verdict should be for (defendant) and against
(claimant). If, however, the greater weight of the evidence does not support
(defendant’s) defense[s], and does support (claimant’s) claim, your verdict
should be for (claimant) and against (defendant).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 217
407.10 FALSE IMPRISONMENT DAMAGES
If you find for (defendant), you will not consider the matter of damages.
But, if you find for (claimant), you should award (claimant) an amount of
money that the greater weight of the evidence shows will fairly and adequately
compensate (claimant) for the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] as the greater
weight of the evidence shows was caused by the conduct complained of.
If you find for (claimant), you shall consider the following elements of
damages:
Elements may be adapted from instruction 406.12 Malicious Prosecution
Damages.
If you find for (claimant) but find that no [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]
has been proved, you should award (claimant) nominal damages. Nominal
damages are damages of an inconsequential amount which are awarded when
a wrong has been done but no actual damage is proved.
See instructions 503.1 and 503.2 for punitive damages.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 218
408 TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS
408.1 Introduction
408.2 Summary of Claims or Contentions
408.3 Greater Weight of the Evidence
408.4 Legal Cause
408.5 Issues on Plaintiff’s Claim Interference with Contract not
Terminable at Will
408.6 Issues on Plaintiff’s Claim Interference with Business
Relationship or with Contract Terminable at Will
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 219
408.1 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.
NOTES ON USE FOR 408.1
1. When instructing the jury before taking evidence, use instruction
202.1 in lieu of instruction 408.1. See Model Instruction No. 1. Instruction 408.1 is
for instructing the jury after the evidence has been concluded. Use the bracketed
language in instruction 408.1 when the final instructions are different from the
instructions given at the beginning of the case. If the instructions at the end of the
case are different from those given at the beginning of the case, the committee
recommends that the court point out the differences with appropriate language in
the final instructions, including an explanation for the difference, such as where the
court has directed a verdict on an issue.
2. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b) authorizes instructing the jury during trial or
before or after final argument. The timing of instructions is within the sound
discretion of the trial judge, to be determined on a case-by-case basis, but the
committee strongly recommends instructing the jury before final argument.
3. Each juror must be provided with a full set of jury instructions for use
during their deliberations. Rule 1.470(b). The trial judge may find it useful to
provide these instructions to the jurors when the judge reads the instructions in
open court so that jurors can read along with the judge, as the judge reads the
instructions aloud.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 220
408.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS OR CONTENTIONS
The claims [and defenses] in this case are as follows. (Claimant) claims
that (defendant) intentionally interfered with (claimant’s) [contract] [or]
[business relations] with (name) which caused harm to (claimant).
(Defendant) denies that claim [and also claims that (describe any
affirmative defenses)].
The parties must prove all claims [and defenses] by the greater weight
of the evidence. I will now define some of the terms you will use in deciding
this case.
(Revised November 22, 2017)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 221
408.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
“Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and
convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
NOTES ON USE FOR 408.3
1. Greater or lesser number of witnesses. The committee recommends
that no instruction be given regarding the relationship (or lack of relationship)
between the greater weight of the evidence and the greater or lesser number of
witnesses.
2. Circumstantial evidence. The committee recommends that no
instruction generally be given distinguishing circumstantial from direct evidence.
See Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 222
408.4 LEGAL CAUSE
a. Legal cause generally:
Interference with [a contract] [a business relationship] is a cause of
[loss] [injury] [or] [damage] if it directly and in natural and continuous
sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such [loss]
[injury] [or] [damage], so that it can reasonably be said that, but for the
interference with [a contract] [a business relationship], the [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage] would not have occurred.
b. Concurring cause:
In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]
interference with [a contract] [a business relationship] need not be the only
cause. Interference with [a contract] [a business relationship] may be a legal
cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] even though it operates in combination
with [the act of another] [some natural cause] [or] [some other cause] if the
interference with [a contract] [a business relationship] contributes
substantially to producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage].
c. Intervening cause:
Do not use the bracketed first sentence if this instruction is preceded by the
instruction on concurring cause:*
*[In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage], interference with [a contract] [a business relationship] need not be
its only cause.] Interference with [a contract] [a business relationship] may
also be a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] even though it operates in
combination with [the act of another] [some natural cause] [or] [some other
cause] occurring after the interference with [a contract] [a business
relationship] occurs if [such other cause was itself reasonably foreseeable and
the interference with [a contract] [a business relationship] contributes
substantially to producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]] [or] [the
resulting [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] was a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of the interference with [a contract] [a business relationship] and
the interference with [a contract] [a business relationship] contributes
substantially to producing it].
NOTES ON USE FOR 408.4
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 223
1. Instruction 408.4a (legal cause generally) is to be given in all cases.
Instruction 407.6b (concurring cause), to be given when the court considers it
necessary, does not set forth any additional standard for the jury to consider in
determining whether the tortious interference with a business relationship was a
legal cause of damage but only negates the idea that a defendant is excused from
the consequences of his or her tortious interference with a business relationship by
reason of some other cause concurring in time and contributing to the same
damage. Instruction 408.4c (intervening cause) is to be given only in cases in
which the court concludes that there is a jury issue as to the presence and effect of
an intervening cause.
2. The jury will properly consider instruction 408.4a not only in
determining whether defendant’s tortious interference with a business relationship
is actionable but also in determining whether claimant’s conduct contributed as a
legal cause to claimant’s damage, thus reducing recovery.
3. Instruction 408.4b must be given whenever there is a contention that
some other cause may have contributed, in whole or part, to the occurrence or
resulting injury. If there is an issue of aggravation of a preexisting condition or of
subsequent injuries/multiple events, instruction 501.5a or b should be given as
well. See Hart v. Stern, 824 So. 2d 927, 93234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Marinelli v.
Grace, 608 So. 2d 833, 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
4. Instruction 408.4c (intervening cause) embraces two situations in
which tortious interference with a business relationship may be a legal cause
notwithstanding the influence of an intervening cause: (1) when the damage was a
reasonably foreseeable consequence of the tortious interference although the other
cause was not foreseeable, Mozer v. Semenza, 177 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965),
and (2) when the intervention of the other cause was itself foreseeable, Gibson v.
Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 386 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1980).
5. “Probable” results. The committee recommends that the jury not be
instructed that the damage must be such as would have appeared “probable” to the
actor or to a reasonably careful person at the time of the tortious interference. In
cases involving an intervening cause, the term “reasonably foreseeable” is used in
place of “probable.” The terms are synonymous and interchangeable. See Sharon
v. Luten, 165 So. 2d 806, 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Prosser, Torts 291 (3d ed.); 2
Harper & James, The Law of Torts 1137.
6. The term “substantially” is used throughout the instruction to describe
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 224
the extent of contribution or influence tortious interference must have in order to
be regarded as a legal cause. “Substantially” was chosen because the word has an
acceptable common meaning and because it has been approved in Florida as a test
of causation not only in relation to defendant’s conduct, Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So. 2d
185, 191 (Fla. 1953), but also in relation to a plaintiff’s comparative negligence,
Shayne v. Saunders, 176 So. 495, 498 (Fla. 1937).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 225
408.5 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM — INTERFERENCE WITH
CONTRACT NOT TERMINABLE AT WILL
The issues for you to decide on (claimant’s) claim against (defendant) are
whether (defendant) intentionally interfered with a contract between (claimant)
and (name); and, if so, whether such interference was a legal cause of [loss]
[injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant).
A person interferes with a contract between two [or more] other persons
if he or she induces or otherwise causes one of them to breach or refuse to
perform the contract.
Intentional interference with another person’s contract is improper.
Interference is intentional if the person interfering knows of the contract with
which he or she is interfering, knows he or she is interfering, and desires to
interfere or knows that interference is substantially certain to occur as a
result of his or her action.
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support (claimant’s) claim,
then your verdict should be for (defendant). However, if the greater weight of
the evidence supports (claimant’s) claim, then your verdict should be for
(claimant) and against (defendant).
If you find for (defendant), you will not consider the matter of damages.
But, if you find for (claimant), you should award (claimant) an amount of
money that the greater weight of the evidence shows will fairly and adequately
compensate (claimant) for the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] that was caused by
the intentional interference.
NOTES ON USE FOR 408.5
1. Instruction 408.5 is for cases involving a contract not terminable at
will. If there are factual disputes as to the existence or the non-terminable nature of
a contract, an instruction submitting those preliminary issues must precede
instruction 408.5 and it should be modeled on instruction 401.14 et seq. If one or
more of these preliminary issues has been tried but the court determines it as a
matter of law, the court should give a preemptive instruction modeled on
instruction 401.13.
2. Instruction 408.5 is intended to apply to the majority of cases where
the issue to be determined is whether the defendant has intentionally interfered
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 226
with a contract not terminable at will. In most such cases, there is no “justification”
or “privilege”; therefore if the interference is “intentional,” it is likewise
“improper.” However, in certain relatively rare factual situations, interference with
a contract not terminable at will may be justified or privileged and, therefore,
proper even though intentional, see, e.g., RESTATEMENT (2d) OF TORTS §§770
(“Actor Responsible for Welfare of Another”), 772 (“Advice as Proper or
Improper Interference”), 773 (“Asserting Bona Fide Claim”), 774 (“Agreement
Illegal or Contrary to Public Policy”). See generally, id. §767; W. Prosser, Law of
Torts, §§129, 94244 (4th ed. 1971). In such cases, instruction 408.5 will have to
be modified.
3. For simplicity, the committee used the terms “proper” and “improper”
rather than “tortious,” “wrongful,” “justified,” or “privileged” interference.
Depending on the nature of the interference and the relations between claimant and
the third parties, the burden of proof on this issue may be upon either claimant, to
prove the interference was improper, or upon defendant, to prove it was proper.
See Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Cotton, 463 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1985); Heavener,
Ogier Services, Inc. v. R. W. Florida Region, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA
1982); Wackenhut Corp. v. Maim/one, 389 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). See
also RESTATEMENT (2d) OF TORTS §§767 et seq. See further, instruction 408.6 and
Note 3.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 227
408.6 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM — INTERFERENCE WITH
BUSINESS RELATIONS OR WITH CONTRACT TERMINABLE AT
WILL
The issues for you to decide on (claimant’s) claim against (defendant) are
whether (defendant) improperly and intentionally interfered with business
relations between (claimant) and (name); and if so, whether such interference
was the legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant).
The first issue you will decide is whether (defendant) interfered with
(claimant’s) business relations with (name) by inducing or otherwise causing
(name) [not to enter into a contract with (claimant)] [not to continue doing
business with (claimant)] [to terminate or bring to an end a contract which
(name) was not bound to continue with (claimant)] [(describe other
interference)].
If the greater weight of the evidence does not show that (defendant)
interfered with (claimant’s) business relations, your verdict should be for
(defendant).
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence shows that (defendant)
did [interfere with (claimant’s) business relations with (name)] [cause (name) to
cease doing business with (claimant)], you must then decide whether
(defendant’s) interference was improper.
A person who enjoys business relations with another is entitled to
protection from improper interference with that relationship. However,
another [person] [business] is entitled to [compete for the business]
N.1
[or]
N.2
[advance [his] [her] [its] own financial interest]
N.2
so long as [he] [she] [it] has
a proper reason or motive and [he] [she] [it] uses proper methods.
A person who interferes with the business relations of another with the
motive and purpose, at least in part, to advance [or protect]
N.2
[his] [her] [its]
own [business] [or] [financial]
N.2
interests, does not interfere with an improper
motive. But one who interferes only out of spite, or to do injury to others, or
for other bad motive, has no justification, and the interference is improper.
Also, a person who interferes with another’s business relations using
ordinary business methods [of competition]
N.1
does not interfere by an
improper method. But one who uses [physical violence] [misrepresentations]
[illegal conduct] [threats of illegal conduct] [or] [(identify other improper
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 228
conduct)]
N.4
has no privilege to use those methods, and interference using such
methods is improper.
If the greater weight of the evidence does not show that (defendant’s)
interference was improper, your verdict should be for the (defendant).
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence shows that (defendant’s)
interference was improper, you must finally decide whether (defendant’s)
interference was intentional.]
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence shows that (defendant)
did [interfere with (claimant’s) business relations with (name)] [cause (name) to
cease doing business with (claimant)], you must then decide whether
(defendant’s) interference was intentional.]
Interference is intentional if the person interfering knows of the
business relationship with which he is interfering, knows he is interfering with
that relationship, and desires to interfere or knows that interference is
substantially certain to occur as a result of his action.
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support (claimant’s) claim
[that (defendant) intentionally interfered with (claimant’s) [contract] [business
relationship] with (name),]
N.3
then your verdict should be for (defendant).
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports (claimant’s)
claim, then your verdict should be for (claimant).]
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports (claimant’s)
claim, then you shall consider (defendant’s) defense. On the defense, the issue
for your determination is whether (defendant) acted properly in interfering as
[he] [she] [it] did.]
A party is entitled to [compete for the business]
N.1
[or]
N.2
[advance [his]
[her] [its] own financial interest]
N.2
so long as [he] [she] [it] has a proper
reason or motive and [he] [she] [it] uses proper methods. A person who
interferes with the business relations of another with the motive and purpose,
at least in part, to advance [or protect]
N.2
[his] [her] [its] own [business] [or]
[financial]
N.2
interests, does not interfere with an improper motive. But one
who interferes only out of spite, or to do injury to others, or for other bad
motive, has no justification, and the interference is improper.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 229
Also, a person who interferes with another’s business relations using
ordinary business methods [of competition]
N.1
does not interfere by an
improper method. But one who uses [physical violence] [misrepresentations]
[illegal conduct] [threats of illegal conduct] [or] [(identify other improper
conduct)]
N.4
has no privilege to use those methods, and interference using such
methods is improper.]
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence [does not support the
defense of (defendant) and the greater weight of the evidence] supports
(claimant’s) claim, then your verdict should be for (claimant).]
If you find for (defendant), you will not consider the matter of damages.
But, if you find for (claimant), you should award (claimant) an amount of
money that the greater weight of the evidence shows will fairly and adequately
compensate (claimant) for the [loss] [or] [damage] that was caused by the
intentional interference.
NOTES ON USE FOR 408.6
1. The bracketed phrases marked N.1 should be given only in cases
involving a competition defense and not in cases involving only a financial interest
defense.
2. The bracketed phrases marked N.2 should be given only when there is
a factual issue of whether the defendant interfered to protect his own financial
interest in the business of another.
3. Pending further development of the law, the committee takes no
position on whether it is plaintiff’s burden to prove that conduct was improper or
defendant’s burden to prove that conduct was justified. Bracketed language is
included to cover both alternatives, depending on what the court decides on that
issue.
4. Pending further development of the law, the committee takes no
position as to whether “improper conduct” must either violate a statute or
constitute a separate tort. Instruction 408.6 poses the “propriety” of the conduct as
an issue for the jury to decide. The factors listed are not considered by the
committee to be exclusive and, if the court determines that other factors may be
considered by the jury, this instruction should be modified accordingly. See, e.g.,
RESTATEMENT (2d) OF TORTS §767. If the court determines as a matter of law that
the conduct is “improper,” a preemptive instruction modeled after instruction
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 230
401.13 should be given.
5. In cases where a claimant alternatively asserts that the contract is
either terminable or non-terminable (or involves a prospective business relation),
the court should give additional instructions to explain the distinctions between
instructions 408.5 and 408.6 to assist the jury in determining how to apply these
alternative instructions and their different standards.
6. The two most common bases for interference claimed to be “proper”
are the defendant’s competitive purposes or his financial interest in the business of
the third person whose relationship with claimant was interrupted. See
RESTATEMENT §§768, 769. The committee has therefore included in instruction
408.6 the substance of the issues to be considered in those situations. The
committee has not attempted to include the substance of any other issues on this
point, e.g., Restatement §767, which may control other cases. In such cases,
instruction 408.6 will have to be modified accordingly.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 231
409 MISREPRESENTATION
409.1 Introduction
409.2 Summary of Claims
409.3 Greater Weight of the Evidence
409.4 Negligence
409.5 Material Fact
409.6 Legal Cause
409.7 Issues on Plaintiff’s Claim Fraudulent Misrepresentation
409.8 Issues on Plaintiff’s Claim Negligent Misrepresentation
409.9 Issues on Plaintiff’s Claim False Information Negligently
Supplied for the Guidance of Others
409.10 Burden of Proof on Main Claim
409.11 Defense Issues
409.12 Burden of Proof on Defense Issues
409.13 Damages
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 232
409.1 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.
NOTES ON USE FOR 409.1
1. When instructing the jury before taking evidence, use instruction
202.1 in lieu of instruction 409.1. See Model Instruction No. 1. Instruction 409.1 is
for instructing the jury after the evidence has been concluded. Use the bracketed
language in instruction 409.1 when the final instructions are different from the
instructions given at the beginning of the case. If the instructions at the end of the
case are different from those given at the beginning of the case, the committee
recommends that the court point out the differences with appropriate language in
the final instructions, including an explanation for the difference, such as where the
court has directed a verdict on an issue.
2. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b) authorizes instructing the jury during trial or
before or after final argument. The timing of instructions is within the sound
discretion of the trial judge, to be determined on a case-by-case basis, but the
committee strongly recommends instructing the jury before final argument.
3. Each juror must be provided with a full set of jury instructions for use
during their deliberations. Rule 1.470(b). The trial judge may find it useful to
provide these instructions to the jurors when the judge reads the instructions in
open court so that jurors can read along with the judge, as the judge reads the
instructions aloud.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 233
409.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
The claims [and defenses] in this case are as follows. (Claimant) claims
that (defendant) [fraudulently] [and] [or] [negligently] misrepresented that
(describe alleged misrepresentation) [and] [or] [negligently supplied false
information for (describe purpose of alleged false information)] which caused
[him] [her] [it] harm.
(Defendant) denies that claim [and also claims that (claimant) was
[himself] [herself] [itself] negligent in (describe the alleged comparative
negligence) which caused [his] [her] [its] harm]. [Additionally (describe any
other affirmative defenses).]
The parties must prove all claims [and defenses] by the greater weight
of the evidence. I will now define some of the terms you will use in deciding
this case.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 234
409.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
“Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and
convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
NOTES ON USE FOR 409.3
1. Greater or lesser number of witnesses. The committee recommends
that no instruction be given regarding the relationship (or lack of relationship)
between the greater weight of the evidence and the greater or lesser number of
witnesses.
2. Circumstantial evidence. The committee recommends that no
instruction generally be given distinguishing circumstantial from direct evidence.
See Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 235
409.4 NEGLIGENCE
Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care, which is the care that a
reasonably careful person would use under like circumstances. Negligence is
doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do under like
circumstances or failing to do something that a reasonably careful person
would do under like circumstances.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 236
409.5 MATERIAL FACT
A material fact is one that is of such importance that (claimant) would
not have [entered into the transaction] [acted], but for the false statement.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 237
409.6 LEGAL CAUSE
a. Legal cause generally:
Misrepresentation of a material fact is a legal cause of [loss] [injury]
[or] [damage] if it directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces
or contributes substantially to producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage], so
that it can reasonably be said that, but for the misrepresentation, the [loss]
[injury] [or] [damage] would not have occurred.
b. Concurring cause:
In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]
misrepresentation of a material fact need not be the only cause.
Misrepresentation of a material fact may be a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage] even though it operates in combination with [the act of another]
[some natural cause] [or] [some other cause] if the misrepresentation
contributes substantially to producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage].
c. Intervening cause:
*Do not use the bracketed first sentence if this instruction is preceded by the
instruction on concurring cause:
*[In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage], misrepresentation of a material fact need not be its only cause.]
Misrepresentation of a material fact may also be a legal cause of [loss] [injury]
[or] [damage] even though it operates in combination with [the act of another]
[some natural cause] [or] [some other cause] occurring after the
misrepresentation occurs if [such other cause was itself reasonably foreseeable
and the misrepresentation contributes substantially to producing such [loss]
[injury] [or] [damage]] [or] [the resulting [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] was a
reasonably foreseeable consequence of the misrepresentation and the
misrepresentation contributes substantially to producing it].
NOTES ON USE FOR 409.6
1. Instruction 409.6a (legal cause generally) is to be given in all cases.
Instruction 409.6b (concurring cause), to be given when the court considers it
necessary, does not set forth any additional standard for the jury to consider in
determining whether a misrepresentation was a legal cause of damage but only
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 238
negates the idea that a defendant is excused from the consequences of his or her
misrepresentation by reason of some other cause concurring in time and
contributing to the same damage. Instruction 409.6c (intervening cause) is to be
given only in cases in which the court concludes that there is a jury issue as to the
presence and effect of an intervening cause.
2. The jury will properly consider instruction 409.6a not only in
determining whether defendant’s misrepresentation is actionable but also in
determining whether claimant’s conduct contributed as a legal cause to claimant’s
damage, thus reducing recovery.
3. Instruction 409.6b must be given whenever there is a contention that
some other cause may have contributed, in whole or part, to the occurrence or
resulting injury.
4. Instruction 409.6c (intervening cause) embraces two situations in
which a misrepresentation may be a legal cause notwithstanding the influence of
an intervening cause: (1) when the damage was a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of the misrepresentation although the other cause was not foreseeable,
Mozer v. Semenza, 177 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), and (2) when the
intervention of the other cause was itself foreseeable, Gibson v. Avis Rent-A-Car
System, Inc., 386 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1980).
5. “Probable” results. The committee recommends that the jury not be
instructed that the damage must be such as would have appeared “probable” to the
actor or to a reasonably careful person at the time of the misrepresentation. In cases
involving an intervening cause, the term “reasonably foreseeable” is used in place
of “probable.” The terms are synonymous and interchangeable. See Sharon v.
Luten, 165 So. 2d 806, 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Prosser, Torts 291 (3d ed.); 2
Harper & James, The Law of Torts 1137.
6. The term “substantially” is used throughout the instruction to describe
the extent of contribution or influence a misrepresentation must have in order to be
regarded as a legal cause. “Substantially” was chosen because the word has an
acceptable common meaning and because it has been approved in Florida as a test
of causation not only in relation to defendant’s negligence, Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So.
2d 185, 191 (Fla. 1953), but also in relation to plaintiff’s comparative negligence,
Shayne v. Saunders, 176 So. 495, 498 (Fla. 1937).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 239
409.7 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM — FRAUDULENT
MISREPRESENTATION
The issues for you to decide on (claimant’s) claim [for fraudulent
misrepresentation] are:
The bracketed language should be used for clarity when there are also
claims for negligent misrepresentation and/or negligently supplying false
information for the guidance of others.
First, whether (defendant) [intentionally]* made a false statement
concerning a material fact;
*The word “intentionally” should be used for clarity when there is also a
claim for negligent misrepresentation.
Second, whether (defendant) knew the statement was false when [he]
[she] [it] made it or made the statement knowing [he] [she] [it] did not know
whether it was true or false;
Third, whether (defendant) intended that another would rely on the false
statement;
Fourth, whether (claimant) relied on the false statement; and, if so,
Fifth, whether the false statement was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage] to (claimant).
[On this claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, the]** (claimant) may
rely on a false statement, even though its falsity could have been discovered if
(claimant) had made an investigation. However, (claimant) may not rely on a
false statement if [he] [she] [it] knew it was false or its falsity was obvious to
[him] [her] [it].
**The bracketed language should be used for clarity when there is also a
claim for negligent misrepresentation.
NOTES ON USE FOR 409.7
1. It appears that Florida recognizes two separate theories of recovery for
damage occurring as a result of misrepresentation. One basis of recovery is for
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 240
fraud and the other is for negligent misrepresentation. The elements of those two
theories are set forth in First Interstate Development Corp. v. Ablanedo, 511 So. 2d
536 (Fla. 1987); Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1985); Lance v. Wade, 457
So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1984); Wallerstein v. Hospital Corp. of America, 573 So. 2d 9
(Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Atlantic National Bank v. Vest, 480 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1985).
2. One or more issues in instruction 409.7 may need to be omitted and
the issues renumbered if there is no question of fact for determination by the jury.
A preemptive instruction on omitted issues should be given only if required by
events during the trial.
3. The recipient of a fraudulent misrepresentation is justified in relying
upon its truth, even when an investigation might have revealed its falsity, unless he
or she knows the representation to be false or its falsity is obvious to him or her.
Besett v. Basnett, 389 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 1980).
4. There must be actual damage for recovery in a fraud action. Fraud that
does not result in damage is not actionable. Casey v. Welch, 50 So. 2d 124 (Fla.
1951); Stokes v. Victory Land Co., 128 So. 408 (Fla. 1930); Pryor v. Oak Ridge
Development Corp., 119 So. 326 (1928); Wheeler v. Baars, 15 So. 584 (Fla. 1894);
National Aircraft Services, Inc. v. Aeroserv International, Inc., 544 So. 2d 1063
(Fla. 3d DCA 1989); National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Little Italy Restaurant &
Delicatessen, Inc., 362 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). The damage attributable
to the fraud must be separate from the damages flowing from a breach of contract.
AFM Corp. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 515 So. 2d 180 (Fla.
1987); National Aircraft Services, Inc. v. Aeroserv International, Inc., 544 So. 2d
1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); John Brown Automation, Inc. v. Nobles, 537 So. 2d 614
(Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Rolls v. Bliss & Nyitray, Inc., 408 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA
1981), dism. 415 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. 1982).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 241
409.8 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM — NEGLIGENT
MISREPRESENTATION
The [next] issues for you to decide on (claimant’s) claim [for negligent
misrepresentation and they]* are:
*The bracketed language should be used for clarity when there are also
claims for fraudulent misrepresentations and/or negligently supplying false
information for the guidance of others.
First, whether (defendant) made a statement concerning a material fact
that [he] [she] [it] believed to be true but which was in fact false;
Second, whether (defendant) was negligent in making the statement
because [he] [she] [it] should have known the statement was false;
Third, whether in making the statement, (defendant) intended [or
expected] that another would rely on the statement;
Fourth, whether (claimant) justifiably relied on the false statement; and,
if so,
Fifth, whether the false statement was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage] to (claimant).
NOTES ON USE FOR 409.8
1. It appears that Florida recognizes two separate theories of recovery for
damage occurring as a result of misrepresentation. One basis of recovery is for
fraud and the other is for negligent misrepresentation. The elements of those two
theories are set forth in First Interstate Development Corp. v. Ablanedo, 511 So. 2d
536 (Fla. 1987); Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1985); Lance v. Wade, 457
So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1984); Wallerstein v. Hospital Corp. of America, 573 So. 2d 9
(Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Atlantic National Bank v. Vest, 480 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1985).
2. The committee takes no position as to whether there are separate and
distinct causes of action for negligent misrepresentation under Restatement (2d) of
Torts §552 and false information negligently supplied under the common law. See
Gilchrist Timber Co. v. ITT Rayonier, Inc., 696 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1997).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 242
3. One or more issues in instruction 409.8 may need to be omitted and
the issues renumbered if there is no question of fact for determination by the jury.
A preemptive instruction on omitted issues should be given only if required by
events during the trial.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 243
409.9 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM — FALSE
INFORMATION NEGLIGENTLY SUPPLIED
FOR THE GUIDANCE OF OTHERS
The [next] issues for you to decide on (claimant’s) claim [for false
information negligently supplied for the guidance of others and they]* are:
*The bracketed language should be used for clarity when there are also
claims for fraudulent misrepresentations and/or negligently supplying false
information for the guidance of others.
First, whether (defendant) supplied false information to (claimant) in the
course of (defendant’s) [business] [profession] [employment] [or] [in any
transaction in which (defendant) had an economic interest];
Second, whether (defendant) was negligent in [obtaining] [or]
[communicating] the false information;
Third, whether (claimant) was a person for whose benefit and guidance
(defendant) intended to supply the false information for use in (claimant’s)
[business transaction] [(describe specific transaction)];
Fourth, whether (defendant) intended the false information to influence
(claimant) in this business transaction;
Fifth, whether (claimant) justifiably relied on the false information; and,
if so,
Sixth, whether the false information was a legal cause of [loss] [injury]
[or] [damage] to (claimant).
NOTES ON USE FOR 409.9
1. One or more issues in instruction 409.9 may need to be omitted and
the issues renumbered if there is no question of fact for determination by the jury.
For example, when there is a public duty under RESTATEMENT (2d) OF TORTS
§552(3), the third issue may not require jury determination. A preemptive
instruction on omitted issues should be given only if required by events during the
trial.
2. This instruction sets forth the essence of a RESTATEMENT (2d) OF
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 244
TORTS §552 claim without incorporating some of the Restatement’s more complex
language. There may be factual circumstances in a specific §552 case that are not
covered by these standard instructions. For example, these instructions may require
modification if false information was passed on to the plaintiff by a “recipient.”
Comment (b) to §552 suggests that this section applies to an opinion given upon
facts equally well known to both the supplier and the recipient. The committee
takes no position upon the application of this section to opinions under Florida law.
If the instruction is used in the case of an opinion, it may require modification.
3. The committee takes no position as to whether there are separate and
distinct causes of action for negligent misrepresentation under RESTATEMENT §552
and false information negligently supplied under the common law. See Gilchrist
Timber Co. v. ITT Rayonier, Inc., 696 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1997).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 245
409.10 BURDEN OF PROOF ON MAIN CLAIM
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support [one or more of]
(claimant’s) claim[s], your verdict should be for (defendant) [on [that] [those]
claim[s]].
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports [one or more
of] (claimant’s) claim[s], then your verdict should be for (claimant) and against
(defendant) [on [that] [those] claim[s]].]
NOTE ON USE FOR 409.10
Use the second paragraph if there are no defense issues. If there are defense
issues, omit the second paragraph and go to instruction 409.11.
(Revised November 22, 2017)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 246
409.11 DEFENSE ISSUES
If, however, the greater weight of the evidence supports [one or more of]
(claimant’s) claim[s] [against [one] [or] [both] [more] of the defendants], then
you shall consider the defense[s] raised by (defendant).
On the [first] defense, the issues for you to decide are whether (claimant)
was negligent in relying on (defendant’s) statement; and, if so, whether such
negligence was a contributing legal cause of any [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]
sustained by (claimant).
NOTES ON USE FOR 409.11
1. In Gilchrist Timber Co. v. ITT Rayonier, Inc., 696 So. 2d 334 (Fla.
1997), the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of comparative negligence, as
codified in F.S. 768.81, applied to an action for negligent misrepresentation as set
forth in the RESTATEMENT (2d) OF TORTS §552, which requires proof of justifiable
reliance.
2. In Gilchrist Timber Co., the Court further noted that while the
RESTATEMENT discusses the issue in terms of contributory negligence in §552A, a
majority of the states that have adopted the comparative negligence doctrine and
considered the issue agree that comparative negligence principles apply to cases
involving negligent misrepresentation. See Gilchrist Timber Co., 696 So. 2d at
337. The committee recognizes that a logical tension could exist within a verdict
determining that the claimant’s reliance was justifiable, but that the claimant was
also comparatively negligent (e.g., in relying on the statement by failing to conduct
an adequate investigation). The committee also recognizes that justifiable reliance
may involve a subjective standard distinct from the objective standard used in
defining reasonable care. RESTATEMENT §545A, cmt. B (“Justification is a matter
of the qualities and characteristics of the particular plaintiff, and the circumstances
of the particular case, rather than of the application of a community standard of
conduct to all cases.”) Pending further development of the law, the committee
reserves the question of the relationship, if any, between justifiable reliance and
comparative negligence.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 247
409.12 BURDEN OF PROOF ON DEFENSE ISSUES
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support (defendant’s)
defense[s] and the greater weight of the evidence supports [one] [or] [more of]
(claimant’s) claim[s], then your verdict should be for (claimant) in the total
amount of [his] [her] [its] damages.
However, if the greater weight of the evidence shows that both
(claimant) and [(defendant)] [one or more of the defendants] were negligent
and that the negligence of each contributed as a legal cause of [loss] [injury]
[or] [damage] sustained by (claimant), you should determine what percentage
of the total negligence of [both] [all] parties to this action you apportion to
each of them.
(Revised February 1, 2018)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 248
409.13 DAMAGES
If you find for (defendant), you will not consider the matter of damages.
But, if you find for (claimant), you should award (claimant) an amount of
money that the greater weight of the evidence shows will fairly and adequately
compensate (claimant) for (describe appropriate elements of those damages
incurred by claimant).
NOTES ON USE FOR 409.13
1. RESTATEMENT (2d) OF TORTS §552B describes the damages
recoverable for negligently supplying false information for the guidance of others.
The elements of recoverable damage under instruction 409.9 should be written
with reference to that section.
2. In fraud cases where punitive damages are at issue, First Interstate
Development Corp. v. Ablanedo, 511 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1987), see instructions 503.1
and 503.2.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 249
410 OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT CAUSING SEVERE EMOTIONAL
DISTRESS
410.1 Introduction
410.2 Summary of Claims
410.3 Greater Weight of the Evidence
410.4 Extreme and Outrageous Conduct
410.5 Severe Emotional Distress
410.6 Legal Cause
410.7 Issues on Claim
410.8 Burden of Proof on Claim
NOTE ON USE
The tort of “intentional infliction of emotional distress” is recognized in
Florida. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. McCarson, 467 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1985).
The boundaries of this tort, particularly when the claimant is a third party affected
by conduct occurring between the defendant and another person, are not clearly
defined. Id.; Williams v. City of Minneola, 575 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); M.
M. v. M. P. S., 556 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Ford Motor Credit Co. v.
Sheehan, 373 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); RESTATEMENT (2d) OF TORTS, §46.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 250
410.1 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.
NOTES ON USE FOR 410.1
1. When instructing the jury before taking evidence, use instruction
202.1 in lieu of instruction 410.1. See Model Instruction No. 1. Instruction 410.1 is
for instructing the jury after the evidence has been concluded. Use the bracketed
language in instruction 410.1 when the final instructions are different from the
instructions given at the beginning of the case. If the instructions at the end of the
case are different from those given at the beginning of the case, the committee
recommends that the court point out the differences with appropriate language in
the final instructions, including an explanation for the difference, such as when the
court has directed a verdict on an issue.
2. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b) authorizes instructing the jury during trial or
before or after final argument. The timing of instructions is within the sound
discretion of the trial judge, to be determined on a case-by-case basis, but the
committee strongly recommends instructing the jury before final argument.
3. Each juror must be provided with a full set of jury instructions for use
during their deliberations. Rule 1.470(b). The trial judge may find it useful to
provide these instructions to the jurors when the judge reads the instructions in
open court so that jurors can read along with the judge, as the judge reads the
instructions aloud.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 251
410.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
The claims [and defenses] in this case are as follows. (Claimant) claims
that (defendant) acted extremely and outrageously in (describe alleged conduct)
which caused [him] [her] severe emotional distress.
(Defendant) denies that claim [and also claims that (describe any
affirmative defenses)].
The parties must prove all claims [and defenses] by the greater weight
of the evidence. I will now define some of the terms you will use in deciding
this case.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 252
410.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
“Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and
convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
NOTES ON USE FOR 410.3
1. Greater or lesser number of witnesses. The committee recommends
that no instruction be given regarding the relationship (or lack of relationship)
between the greater weight of the evidence and the greater or lesser number of
witnesses.
2. Circumstantial evidence. The committee recommends that no
instruction generally be given distinguishing circumstantial from direct evidence.
See Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 253
410.4 EXTREME AND OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT
Extreme and outrageous conduct is behavior, which, under the
circumstances, goes beyond all possible bounds of decency and is regarded as
shocking, atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 254
410.5 SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Emotional distress is severe when it is of such intensity or duration that
no ordinary person should be expected to endure it.
NOTE ON USE FOR 410.5
A special instruction may be warranted when the evidence shows the
defendant knew of the claimant’s heightened susceptibility to emotional distress.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 255
410.6 LEGAL CAUSE
a. Legal cause generally:
Extreme and outrageous conduct is a legal cause of severe emotional
distress if it directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or
contributes substantially to producing such severe emotional distress, so that
it can reasonably be said that, but for the extreme and outrageous conduct,
the severe emotional distress would not have occurred.
b. Concurring cause:
In order to be regarded as a legal cause of severe emotional distress
extreme and outrageous conduct need not be the only cause. Extreme and
outrageous conduct may be a legal cause of severe emotional distress even
though it operates in combination with [the act of another] [some natural
cause] [or] [some other cause] if the extreme and outrageous conduct
contributes substantially to producing such severe emotional distress.
c. Intervening cause:
Do not use the bracketed first sentence if this instruction is preceded by the
instruction on concurring cause:*
*[In order to be regarded as a legal cause of severe emotional distress,
extreme and outrageous conduct need not be its only cause.] Extreme and
outrageous conduct may also be a legal cause of severe emotional distress even
though it operates in combination with [the act of another] [some natural
cause] [or] [some other cause] occurring after the extreme and outrageous
conduct occurs if [such other cause was itself reasonably foreseeable and the
extreme and outrageous conduct contributes substantially to producing such
severe emotional distress] [or] [the resulting severe emotional distress was a
reasonably foreseeable consequence of the extreme and outrageous conduct
and the extreme and outrageous conduct contributes substantially to
producing it].
NOTES ON USE FOR 410.6
1. Instruction 410.6a (legal cause generally) is to be given in all cases.
Instruction 410.6b (concurring cause), to be given when the court considers it
necessary, does not set forth any additional standard for the jury to consider in
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 256
determining whether outrageous conduct was a legal cause of damage but only
negates the idea that a defendant is excused from the consequences of his
outrageous conduct by reason of some other cause concurring in time and
contributing to the same damage. Instruction 410.6c (intervening cause) is to be
given only in cases in which the court concludes that there is a jury issue as to the
presence and effect of an intervening cause.
2. The jury will properly consider instruction 410.6a not only in
determining whether defendant’s outrageous conduct is actionable but also in
determining whether claimant’s conduct contributed as a legal cause to claimant’s
damage, thus reducing recovery.
3. Instruction 410.6b must be given whenever there is a contention that
some other cause may have contributed, in whole or part, to the occurrence or
resulting injury. If there is an issue of aggravation of a preexisting condition or of
subsequent injuries/multiple events, instruction 501.5a or b should be given as
well. See Hart v. Stern, 824 So. 2d 927, 93234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Marinelli v.
Grace, 608 So. 2d 833, 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
4. Instruction 410.6c (intervening cause) embraces two situations in
which outrageous conduct may be a legal cause notwithstanding the influence of
an intervening cause: (1) when the damage was a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of the outrageous conduct although the other cause was not
foreseeable, Mozer v. Semenza, 177 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), and (2) when
the intervention of the other cause was itself foreseeable, Gibson v. Avis Rent-A-
Car System, Inc., 386 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1980).
5. “Probable” results. The committee recommends that the jury not be
instructed that the damage must be such as would have appeared “probable” to the
actor or to a reasonably careful person at the time of the outrageous conduct. In
cases involving an intervening cause, the term “reasonably foreseeable” is used in
place of “probable.” The terms are synonymous and interchangeable. See Sharon
v. Luten, 165 So. 2d 806, 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Prosser, Torts 291 (3d ed.); 2
Harper & James, The Law of Torts 1137.
6. The term “substantially” is used throughout the instruction to describe
the extent of contribution or influence outrageous conduct must have in order to be
regarded as a legal cause. “Substantially” was chosen because the word has an
acceptable common meaning and because it has been approved in Florida as a test
of causation not only in relation to defendant’s negligence, Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 257
2d 185, 191 (Fla. 1953), but also in relation to plaintiff’s comparative negligence,
Shayne v. Saunders, 176 So. 495, 498 (Fla. 1937).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 258
410.7 ISSUES ON CLAIM
The issues for you to decide on (claimant’s) claim are:
whether (defendant) engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct; and
acted with the intent to cause severe emotional distress or with reckless
disregard of the high probability of causing severe emotional distress; and, if
so
whether that extreme and outrageous conduct was a legal cause of
severe emotional distress to (claimant).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 259
410.8 BURDEN OF PROOF ON CLAIM
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support (claimant’s) claim,
your verdict should be for (defendant).
However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports (claimant’s)
claim, [then your verdict should be for (claimant) and against (defendant)]
[then you shall consider the defense raised by (defendant)].
[If the greater weight of the evidence supports the defense, your verdict
should be for (defendant). However, if the greater weight of the evidence does
not support the defense, your verdict should be for (claimant) and against
(defendant).]
NOTES ON USE FOR 410.8
1. The RESTATEMENT (2d) OF TORTS and case law discuss the defense of
“privilege.” See Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. McCarson, 429 So. 2d 1287
(Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Baker v. Florida National Bank, 559 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1990); RESTATEMENT §46, cmt. g. In addition to banks and insurers,
merchants have asserted the defense. In Southland Corp. v. Bartsch, 522 So. 2d
1053, 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), the court held that a convenience store manager’s
conduct (having a six-year-old child arrested for stealing gum) was no more than
an assertion of the store’s rights in a legally permissible way, and was privileged
“as a matter of law.” In Canto v. J. B. Ivey & Co., 595 So. 2d 1025, 1028 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1992), two children were detained by a merchant who suspected them of
shoplifting; citing McCarson and the RESTATEMENT (2d) OF TORTS, the court found
“no evidence in the record suggesting that the conduct of either employee even
approached the limits of this privilege.” See also Mallock v. S. Mem’l Park, Inc.,
561 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
Pending further development of Florida law, the committee has not
submitted a standard instruction concerning any defense.
2. For damage instructions go to instruction 501.1 et seq.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 260
411 CIVIL THEFT
411.1 Introduction
411.2 Summary of Claims
411.3 Clear and Convincing Evidence
411.4 Legal Cause
411.5 Issues on Claim
411.6 Burden of Proof on Claim
411.7 Civil Theft Damages
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 261
411.1 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.
NOTES ON USE FOR 411.1
1. When instructing the jury before taking evidence, use instruction
202.1 in lieu of instruction 411.1. See Model Instruction No. 1. Instruction 411.1 is
for instructing the jury after the evidence has been concluded. Use the bracketed
language in instruction 411.1 when the final instructions are different from the
instructions given at the beginning of the case. If the instructions at the end of the
case are different from those given at the beginning of the case, the committee
recommends that the court point out the differences with appropriate language in
the final instructions, including an explanation for the difference, such as where the
court has directed a verdict on an issue.
2. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b) authorizes instructing the jury during trial or
before or after final argument. The timing of instructions is within the sound
discretion of the trial judge, to be determined on a case-by-case basis, but the
committee strongly recommends instructing the jury before final argument.
3. Each juror must be provided with a full set of jury instructions for use
during their deliberations. Rule 1.470(b). The trial judge may find it useful to
provide these instructions to the jurors when the judge reads the instructions in
open court so that jurors can read along with the judge, as the judge reads the
instructions aloud.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 262
411.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
The claim in this case is that (defendant) unlawfully [obtained] [or]
[used] (claimant’s) property which caused [him] [her] [it] harm.
(Defendant) denies that claim.
The (claimant) must prove [his] [her] [its] claim by the clear and
convincing evidence. I will now define some of the terms you will use in
deciding this case.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 263
411.3 CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
[“Clear and convincing evidence” differs from the “greater weight of
the evidence” in that it is more compelling and persuasive.] “Clear and
convincing evidence” is evidence that is precise, explicit, lacking in confusion,
and of such weight that it produces a firm belief or conviction without
hesitation about the matter in issue.
NOTE ON USE FOR 411.3
Use the first bracketed sentence if there are other claims in the case that
invoke the greater weight of the evidence standard.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 264
411.4 LEGAL CAUSE
a. Legal cause generally:
A party’s conduct is a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] if it
directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes
substantially to producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage], so that it can
reasonably be said that, but for the conduct, the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]
would not have occurred.
b. Concurring cause:
In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] a
party’s conduct need not be the only cause. A party’s conduct may be a legal
cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] even though it operates in combination
with [the act of another] [some natural cause] [or] [some other cause] if the
conduct contributes substantially to producing such [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage].
c. Intervening cause:
Do not use the bracketed first sentence if this instruction is preceded by the
instruction on concurring cause:*
*[In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage], a party’s conduct need not be its only cause.] A party’s conduct
may also be a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] even though it
operates in combination with [the act of another] [some natural cause] [or]
[some other cause] occurring after the party’s conduct occurs if [such other
cause was itself reasonably foreseeable and the party’s conduct contributes
substantially to producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]] [or] [the
resulting [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] was a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of the party’s conduct and the party’s conduct contributes
substantially to producing it].
NOTES ON USE FOR 411.4
1. Instruction 411.4a (legal cause generally) is to be given in all cases.
Instruction 411.4b (concurring cause), to be given when the court considers it
necessary, does not set forth any additional standard for the jury to consider in
determining whether conduct was a legal cause of damage but only negates the
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 265
idea that a defendant is excused from the consequences of his conduct by reason of
some other cause concurring in time and contributing to the same damage.
Instruction 411.4c (intervening cause) is to be given only in cases in which the
court concludes that there is a jury issue as to the presence and effect of an
intervening cause.
2. The jury will properly consider instruction 411.4a not only in
determining whether defendant’s conduct is actionable but also in determining
whether claimant’s conduct contributed as a legal cause to claimant’s damage, thus
reducing recovery.
3. Instruction 411.4b must be given whenever there is a contention that
some other cause may have contributed, in whole or part, to the occurrence or
resulting injury. If there is an issue of aggravation of a preexisting condition or of
subsequent injuries/multiple events, instruction 501.5a or b should be given as
well. See Hart v. Stern, 824 So. 2d 927, 93234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Marinelli v.
Grace, 608 So. 2d 833, 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
4. Instruction 411.4c (intervening cause) embraces two situations in
which conduct may be a legal cause notwithstanding the influence of an
intervening cause: (1) when the damage was a reasonably foreseeable consequence
of the conduct although the other cause was not foreseeable, Mozer v. Semenza,
177 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), and (2) when the intervention of the other
cause was itself foreseeable, Gibson v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 386 So. 2d
520 (Fla. 1980).
5. “Probable” results. The committee recommends that the jury not be
instructed that the damage must be such as would have appeared “probable” to the
actor or to a reasonably careful person at the time of the outrageous conduct. In
cases involving an intervening cause, the term “reasonably foreseeable” is used in
place of “probable.” The terms are synonymous and interchangeable. See Sharon
v. Luten, 165 So. 2d 806, 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Prosser, Torts 291 (3d ed.); 2
Harper & James, The Law of Torts 1137.
6. The term substantially” is used throughout the instruction to describe
the extent of contribution or influence outrageous conduct must have in order to be
regarded as a legal cause. “Substantially” was chosen because the word has an
acceptable common meaning and because it has been approved in Florida as a test
of causation not only in relation to defendant’s negligence, Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So.
2d 185, 191 (Fla. 1953), but also in relation to plaintiff’s comparative negligence,
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 266
Shayne v. Saunders, 176 So. 495, 498 (Fla. 1937).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 267
411.5 ISSUES ON CLAIM
The issues for you to decide on (claimant’s) claim are:
a. Violation of F.S. 812.014 (Theft):
whether (defendant) obtained or used [or attempted to obtain or use] the
property of (claimant) with criminal intent; that is, with the intent
[to deprive (claimant), either temporarily or permanently, of a
[superior]* right to the property or a benefit from it] [or] [to
appropriate, either temporarily or permanently, the property to the use
of any person not entitled to it]; and, if so,
*The bracketed word “superior” should be used when there is evidence that
the defendant took the property pursuant to a claim of right.
whether (defendant’s) actions were a legal cause of [loss] [injury] or
[damage] to (claimant).
b. Violation of F.S. 812.016 (Possession of altered property):
whether (defendant) was in the business of buying and selling property
and in possession of property which [he] [she] knew, or should have known,
had identifying features which had been removed or altered without the
consent of the manufacturer; and, if so,
whether (defendant’s) actions were a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage] to (claimant).
c. Violation of F.S. 812.019 (Dealing in stolen property):
whether (defendant) [trafficked] [attempted to traffic] in property and
knew or should have known the property was stolen; and, if so,
whether (defendant’s) actions were a legal cause of [loss] [injury] or
[damage] to (claimant).
To “traffic” means to: (1) sell or otherwise dispose of property or, (2)
obtain property with the intent to sell or otherwise dispose of it.
NOTE ON USE FOR 411.5
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 268
The committee does not recommend a separate jury instruction for F.S.
812.019(2), (organizing) because trafficking is an element of F.S. 812.019(2). If
the need arises, the court should fashion a modified instruction for F.S. 812.019(2).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 269
411.6 BURDEN OF PROOF ON CLAIM
If clear and convincing evidence does not support (claimant’s) claim,
your verdict should be for (defendant). However, if clear and convincing
evidence supports (claimant’s) claim, then your verdict should be for (claimant)
and against (defendant).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 270
411.7 CIVIL THEFT DAMAGES
If you find for (defendant) you will not consider the matter of damages.
But if you find for (claimant), you should award (claimant) an amount of
money, if any, that the clear and convincing evidence shows are the actual
damages sustained by (claimant).*
*The court should describe the appropriate elements of any case specific
damages.
NOTES ON USE FOR 411.7
1. In requiring that the amount of damages be established by clear and
convincing evidence, the committee has given effect to Starr Tyme, Inc. v. Cohen,
659 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 1995), and Haddad v. Cura, 674 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA
1996), because they are the only decisions addressing the issue.
2. Under the provisions of F.S. 772.11, plaintiff may recover, upon
proper proof, three times the actual damages sustained, or a minimum of $200.00,
and reasonable attorney’s fees. The jury should be directed to determine the actual
damages and the court should apply the statutory formula after verdict. McArthur
Dairy, Inc. v. Original Kielbs, Inc., 481 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The court
should make the determination as to the amount of attorney’s fees and interest to
be assessed and included in any judgment. Mid-Continent Casualty. Co. v.
Giuliano, 166 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1964).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 271
412 CONTRIBUTION AMONG TORTFEASORS
412.1 Contribution Sought by Cross-Claims Between Defendant
Tortfeasors in Injured Party’s Original Action
412.2 Contribution Sought by Third Party Claim in Injured Party’s
Original Action
412.3 Introduction for Independent Contribution Claim
412.4 Summary of Claims
412.5 Greater Weight of the Evidence
412.6 Negligence
412.7 Legal Cause
412.8 Issues on Claim and Burden of Proof
412.9 Defense Issue
NOTES ON USE
1. A claim for contribution can be presented as a cross-claim in an
injured party’s case or as an independent action. These instructions cover both
types of claims. Instruction 412.1 deals with cross-claims in an injured party’s case
and instruction 412.2 deals with third-party claims in an injured party’s action.
These instructions are in proper form for use in negligence actions. If contribution
is found to be appropriate in tort actions other than for negligence (but see the title
to Ch. 75-198, Laws of Fla.), the instructions should be revised as necessary.
2. The instructions for an independent action for contribution begin with
instruction 412.3.
3. Whether the contribution claim is a cross-claim, a third party action or
an independent claim, it should be submitted to the jury with a form of special
verdict by which the jury determines the relative degrees of fault of the defendants
and any third party (see, for example, Model Instruction No. 6).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 272
412.1 CONTRIBUTION SOUGHT BY CROSS-CLAIMS BETWEEN
DEFENDANT TORTFEASORS IN INJURED PARTY’S ORIGINAL
ACTION
This instruction should follow 501.9 or 502.8, Liability of Multiple
Tortfeasors.
Even though any damages you award (claimant) must be found in a
single amount against the defendant or defendants whom you find to be liable
to (claimant), if the greater weight of the evidence shows that more than one
defendant was negligent and that their negligence contributed as a legal cause
of injury and damage to (claimant), you should determine by your verdict
what percentage of the total negligence of [both] [all] defendants (name them)
was caused by each.
NOTE ON USE FOR 412.1
Model Instruction No. 6 illustrates the use of this instruction.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 273
412.2 CONTRIBUTION SOUGHT BY THIRD-PARTY CLAIM IN
INJURED PARTY’S ORIGINAL ACTION
This instruction follows the conventional instructions on plaintiff’s claim.
There is an additional claim that you must also decide. (Third party
claimant) seeks to recover from (third party defendant) part of any money which
(third party claimant) may be called on by a judgment in this action to pay to
(claimant). If you find for (defendant and third party claimant) on (claimant’s)
claim, you need not consider this additional claim by (third party claimant)
against (third party defendant). But, if you find for (claimant) on [his] [her] [its]
claim for damages against (defendant and third party claimant), you must also
decide the following additional issues on the claim by (third party claimant)
against (third party defendant).
The issues on that claim are whether (third party defendant) as well as
(defendant and third party claimant) were negligent and, if so, whether such
negligence contributed as a legal cause of injury and damage to (claimant). If
the greater weight of the evidence does not support the claim of (third party
claimant) against (third party defendant), your verdict on that claim will be for
(third party defendant). However, if the greater weight of the evidence does
support the claim of (third party claimant) against (third party defendant), your
verdict on that claim should be for (third party claimant) and you should
determine by your verdict what percentage of the total negligence of [both]
[all] defendants (name them) was caused by each. The court will then
determine the amount that (third party claimant) should recover from (third
party defendant) in the event (third party claimant) is required to pay a
judgment in favor of (claimant).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 274
412.3 INTRODUCTION FOR INDEPENDENT CONTRIBUTION CLAIM
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.
NOTES ON USE FOR 412.3
1. When instructing the jury before taking evidence, use instruction
202.1 in lieu of instruction 412.3. See Model Instruction No. 1. Instruction 412.3 is
for instructing the jury after the evidence has been concluded. Use the bracketed
language in instruction 412.3 when the final instructions are different from the
instructions given at the beginning of the case. If the instructions at the end of the
case are different from those given at the beginning of the case, the committee
recommends that the court point out the differences with appropriate language in
the final instructions, including an explanation for the difference, such as where the
court has directed a verdict on an issue.
2. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b) authorizes instructing the jury during trial or
before or after final argument. The timing of instructions is within the sound
discretion of the trial judge, to be determined on a case-by-case basis, but the
committee strongly recommends instructing the jury before final argument.
3. Each juror must be provided with a full set of jury instructions for use
during their deliberations. Rule 1.470(b). The trial judge may find it useful to
provide these instructions to the jurors when the judge reads the instructions in
open court so that jurors can read along with the judge, as the judge reads the
instructions aloud.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 275
412.4 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
The claims [and defenses] in this case are as follows. (Claimant) seeks to
recover from (defendant) [part of] the sum of money that [he] [she] [it] paid to
[settle the claim] [satisfy the judgment] of (name) resulting from (identify
injury or incident giving rise to claim). (Claimant) claims that (defendant) was
[partly] negligent (describe alleged negligence) which caused harm to (original
claimant).
(Defendant) denies that claim [and also claims that (describe any
affirmative defenses)].
The parties must prove all claims [and defenses] by the greater weight
of the evidence. I will now define some of the terms you will use in deciding
this case.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 276
412.5 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
“Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and
convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
NOTES ON USE FOR 412.5
1. Greater or lesser number of witnesses. The committee recommends
that no instruction be given regarding the relationship (or lack of relationship)
between the greater weight of the evidence and the greater or lesser number of
witnesses.
2. Circumstantial evidence. The committee recommends that no
instruction generally be given distinguishing circumstantial from direct evidence.
See Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 277
412.6 NEGLIGENCE
Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care, which is the care that a
reasonably careful person would use under like circumstances. Negligence is
doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do under like
circumstances or failing to do something that a reasonably careful person
would do under like circumstances.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 278
412.7 LEGAL CAUSE
a. Legal cause generally:
Negligence is a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] if it directly
and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially
to producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage], so that it can reasonably be
said that, but for the negligence, the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] would not
have occurred.
b. Concurring cause:
In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]
negligence need not be the only cause. Negligence may be a legal cause of [loss]
[injury] [or] [damage] even though it operates in combination with [the act of
another] [some natural cause] [or] [some other cause] if the negligence
contributes substantially to producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage].
c. Intervening cause:
Do not use the bracketed first sentence if this instruction is preceded by the
instruction on concurring cause:*
*[In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage], negligence need not be its only cause.] Negligence may also be a
legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] even though it operates in
combination with [the act of another] [some natural cause] [or] [some other
cause] occurring after the negligence occurs if [such other cause was itself
reasonably foreseeable and the negligence contributes substantially to
producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]] [or] [the resulting [loss] [injury]
[or] [damage] was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the negligence and
the negligence contributes substantially to producing it].
NOTES ON USE FOR 412.7
1. Instruction 412.7a (legal cause generally) is to be given in all cases.
Instruction 412.7b (concurring cause), to be given when the court considers it
necessary, does not set forth any additional standard for the jury to consider in
determining whether negligence was a legal cause of damage but only negates the
idea that a defendant is excused from the consequences of his negligence by reason
of some other cause concurring in time and contributing to the same damage.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 279
Instruction 412.7c (intervening cause) is to be given only in cases in which the
court concludes that there is a jury issue as to the presence and effect of an
intervening cause.
2. The jury will properly consider instruction 412.7a not only in
determining whether defendant’s negligence is actionable but also in determining
whether claimant’s negligence contributed as a legal cause to claimant’s damage,
thus reducing recovery.
3. Instruction 412.7b must be given whenever there is a contention that
some other cause may have contributed, in whole or part, to the occurrence or
resulting injury. If there is an issue of aggravation of a preexisting condition or of
subsequent injuries/multiple events, instruction 501.5a or b should be given as
well. See Hart v. Stern, 824 So. 2d 927, 93234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Marinelli v.
Grace, 608 So. 2d 833, 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
4. Instruction 412.7c (intervening cause) embraces two situations in
which negligence may be a legal cause notwithstanding the influence of an
intervening cause: (1) when the damage was a reasonably foreseeable consequence
of the negligence although the other cause was not foreseeable, Mozer v. Semenza,
177 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), and (2) when the intervention of the other
cause was itself foreseeable, Gibson v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 386 So. 2d
520 (Fla. 1980).
5. “Probable” results. The committee recommends that the jury not be
instructed that the damage must be such as would have appeared “probable” to the
actor or to a reasonably careful person at the time of the negligence. In cases
involving an intervening cause, the term “reasonably foreseeable” is used in place
of “probable.” The terms are synonymous and interchangeable. See Sharon v.
Luten, 165 So. 2d 806, 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Prosser, Torts 291 (3d ed.); 2
Harper & James, The Law of Torts 1137.
6. The term “substantially” is used throughout the instruction to describe
the extent of contribution or influence negligence must have in order to be
regarded as a legal cause. “Substantially” was chosen because the word has an
acceptable common meaning and because it has been approved in Florida as a test
of causation not only in relation to defendant’s negligence, Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So.
2d 185, 191 (Fla. 1953), but also in relation to plaintiff’s comparative negligence,
Shayne v. Saunders, 176 So. 495, 498 (Fla. 1937).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 280
412.8 ISSUES ON CLAIM AND BURDEN OF PROOF
The issues for you to decide on (claimant’s) claim are whether (defendant
or person for whose negligence defendant is responsible) was negligent in
(describe negligence) and, if so, whether such negligence was a legal cause of
injury and damage to (name).
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support the claim of
(claimant) [against a particular defendant], your verdict should be for [that]
defendant.
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports the claim of
(claimant) you should also determine whether the amount of money paid by
(claimant) to (name) was reasonable under all the circumstances shown by the
evidence. If the greater weight of the evidence shows that the amount of
money paid by (claimant) to (name) in settlement did not exceed a reasonable
amount under all the circumstances, you should so find by your verdict.
However, if the amount of money paid by (claimant) to (name) exceeded a
reasonable amount, you should determine the amount which would have been
reasonable under all the circumstances for (claimant) to pay (name) in
settlement. The court will then determine the amount that (claimant) will
recover from (defendant).]
[You should also determine by your verdict what percentage of the total
negligence of [both] [all] parties to this action (name them) you apportion to
each of them. The court will then determine the amount of (claimant’s)
recovery.]
NOTES ON USE FOR 412.8
1. Use the first two paragraphs in all cases. Use the first bracketed
paragraph if there is an issue about the reasonableness of the amount paid in
settlement. This instruction assumes that the burden of proving reasonableness
that the settlement paid the injured party was, under the circumstances, reasonable
is on the claimant.
2. If there is an issue about the reasonableness of the amount paid, use
the applicable provisions of section 501 or 502 to describe the available elements
of damage. See Model Instruction No. 5.
(Revised February 1, 2018)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 281
412.9 DEFENSE ISSUE
If, however, the greater weight of the evidence supports (claimant’s)
claim, then you shall consider the defense raised by (defendant). The issue for
you to decide on that defense is whether (claimant) intentionally, willfully,
wantonly or with reckless indifference to the rights of others caused or
contributed to causing the injury of (name).
If the greater weight of the evidence supports that defense, then your
verdict should be for (defendant). If, however, the greater weight of the
evidence does not support that defense and does support (claimant’s) claim,
your verdict should be for (claimant) and you should determine by your
verdict what percentage of the total negligence of (name the parties other than
the injured plaintiff) you apportion to each of them.
(Revised February 1, 2018)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 282
413 CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION INSURANCE (PIP)
BENEFITS (MEDICAL BENEFITS ONLY)
413.1 Introduction
413.2 Summary of Claims or Contentions
413.3 Greater Weight of the Evidence
413.4 Issues on Claim
413.5 Burden of Proof on Claim
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 283
413.1 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.
NOTES ON USE FOR 413.1
1. When instructing the jury before taking evidence, use instruction
202.1 in lieu of instruction 413.1. See Model Instruction No. 1. Instruction 413.1 is
for instructing the jury after the evidence has been concluded. Use the bracketed
language in instruction 413.1 when the final instructions are different from the
instructions given at the beginning of the case. If the instructions at the end of the
case are different from those given at the beginning of the case, the committee
recommends that the court point out the differences with appropriate language in
the final instructions, including an explanation for the difference, such as where the
court has directed a verdict on an issue.
2. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b) authorizes instructing the jury during trial or
before or after final argument. The timing of instructions is within the sound
discretion of the trial judge, to be determined on a case-by-case basis, but the
committee strongly recommends instructing the jury before final argument.
3. Each juror must be provided with a full set of jury instructions for use
during their deliberations. Rule 1.470(b). The trial judge may find it useful to
provide these instructions to the jurors when the judge reads the instructions in
open court so that jurors can read along with the judge, as the judge reads the
instructions aloud.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 284
413.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS OR CONTENTIONS
The claims [and defenses] in this case are as follows. (Claimant) claims
that (defendant) is obligated to pay for certain medical expenses (describe
medical expenses).
(Defendant) denies that claim [and also claims that (claimant) was
(describe any affirmative defenses)].
The parties must prove all claims [and defenses] by the greater weight
of the evidence. I will now define some of the terms you will use in deciding
this case.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 285
413.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
“Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and
convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
NOTES ON USE FOR 413.3
1. Greater or lesser number of witnesses. The committee recommends
that no instruction be given regarding the relationship (or lack of relationship)
between the greater weight of the evidence and the greater or lesser number of
witnesses.
2. Circumstantial evidence. The committee recommends that no
instruction generally be given distinguishing circumstantial from direct evidence.
See Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 286
413.4 ISSUES ON CLAIM
a. Issues generally:
(Plaintiff) seeks personal injury benefits from (defendant) for [a medical
service] [medical services]. (Plaintiff) is entitled to [recover benefits] [receive
payment] if the service[s] [is] [are] related to the accident, the service[s] [is]
[are] medically necessary, and the charge[s] for the service[s] [is] [are]
reasonable.
(Give the following preemptive instruction only where rulings or stipulations
have altered the number of issues to be proven.)
In this case, there is no dispute that [the service[s] [is] [are] related to
the accident] [and] [that the service[s] [is] [are] medically necessary] [and]
[that the charge[s] [is] [are] reasonable], but there is dispute over [whether the
service[s] [is] [are] related to the accident] [and] [whether the service[s] ]is]
[are] medically necessary] [and] [whether the charge[s] for the service[s] [is]
[are] reasonable].
(Give the following instruction in all cases. Alter numbering where required
due to rulings or stipulations.)
Therefore, on this claim for personal injury benefits, you must decide
the following:
The first issue is whether the service is related to the automobile
accident of (date). If you decide that a service is not related to the accident,
you should not award damages for that service. If you decide that one or more
services are related to the accident, you must then decide a second issue.
The second issue is whether the service is medically necessary. If you
decide that a service was not medically necessary, you should not award
damages for that service. If you decide that one or more services are medically
necessary, you must then decide a third issue.
The third issue is whether the charge is reasonable. If you find the
charge for a service or services reasonable, you should award that amount as
damages. If you find the charge for a service or services is not reasonable, you
should award an amount that the greater weight of the evidence shows is
reasonable.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 287
In determining [these] [this] issue[s], you should apply the following
definition[s]:
(Give applicable definitions below.)
b. Services:
The term “services” includes, but is not limited to, treatment, diagnostic
studies, and supplies provided by the medical provider to the insured.
c. Medically Necessary:
“Medically necessary” refers to a medical service or supply that a
prudent physician would provide for the purpose of preventing, diagnosing,
or treating an illness, injury, disease, or symptom in a manner that is:
(1) In accordance with generally accepted standards of medical
practice;
(2) Clinically appropriate in terms of type, frequency, extent, site,
and duration; and,
(3) Not primarily for the convenience of the patient, physician, or
other health care provider.
d. Reasonable Charge:
In deciding whether the amount of a charge is reasonable, you may
consider evidence of:
(1) usual and customary charges and payments accepted by the
provider involved in the dispute;
(2) reimbursement levels in the community;
(3) reimbursement levels in various federal and state medical fee
schedules applicable to automobile coverages; and
(4) any other evidence relevant to the reasonableness of the charges.
You may not, however, award an amount that exceeds the amount the
provider customarily charges for like services or supplies.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 288
NOTES ON USE FOR 413.4
1. This instruction assumes that the jury will be asked to decide the total
amount of medical charges. It is anticipated that the judge will adjust this award in
entering judgment to account for any payments previously made by the insurer, as
well as for the effect of the 80% limitation in F.S. 627.736(1)(a), and any
deductible.
2. The definition of “medically necessary” is based on F.S. 736.732(2)
(2003). The committee has added the option of a “prudent health care provider” to
this definition in anticipation that the phrase, “prudent physician,” as described in
the statute could sometimes be inadequate. This statutory definition is somewhat
complex. It is possible that the parties could agree upon a plainer and simpler
definition.
3. The statutory description of what constitutes a reasonable amount may
require a supplemental instruction for fee-capped diagnostic testing services as
described in F.S. 627.736(5)(b) (2003).
4. No definition of “related” is provided in this instruction. Causation
can be a complex issue in a PIP case. Generally, to invoke this insurance coverage
a bodily injury must “arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor
vehicle.” See F.S. 768.736(1) (2003); Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v.
Castagna, 368 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1979). The medical treatment covered by the
insurance policy is the treatment that is related to the bodily injury arising out of
the ownership, maintenance, or use of the motor vehicle. The committee has been
advised that most practitioners prefer to use the term, “related,” as a simple method
to explain causation to the jury. The committee does not therefore intend for an
instruction similar to F.S. 401.12 to be given in a PIP case as an explanation of
causation.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 289
413.5 BURDEN OF PROOF ON CLAIM
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support the claim of
(plaintiff), then your verdict should be for (defendant).
However if the greater weight of the evidence does support (plaintiff’s)
claim, then your verdict should be for (plaintiff) and against (defendant) and
you should award (plaintiff) an amount of money that the greater weight of the
evidence shows will fairly and adequately compensate [him] [her] [it] for the
medical [benefits] [services] that are related to the accident, were medically
necessary, and the charge[s] for which are reasonable.
(Give when defenses to the claim have been raised.)
If, however, the greater weight of the evidence does support the claim of
(plaintiff), then you shall consider the defense[s] raised by (defendant). On the
defense, the issue[s] for you to decide [is] [are] (describe defense).
If the greater weight of the evidence supports the (defendant’s)
defense[s], your verdict should be for the (defendant) and against (plaintiff).
But if the greater weight of the evidence does not support (defendant’s)
defense[s] and the greater weight of the evidence supports (plaintiff’s) claim,
then your verdict should be for (plaintiff) and against (defendant) and you
should award (plaintiff) an amount of money that the greater weight of the
evidence shows will fairly and adequately compensate [him] [her] [it] for to
the medical [benefits] [services] that are related to the accident, were
medically necessary, and the charge[s] for which are reasonable.
(Proceed to sections 600 and 700 for closing instructions.)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 290
414 INTENTIONAL TORT AS AN EXCEPTION TO EXCLUSIVE
REMEDY OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
414.1 Introduction
414.2 Summary of Claims
414.3 Clear and Convincing Evidence
414.4 Legal Cause
414.5 Issues on Claim
414.6 Burden of Proof
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 291
414.1 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.
NOTES ON USE FOR 414.1
1. When instructing the jury before taking evidence, use instruction
202.1 in lieu of instruction 414.1. See Model Instruction No. 1. Instruction 414.1 is
for instructing the jury after the evidence has been concluded. Use the bracketed
language in instruction 414.1 when the final instructions are different from the
instructions given at the beginning of the case. If the instructions at the end of the
case are different from those given at the beginning of the case, the committee
recommends that the court point out the differences with appropriate language in
the final instructions, including an explanation for the difference, such as where the
court has directed a verdict on an issue.
2. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b) authorizes instructing the jury during trial or
before or after final argument. The timing of instructions is within the sound
discretion of the trial judge, to be determined on a case-by-case basis, but the
committee strongly recommends instructing the jury before final argument.
3. Each juror must be provided with a full set of jury instructions for use
during their deliberations. Rule 1.470(b). The trial judge may find it useful to
provide these instructions to the jurors when the judge reads the instructions in
open court so that jurors can read along with the judge, as the judge reads the
instructions aloud.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 292
414.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
The claims [and defenses] in this case are as follows. (Claimant) claims
that (defendant) caused [him] [her] harm by (describe alleged intentional tort).
(Defendant) denies that claim [and also claims that (describe any alleged
affirmative defenses)].
[The parties] [(Claimant)] must prove [his] [her] [their] claims by the
clear and convincing evidence. I will now define some of the terms you will use
in deciding this case.
NOTE ON USE FOR 414.2
The committee takes no position on the burden of proof that will be
applicable to affirmative defenses. If the court determines that the burden of proof
for any affirmative defense is the “greater weight of the evidence,” the instruction
should be modified and instruction 401.3 should also be given.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 293
414.3 CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
[“Clear and convincing evidence” differs from the “greater weight of
the evidence” in that it is more compelling and persuasive.] “Clear and
convincing evidence” is evidence that is precise, explicit, lacking in confusion,
and of such weight that it produces a firm belief or conviction, without
hesitation, about the matter in issue.
NOTE ON USE FOR 414.3
Use the first bracketed sentence if there are issues or other claims in the case
that invoke the greater weight of the evidence standard.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 294
414.4 LEGAL CAUSE
a. Legal cause generally:
A party’s conduct is a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] if it
directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes
substantially to producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage], so that it can
reasonably be said that, but for the conduct, the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]
would not have occurred.
b. Concurring cause:
In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]
the conduct need not be the only cause. A party’s conduct may be a legal
cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] even though it operates in combination
with some other cause if the conduct contributes substantially to producing
such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage].
c. Intervening cause:
Do not use the bracketed first sentence if this charge is preceded by the
charge on concurring cause:*
*[In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage], a party’s conduct need not be its only cause.] A party’s conduct
may also be a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] even though it
operates in combination with [the act of another] [some natural cause] [or]
[some other cause] occurring after the party’s conduct occurs if such other
cause was itself reasonably foreseeable and the party’s conduct contributes
substantially to producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] [or] [the resulting
[loss] [injury] [or] [damage]] was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the
party’s conduct and the party’s conduct contributes substantially to
producing it.
NOTES ON USE FOR 414.4
1. Instruction 414.4a (legal cause generally) is to be given in all cases.
Instruction 414.4b (concurring cause), to be given when the court considers it
necessary, does not set forth any additional standard for the jury to consider in
determining whether conduct was a legal cause of damage but only negates the
idea that a defendant is excused from the consequences of his or her conduct by
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 295
reason of some other cause concurring in time and contributing to the same
damage. Instruction 414.4c (intervening cause) is to be given only in cases in
which the court concludes that there is a jury issue as to the presence and effect of
an intervening cause.
2. The jury will properly consider instruction 414.4a not only in
determining whether defendant’s conduct is actionable but also in determining
whether claimant’s conduct contributed as a legal cause to claimant’s damage, thus
reducing recovery.
3. Instruction 414.4b must be given whenever there is a contention that
some other cause may have contributed, in whole or part, to the occurrence or
resulting injury. If there is an issue of aggravation of a preexisting condition or of
subsequent injuries/multiple events, instruction 501.2h(1) or (2) should be given as
well. See Hart v. Stern, 824 So. 2d 927, 93234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Marinelli v.
Grace, 608 So. 2d 833, 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
4. Instruction 414.4c (intervening cause) embraces two situations in
which conduct may be a legal cause notwithstanding the influence of an
intervening cause: (1) when the damage was a reasonably foreseeable consequence
of the conduct although the other cause was not foreseeable, Mozer v. Semenza,
177 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), and (2) when the intervention of the other
cause was itself foreseeable, Ellingson v. Willis, 170 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 1st DCA
1964).
5. “Probable” results. The committee recommends that the jury not be
charged that the damage must be such as would have appeared “probable” to the
actor or to a reasonably careful person at the time of the outrageous conduct. In
cases involving an intervening cause, the term “reasonably foreseeable” is used in
place of “probable.” The terms are synonymous and interchangeable. See Sharon
v. Luten, 165 So. 2d 806, 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Prosser, Torts (3d ed.) 291; 2
Harper & James, The Law of Torts 1137.
6. The term “substantially” is used throughout the charge to describe the
extent of contribution or influence outrageous conduct must have in order to be
regarded as a legal cause. “Substantially” was chosen because the word has an
acceptable common meaning and because it has been approved in Florida as a test
of causation not only in relation to defendant’s negligence, Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So.
2d 185, 191 (Fla. 1953), but also in relation to plaintiff’s comparative negligence,
Shayne v. Saunders, 129 Fla. 355, 176 So. 495, 498 (1937).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 296
414.5 ISSUES ON CLAIM
The issues you must decide on (claimant’s) claim against (defendant) are
whether:
1. (Defendant) deliberately intended to injure (claimant), or
2. whether (defendant)
(a) engaged in conduct that (defendant) knew, based upon
[prior similar accidents] [or] [explicit warnings specifically identifying a
known danger], was virtually certain to result in death or injury to (claimant);
and
(b) (claimant) was not aware of the risk because the danger was
not apparent; and
(c) (defendant) deliberately concealed or misrepresented the
danger so as to prevent (claimant) from exercising an informed judgment;
and, if so, whether that conduct was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage] to (claimant).
NOTE ON USE FOR 414.5
This instruction applies to causes of action accruing on or after October 1,
2003. See F.S. 440.11 (2003) (codifying intentional tort exception to workers’
compensation immunity and modifying standard announced in Turner v. PCR Inc.,
754 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 2000)); see also Travelers Indemnity Co. v. PCR, Inc., 889 So.
2d 779, n.5 (Fla. 2004) (discussing legislature’s codification of intentional tort
exception and new, heightened virtual certainty standard).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 297
414.6 BURDEN OF PROOF
If the clear and convincing evidence does not support [one or more of]
(claimant’s) claim[s], your verdict should be for (defendant(s)) [on [that] [those]
claim(s)].
However, if the clear and convincing evidence supports [one or more of]
(claimant’s) claim[s], then your verdict should be for (claimant) and against
(defendant) [on [that] [those] claim(s)].
[If, however, the clear and convincing evidence supports [(claimant’s)
claim] [one of more of (claimant’s) claims], then you shall consider the
defense[s] raised by (defendant).]
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 298
415 UNLAWFUL RETALIATION
415.1 Introduction
415.2 Summary of Claims and Defenses
415.3 Greater Weight of the Evidence
415.4 Retaliation; Adverse Employment Action
415.5 Protected Activity
415.6 Legal Cause Retaliation
415.7 Legal Cause Damage
415.8 Preliminary Issue Adverse Employment Action
415.9 Burden of Proof on Preliminary Issue
415.10 Issues on Plaintiff’s Claim
415.11 Burden of Proof on Claim
415.12 Unlawful Retaliation Damages
415.13 Defense Issue on Damages (Mitigation-Discharge)
415.14 Reduction of Damages to Present Value
NOTE ON USE FOR 415
The instructions in this section are based upon F.S. 448.101–105 (Florida’s
private-sector whistle-blower provisions). As to the right to trial by jury, see Fox v.
City of Pompano Beach, 984 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), and O’Neal v. Fla.
A & M University, 989 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (right to jury trial pursuant to
the Whistle-blower Act, F.S. 112.3187-31895); Rodriguez v. Casson-Mark Corp.,
2008 WL 2949520 (M.D. Fla. July 28, 2008) (right to jury trial pursuant to the
private-sector whistle-blower’s provisions, F.S. 448.101-105).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 299
415.1 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.
NOTES ON USE FOR 415.1
1. When instructing the jury before taking evidence, use instruction
202.1 in lieu of instruction 415.1. See Model Instruction 1. Instruction 415.1 is for
instructing the jury after the evidence has been concluded. Use the bracketed
language in instruction 415.1 when the final instructions are different from the
instructions given at the beginning of the case. If the instructions at the end of the
case are different from those given at the beginning of the case, the committee
recommends that the court point out the differences with appropriate language in
the final instructions, including an explanation for the difference, such as where the
court has directed a verdict on an issue.
2. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b) authorizes instructing the jury during trial or
before or after final argument. The timing of instructions is within the sound
discretion of the trial judge, to be determined on a case-by-case basis, but the
committee strongly recommends instructing the jury before final argument.
3. Each juror must be provided with a full set of jury instructions for use
during their deliberations. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b). The trial judge may find it useful
to provide these instructions to the jurors when the judge reads the instructions in
open court so that jurors can read along with the judge, as the judge reads the
instructions aloud.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 300
415.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES
The claim[s] in this case [is] [are] as follows: (Claimant) claims that
(defendant) retaliated against [him] [her] by (describe retaliatory action) because
(claimant) (describe activity which claimant alleges caused retaliatory action), and
that the (describe retaliatory action) caused [him] [her] damage.
(Defendant) denies that claim [and also claims that (claimant) failed to
reduce [his] [her] damages by seeking other similar employment] [and
(describe any other affirmative defense)].
[(Claimant)] [The parties] must prove [his] [her] [all] claim(s) [and
defenses] by the greater weight of the evidence. I will now define some of the
terms you will use in deciding this case.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 301
415.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
Greater weight of the evidence means the more persuasive and
convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
NOTES ON USE FOR 415.3
1. Greater or lesser number of witnesses. The committee recommends
that no charge be given regarding the relationship (or lack of relationship) between
the greater weight of the evidence and the greater or lesser number of witnesses.
2. Circumstantial evidence. The committee recommends that no charge
generally be given distinguishing circumstantial from direct evidence. See Nielsen
v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 302
415.4 RETALIATION; ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION
Retaliation means [discharging] [or] [demoting] [or] [suspending] [or]
[taking certain adverse employment action against] an employee because the
employee engaged in [a] protected activit[y] [ies].
[An adverse employment action is retaliation if it affects the terms and
conditions of employment and would discourage a reasonable employee in
[(claimant’s)] position from engaging in [a] [protected activit[y] [ies].]
NOTES ON USE FOR 415.4
1. The definitions of retaliation and adverse employment action are
derived from F.S. 448.101(5) and case law. Donovan v. Broward Cnty. Bd. of
Comm’rs, 974 So. 2d 458, 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (adverse employment action is
action which would discourage reasonable employee from making or supporting
charge of discrimination).
2. Use the second paragraph of this instruction when plaintiff claims that
the defendant imposed an adverse employment action other than or in addition to
discharge, suspension or demotion.
(Revised November 22, 2017)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 303
415.5 PROTECTED ACTIVITY
Protected activity is:
[disclosing] [or] [threatening to disclose] to (appropriate governmental
agency), under oath, in writing, an activity, policy or practice of (defendant)
that violated (describe law, rule or regulation)] [or]
[providing information to] [or] [testifying before] (appropriate
governmental agency, person or entity), which was conducting an
[investigation,] [hearing] [or] [inquiry] into an alleged violation of (describe
law, rule or regulation) by (defendant)] [or]
[objecting to (defendant’s) activity, policy, or practice that violated
(describe law, rule, or regulation)] [or] [refusing to participate in (defendant’s)
activity, policy or practice that violated (describe law, rule, or regulation)] [or]
[would have violated] (describe law, rule or regulation), had (plaintiff)
participated].
NOTES ON USE FOR 415.5
1. The bracketed language is derived from F.S. 448.102(1), (2) and (3).
2. As to whether, under F.S. 448.102(3), a claimant must prove an actual
violation of law as opposed to a reasonable, good faith belief that a violation of law
has occurred, all three federal district courts sitting in Florida have held that the
plaintiff must prove an actual violation of law. See, e.g., Paulet v. Farlie, Turner
& Co., LLC, 2010 WL 2232662, at *2 (S.D. Fla. June 2, 2010); Smith v.
Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., 2009 WL 903624, at *7 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2009);
White v. Purdue Pharma, Inc., 369 F. Supp. 2d 1335, 1336 (M.D. Fla. 2005); but
see Padron v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 196 F. Supp. 2d 1250, 1255 (S.D. Fla.
2002) (in dicta, court noted that plaintiff’s reasonable belief that violation of law
occurred is sufficient).
(Revised November 22, 2017)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 304
415.6 LEGAL CAUSE RETALIATION
Protected activity is a legal cause of [discharge] [suspension] [demotion]
[or] [(describe adverse employment action)] if the protected activity was a
motivating factor that made a difference in (defendant’s) decision. The
protected activity need not be the only factor motivating (defendant’s)
decision.
You may find that protected activity was a motivating factor in
(defendant’s) decision if you find (defendant’s) stated reason(s) for its
decision(s) [was] [were] not the real reason(s), but [was] [were] given to hide
the retaliation.
NOTES ON USE FOR 415.6
1. This instruction is based on F.S. 448.102 and 448.103(c).
2. On the issue of causation, Florida and federal courts have followed
federal decisions construing provisions in Title VII that make it unlawful for an
employer to retaliate against an employee “because” the employee made a charge
against the employer or opposed an employer’s unlawful practice. Rice-Lamar v.
City of Ft. Lauderdale, 853 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (Title VII retaliation
analysis applied to claim arising under Florida’s Whistle-blower Act); see also
Sierminski v. Transouth Financial Corp., 216 F.3d 945 (11th Cir. 2000) (Title VII
retaliation analysis applied to claim arising under Florida’s private-sector whistle-
blower provisions).
3. This instruction is derived from the Eleventh Circuit’s pattern
instruction for retaliation claims. See 1.10.3 Miscellaneous Issues, Retaliation,
Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil Cases) 2005. The Eleventh
Circuit’s instruction places the burden of persuasion on the issue of causation on
the employee and requires the employee to show that the protected activity was a
“motivating factor that made a difference” in the employer’s decision.
4. The second paragraph of 415.6 is a permissive inference pretext
instruction. There is disagreement among the circuits as to whether a pretext
instruction is required in Title VII discrimination and retaliation cases. The weight
of authority supports requiring a pretext instruction when the jury could find that
the employer’s explanation is false and could infer from the falsity that the
employer is dissembling to cover up an unlawful purpose. See Ratliff v. City of
Gainesville, 256 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2001). Other circuits do not require an
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 305
instruction, but permit one in the trial judge’s discretion. See Palmer v. Bd. of
Regents, 208 F.3d 969 (11th Cir. 2000).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 306
415.7 LEGAL CAUSE DAMAGE
[Discharge] [suspension] [demotion] [or] [(describe adverse employment
action)] is a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] if it directly and in
natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to
producing such damage, so that it can reasonably be said that, but for the
[discharge] [suspension] [demotion] [or] [(describe adverse employment
action)], the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] would not have occurred.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 307
415.8 PRELIMINARY ISSUE ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION
On (claimant’s) claim there is a preliminary issue for you to decide. That
issue is whether (describe the alleged conduct) was an adverse employment
action.
NOTE ON USE 415.8
Use instruction 415.8 when plaintiff claims that the defendant imposed
adverse employment action other than or in addition to discharge, suspension or
demotion.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 308
415.9 BURDEN OF PROOF ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support (claimant’s) claim
on this issue, that (describe alleged conduct) was an adverse employment
action, then [your verdict on the claim of (claimant) should be for (defendant).
However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports the claim of (claimant)
on this issue, that (describe the alleged conduct) was an adverse employment
action, your decision on that issue should be for (claimant). You shall then
decide the other issues on (claimant’s) claim.]
[your decision on that issue should be for (defendant). However, if the
greater weight of the evidence supports the claim of (claimant) on this issue,
that (describe the alleged conduct) was an adverse employment action, your
decision on that issue should be for (claimant). You shall then decide the other
issues on (claimant’s) claim.]
NOTES ON USE FOR 415.9
1. Give instruction 415.9 if instructing the jury on the preliminary issue
from instruction 415.8.
2. Give this portion of the charge when plaintiff claims defendant
imposed adverse employment action in addition to discharge, suspension or
demotion.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 309
415.10 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM
The law prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for
engaging in protected activity.
The [next] issue(s) you must decide on the claim of (claimant) against
(defendant) are whether (defendant) retaliated against (claimant) by
[discharging] [suspending] [demoting] [him] [her] [or] [(describe adverse
employment action)] because (claimant) engaged in protected activity and, if so,
whether the [discharge] [suspension] [demotion] [or] [(describe adverse
employment action)] was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] or [damage] to
(claimant).
NOTE ON USE FOR 415.10
If there are issues concerning vicarious liability that require a preemptive
instruction or jury resolution, see (and modify, as necessary) instructions 401.13,
401.14, and 401.17.
(Revised November 22, 2017)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 310
415.11 BURDEN OF PROOF ON CLAIM
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support the claim of
(claimant) then your verdict should be for (defendant).
However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports the claim of
(claimant), [then your verdict should be for (claimant) and against (defendant)]
[then you shall consider the defense[s] raised by (defendant)].
[If the greater weight of the evidence supports the defense, your verdict
should be for (defendant). However, if the greater weight of the evidence does
not support the defense, your verdict should be for (claimant) and against
(defendant).]
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 311
415.12 UNLAWFUL RETALIATION DAMAGES
If you find for (defendant), you will not consider the matter of damages.
But if you find for (claimant), you should award (claimant) an amount of
money that the greater weight of the evidence shows will fairly and adequately
compensate [him] [her] for such damage, including any such damage as
(claimant) is reasonably certain to incur in the future. You shall consider the
following elements:
[any] [the difference between] lost wages and benefits to the date of trial
[and what (claimant) earned during that time].
[any wages and benefits to be lost in the future.]
(other compensatory damages allowable at law.)
[any emotional pain and mental anguish experienced in the past or to be
experienced in the future. There is no exact standard for measuring
such damages. The amount should be fair and just in the light of the
evidence.]
NOTES ON USE FOR 415.12
1. As to whether future lost wages, (i.e., “front pay”) are awardable in a
jury trial pursuant to F.S. 448.103(2), see U.S. E.E.O.C. v. W & O, Inc., 213 F.3d
600, 619 (11th Cir. 2000) (front pay is equitable remedy in Title VII case and is
not decided by jury); O’Neal v. Fla. A&M Univ., 989 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
(under Florida’s Whistle-blower Act, front pay is equitable relief).
2. As to whether emotional damages are awardable in a jury trial
pursuant to F.S. 448.103(2), see McIntyre v. Delhaize America, Inc., 2009 WL
161708 (M.D. Fla. January 22, 2009) and Wood v. Cellco P’ship., 2007 WL
917300 (M.D. Fla. March 23, 2007) (damages for emotional distress recoverable in
whistle-blower action pursuant to F.S. 448.103); Scott v. Otis Elevator Co., 572 So.
2d 902 (Fla. 1990) (damages for emotional distress recoverable in retaliatory
discharge action pursuant to provision of workers’ compensation act, F.S.
440.205).
(Revised November 22, 2017)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 312
415.13 DEFENSE ISSUE ON DAMAGES (MITIGATION DISCHARGE)
As a defense to (claimant’s) damages claim for retaliatory discharge,
(defendant) claims that (claimant) could have reduced [his] [her] damages by
making a reasonable effort to [seek] [retain] comparable employment.
Comparable employment means alternative employment similar to
(claimant’s) former job in the nature of the work, responsibilities and skills
required. (Claimant) need not accept employment that is unsuitable or
demeaning when compared with (claimant’s) former job.
If the greater weight of the evidence supports (defendant’s) claim that
there was comparable employment available to (claimant) and that (claimant)
failed to make a reasonable effort to [seek] [keep] such employment, then you
should reduce any damages you award to (claimant) by the amount that
(claimant) could have earned from the comparable employment.
If however, the greater weight of the evidence does not support
(defendant’s) claim that there was comparable employment available to
(claimant) and that (claimant) failed to make a reasonable effort to [seek]
[retain] that employment, then your verdict should be for (claimant) in the
total amount of [his] [her] damages for lost wages and benefits.
NOTES ON USE FOR 415.13
1. This instruction does not use the term “duty to mitigate” because this
is more accurately an application of the doctrine of avoidable consequences and
“duty” implies a mandatory obligation. See System Components Corp. v. Fla.
Dept. of Transp., 14 So. 3d 967, 982 (Fla. 2009).
2. As to plaintiff’s “duty to mitigate” damages in cases involving
wrongful discharge, see Zayre Corp. v. Creech, 497 So. 2d 706, 708 (Fla. 4th DCA
1986); Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation v. Rierman, 370 So. 2d 33, 36 (Fla.
3d DCA 1979); Punkar v. King Plastic Corp., 290 So. 2d 505, 508 (Fla. 2d DCA
1974).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 313
415.14 REDUCTION OF DAMAGES TO PRESENT VALUE
Any amount of damages which you allow for wages and benefits to be
lost in the future should be reduced to its present money value, and only the
present money value of those future economic damages should be included in
your verdict.
The present money value of future economic damages is the sum of
money needed now which, together with what that sum will earn in the future,
will compensate (claimant) for these losses as they are actually experienced in
future years.
NOTES ON USE FOR 415.14
1. Designing a standard instruction for reduction of damages to present
value is complicated by the fact that there are several different methods used by
economists and courts to arrive at a present value determination. See, e.g., Delta
Air Lines, Inc. v. Ageloff, 552 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1989) and Renuart Lumber Yards
v. Levine, 49 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1950) (using approach similar to calculation of cost of
annuity); Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer, 462 U.S. 523, 103 S.Ct. 2541,
76 L.Ed.2d 768 (1983), and Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1953) (lost
stream of income approach); Beaulieu v. Elliott, 434 P. 2d 665 (Alaska 1967) (total
offset method); Culver v. Slater Boat Co., 688 F.2d 280 (5th Cir. 1982) and
Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Garrison, 336 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
(discussing real interest rate discount method and inflation/market rate discount
methods); and Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1977) (even without
evidence, juries may consider effects of inflation).
2. Until the Florida Supreme Court or the legislature adopts one
approach to the exclusion of other methods of calculating present money value, the
committee assumes that the present value of future economic damages is a finding
to be made by the jury on the evidence; or, if the parties offer no evidence to
control the finding, that the jury will properly resort to its own common knowledge
as guided by instruction 415.14 and by argument. See Seaboard Coast Line R.R.
Co. v. Burdi, 427 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 314
417 UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION
417.1 Introduction
417.2 Summary of Claims and Defenses
417.3 Greater Weight of the Evidence
417.4 Discrimination Disparate Treatment
417.5 Legal Cause Discrimination
417.6 Legal Cause Damage
417.7 Issues on Plaintiff’s Claim
417.8 Burden of Proof on Claim
417.9 Unlawful Discrimination Damages
417.10 Affirmative Defense Failure to Mitigate Lost Wages
417.11 Affirmative Defense After-Acquired Evidence
417.12 Reduction of Damages to Present Value
NOTES ON USE
The instructions in this section are based upon the Florida Civil Rights Act
of 1992 (FCRA), which makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate based
upon race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital
status. F.S. 760.01760.11.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 315
417.1 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.
NOTES ON USE FOR 417.1
1. When instructing the jury before taking evidence, use instruction
202.1 in lieu of instruction 417.1. See Model Instruction 1. Instruction 417.1 is for
instructing the jury after the evidence has been concluded. Use the bracketed
language in instruction 417.1 when the final instructions are different from the
instructions given at the beginning of the case. If the instructions at the end of the
case are different from those given at the beginning of the case, the committee
recommends that the court point out the differences with appropriate language in
the final instructions, including an explanation for the difference, such as when the
court has directed a verdict on an issue.
2. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b) authorizes instructing the jury during trial or
before or after final argument. The timing of instructions is within the sound
discretion of the trial judge, to be determined on a case-by-case basis, but the
committee strongly recommends instructing the jury before final argument.
3. Each juror must be provided with a full set of jury instructions for use
during their deliberations. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b). The trial judge may find it useful
to provide these instructions to the jurors when the judge reads the instructions in
open court so that jurors can read along with the judge, as the judge reads the
instructions aloud.
417.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES
The claim[s] [and defenses] in this case [is] [are] as follows: (claimant)
claims that (defendant) discriminated against [him] [her] by [discharging]
[failing to hire] [(describe discriminatory treatment)] (claimant) because of
(claimant’s) [race] [color] [religion] [sex] [pregnancy] [national origin] [age]
[handicap] [marital status], and that the (describe discriminatory treatment)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 316
caused [him] [her] damage.
(Defendant) denies that claim [and also claims that (claimant) (describe
any affirmative defenses)].
[(Claimant)] [The parties] must prove [his] [her] [their] claim(s) [and
defense(s)] by the greater weight of the evidence. I will now define some of the
terms you will use in deciding this case.
417.3 GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
“Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and
convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
NOTES ON USE FOR 417.3
1. Greater or lesser number of witnesses. The committee recommends
that no charge be given regarding the relationship (or lack of relationship) between
the greater weight of the evidence and the greater or lesser number of witnesses.
2. Circumstantial evidence. The committee recommends that no charge
generally be given distinguishing circumstantial from direct evidence. See Nielsen
v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960).
3. “Preponderance of evidence” and “burden of proof.” The committee
recommends that no charge be given using these terms, which are considered not
helpful to a jury and not necessary in a charge that otherwise defines “greater
weight of the evidence” and instructs the jury on the consequences of its
determining that the greater weight of the evidence supports or does not support
the claim or defense of a party.
417.4 DISCRIMINATION DISPARATE TREATMENT
To “discriminate” means to treat an [employee] [applicant] differently
with regard to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment
because of the [employee’s] [applicant’s] [race] [color] [religion] [sex]
[pregnancy] [national origin] [age] [handicap] [marital status].
NOTES ON USE FOR 417.4
1. This instruction is for disparate treatment claims, as opposed to hostile
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 317
environment, pattern and practice, or disparate impact claims. See, e.g., EEOC v.
Joe’s Stone Crab, Inc., 220 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2000) (explaining differences
among disparate treatment, pattern and practice, and disparate impact claims of
discrimination).
2. This instruction is based upon F.S. 760.10(1), which makes it an
unlawful employment practice for an employer “(a) [t]o discharge or to fail or
refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual
with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” or
“(b) [t]o limit, segregate, or classify employees or applicants for employment in
any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment
opportunities, or adversely affect any individual’s status as an employee” when
those employment practices taken are “because of such individual’s race, color,
religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.” This
instruction can be modified to reflect the particular type of discriminatory
treatment at issue.
417.5 LEGAL CAUSE DISCRIMINATION
(Claimant’s) [race] [color] [religion] [sex] [pregnancy] [national origin]
[age] [handicap] [marital status] is the legal cause of (defendant’s) decision to
[discharge] [fail to hire] [(describe discriminatory treatment)] (claimant) if
(defendant) made the decision because of (claimant’s) [race] [color] [religion]
[sex] [pregnancy] [national origin] [age] [handicap] [marital status].
(If necessary, clarify the causation standard further.)
NOTES ON USE FOR 417.5
1. This instruction uses “because of,” the causation language in F.S.
760.10(1). The committee takes no position on whether additional clarification is
needed. We note that “because of” in employment statutes has been interpreted to
mean numerous types of causation. See generally, “Gross Disunity,” 114 Penn.
State L. Rev. 857 (2010) (“because of” can mean at least four different types of
causation). Courts have focused on three possible meanings: “sole,” “but for,” and
“motivating factor.” If an additional instruction is needed, it may vary depending
on which protected factor is involved, as explained below.
2. Race, color, religion, sex, national origin. No Florida appellate court
has stated which causation standard should be used for a Florida Civil Rights Act
(“FCRA”) discrimination claim based on one of the five factors enumerated in
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 318
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”). Florida
courts have endorsed the general rule that, because the FCRA was patterned after
Title VII, the Florida statute should be given the same construction as the federal
courts give the federal act. See, e.g., Carsillo v. City of Lake Worth, 995 So. 2d
1118, 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). In 1991, Congress added the “motivating factor”
causation standard to Title VII and added a “same decision” defense limiting
damages. The Florida legislature never amended the FCRA to add the “motivating
factor” causation standard and the “same decision” defense limiting damages.
3. Pregnancy. Title VII does not include “pregnancy” as a specifically
enumerated factor. However, Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act, defines “[t]he terms ‘because of sex’ or ‘on the basis of sex’
to include “because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical
conditions[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k). “Under Title VII, a plaintiff may prevail on a
[pregnancy discrimination] claim by showing that her pregnancy ‘was a motivating
factor’ for an employment decision.” Holland v. Gee, 677 F.3d 1047, 1055 (11th
Cir. 2012) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m)); Torres-Skair v. Medco Health
Solutions, Inc., 595 Fed. Appx. 847, 852 (11th Cir. 2014) (same).
The Florida Legislature amended the FCRA to include pregnancy as a
specifically enumerated factor, effective July 1, 2015. F.S. 760.10; Laws 2015, c.
2015-68, § 6. Prior to that amendment, the Florida Supreme Court held that the
FCRA’s prescription against discrimination because of “sex” includes
discrimination based on pregnancy. Delva v. Continental Group, Inc., 137 So. 3d
371, 375 (Fla. 2014). No Florida appellate court has stated which causation
standard should be used for an FCRA discrimination claim based on pregnancy.
However, the “motivating factor” causation standard has been utilized in
pregnancy discrimination claims brought concurrently under the FCRA and Title
VII. See, e.g., Gee, 677 F.3d at 10541055, 10581059, 10621063 (noting that
decisions construing Title VII guide the analysis of the plaintiff-employee’s
pregnancy discrimination claim under the FCRA); Torres-Skair, 595 Fed. Appx. at
852853.
4. Age. Courts have held that decisions construing the federal Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) apply to the FCRA’s age
discrimination provision. See, e.g., Fla. State Univ. v. Sondel, 685 So. 2d 923 (Fla.
1st DCA 1996). The U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the ADEA to require “but
for” causation. Gross v. FFL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 176 (2009).
5. Handicap. Courts have held that decisions construing the federal
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 319
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) apply to FCRA’s handicap discrimination
provision. See, e.g., Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 26 So. 3d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
There is a split among the federal circuits as to whether the ADA requires
“motivating factor” or “but for” causation. Compare Pinkerton v. Spellings, 529
F.3d 513, 519 (5th Cir. 2008) (“motivating factor”), with Lewis v. Humboldt
Acquisition Corp., 681 F.3d 312, 322 (6th Cir. 2012) (“but for”).
6. Marital Status. Marital status discrimination cases decided under the
FCRA do not provide clear guidance on the causation standard to be applied. See
Sanders v. Mayor’s Jewelers, Inc., 942 F. Supp. 571 (S.D. Fla. 1996) (holding that
complaint alleging “discriminatory intent” or marital status “as motivating factor”
was sufficient to state a claim); Nat’l Indus., Inc. v. Comm’n on Human Relations,
527 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (holding that, because no record of the
hearing was provided, the agency could not reject the hearing officer’s finding that
marital status was not “a motivating factor” and that no “discriminatory intent”
was present).
The Florida Supreme Court has held that the term “marital status,” as used in
the FCRA section prohibiting discrimination based on marital status, “means the
state of being married, single, divorced, widowed or separated, and does not
include the specific identity or actions of an individual’s spouse.” Donato v.
American Tel. & Tel. Co., 767 So. 2d 1146, 11541155 (Fla. 2000).
7. The committee takes no position as to whether a trial court should
instruct on a permissive inference of pretext, that is, the employer’s stated reason
for the adverse employment action was not the real reason but was given to hide a
discriminatory reason. No Florida appellate decision has addressed the issue in a
trial context. At least one Florida appellate decision has employed the pretext
consideration in the context of a summary judgment motion. See generally Feizi v.
Dep’t of Mgmt. Servs., 988 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (reversing summary
judgment where evidence was susceptible to a reasonable inference that the
explanation offered by the defendant for eliminating plaintiff’s job was pretextual).
There is disagreement among the federal circuits as to whether a pretext instruction
is required in employment discrimination cases under Title VII. See Ratliff v. City
of Gainesville, 256 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2001) (error not to give pretext inference
instruction), with Palmer v. Bd. of Regents, 208 F.3d 969 (11th Cir. 2000) (no error
in refusing to instruct jury that it could infer discrimination if it believed plaintiff’s
prima facie case and disbelieved defendant’s reason for adverse employment
action).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 320
8. Cat’s Paw. There is an additional theory of causation in federal
discrimination cases referred to as the “cat’s paw.” This theory recognizes that, in
certain situations, a biased supervisor’s discriminatory animus may be the cause of
the adverse employment action even though the actual decision-maker did not
possess that discriminatory animus. See Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411
(2011); Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families v. Shapiro, 68 So. 3d 298, 306 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2011). If the cat’s paw theory of causation applies, additional instructions
may be necessary. See, e.g., Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction 4.5.
9. Same Actor Inference. The law recognizes a permissible inference
that discriminatory animus was not the cause of an adverse employment action
when the person who hired the claimant is the same person who made the decision
to take the adverse employment action. See Brown Distributing Co. of West Palm
Beach v. Marcell, 890 So. 2d 1227, 1232 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); see also Williams v.
Vitro Servs. Corp., 144 F.3d 1438, 144243 (11th Cir. 1998). A Florida appellate
court has held it is reversible error to refuse to give an instruction on the “same
actor” inference when it has been requested and applies to the circumstances of the
case. See, e.g., Brown Distributing Co., 890 So. 2d at 1232. Additional
instructions may thus be necessary based on the circumstances of a particular case.
417.6 LEGAL CAUSE DAMAGE
The [discharge] [failure to hire] [(describe discriminatory treatment
alleged)] is the legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] if it directly and in
natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to
producing such damage, so that it can reasonably be said that, but for the
[discharge] [failure to hire] [(describe discriminatory treatment)], the [loss]
[injury] [or] [damage] would not have occurred.
NOTE ON USE FOR 417.6
This instruction is based upon F.S. 760.10(1).
417.7 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM
The issues you must decide on the claim of (claimant) against (defendant)
are whether (defendant) discriminated against (claimant) by [discharging]
[failing to hire] [(describe discriminatory treatment alleged)] (claimant) because
of (claimant’s) [race] [color] [religion] [sex] [pregnancy] [national origin] [age]
[handicap] [marital status] and, if so, whether the [discharge] [failure to hire]
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 321
[(describe discriminatory treatment)] was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] or
[damage] to (claimant).
NOTE ON USE FOR 417.7
This instruction is based upon F.S. 760.10(1).
417.8 BURDEN OF PROOF ON CLAIM
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support the claim of
(claimant), then your verdict should be for (defendant).
However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports the claim of
(claimant), [then your verdict should be for (claimant) and against (defendant)]
[then you shall consider the defense[s] raised by (defendant)].
[If the greater weight of the evidence supports the defense, your verdict
should be for (defendant). However, if the greater weight of the evidence does
not support the defense, your verdict should be for (claimant) and against
(defendant).]
417.9 UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION DAMAGES
If you find for (defendant), you will not consider the matter of damages.
But if you find for (claimant), you should award (claimant) an amount of
money that the greater weight of the evidence shows will fairly and adequately
compensate [him] [her] for such damage, including any such damage as
(claimant) is reasonably certain to incur in the future. You shall consider the
following elements of damages:
[any] [the difference between] lost wages and benefits to the date of trial
[and what (claimant) earned during that time].
[any mental anguish] [loss of dignity] and [(describe other intangible
injuries)] experienced in the past or to be experienced in the future. There is
no exact standard for measuring such damages. The amount should be fair
and just in the light of the evidence.
[any punitive damages warranted.] (insert applicable punitive damages
instruction).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 322
NOTES ON USE FOR 417.9
1. Lost wages and benefits. The court may issue an order “providing
affirmative relief from the effects of the discriminatory practice, including back
pay.” F.S. 760.11(5). Under Florida law, back pay is a legal remedy decided by
the jury, and front pay is an equitable remedy that does not include a right to jury
determination. O’Neal v. Fla. A&M Univ., 989 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
(decided under Florida’s Whistle-blower’s Act). Some federal courts submit front
pay issues to the jury for an advisory verdict. See, e.g., Wilson v. S & L
Acquisition Co., L.P., 940 F.2d 1429, 1438 (11th Cir. 1991); Hudson v. Chertoff,
473 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (S.D. Fla. 2007); Hill v. Xerox Corp., 998 F. Supp. 1378,
1385 n. 9 (N.D. Fla. 1998); Quitto v. Bay Colony Golf Club, Inc., 2007 WL
4098847, *12 (M.D. Fla. 2007). The Committee takes no position on instructing
the jury to determine front pay or on the use of an advisory verdict.
2. Compensatory Damages. The court may award “compensatory
damages, including, but not limited to, damages for mental anguish, loss of dignity,
and other intangible injuries….” F.S. 760.11(5). Examples of “other intangible
injuries” for which damages have been awarded under the FCRA include
“emotional distress,” Munoz v. Oceanside Resorts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1340, 134849
(11th Cir. 2000); “emotional injury,” City of Hollywood v. Hogan, 986 So. 2d 634,
649–50 (4th DCA 2008); “humiliation and embarrassment,” Melluzzo v. Pub.
Advocate, 2006 WL 5159197, at *3 (M.D. Fla. 2006); “pain and suffering” and
“loss of capacity for enjoyment of life experienced in the past or to be experienced
in the future,” Moses v. K-Mart Corp., 905 F. Supp. 1054, 1060 n.7 (S.D. Fla.
1995), aff’d 119 F.3d 10 (11th Cir. 1997).
3. Punitive Damages. The court may award punitive damages not to
exceed $100,000. F.S. 760.11(5). Pending further development of the law, the
committee takes no position as to whether the Florida standard or the heightened
federal standard for holding an employer vicariously liable for punitive damages
for the conduct of its employee should apply. See Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC v.
DuPont, 933 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (certifying the question of whether the
state or federal standard applies), review dismissed 955 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 2007).
“Under Florida law, the purpose of punitive damages is not to further
compensate the plaintiff, but to punish the defendant for its wrongful conduct and
to deter similar misconduct by it and other actors in the future.” Owens-Corning
Fiberglas Corp. v. Ballard, 749 So. 2d 483, 486 (Fla. 1999). However, “it is not
clear what the standard is for punitive damages awarded under section 760.10,”
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 323
DuPont, 933 So. 2d at 89, and the committee takes no position as to the standard
for determining whether punitive damages are warranted. The FCRA, unlike Title
VII, “simply provides that punitive damages may be awarded,” without any
express requirement as to what action is appropriate for punitive damage. Id. at
8990.
Some federal courts have applied Title VII’s punitive damages standard to
claims for punitive damages under the FCRA. See, e.g., Hipp v. Liberty Nat. Life
Ins. Co., 65 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (M.D. Fla. 1999), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other
grounds 252 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2001). “To recover punitive damages under
Title VII, a plaintiff must prove that defendant has ‘engaged in discriminatory
practices with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights
of an aggrieved individual.’Richardson v. Tricom Pictures & Productions, Inc.,
334 F. Supp. 2d 1303, 1319 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1)).
“Malice or reckless indifference is shown when the employer knowingly violates
federal law….” Id. at 13191320 (citing Kolstad v. Am. Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S.
526, 535, 119 S. Ct. 2118, 144 L. Ed. 2d 494 (1999)). “[A]n employer must at
least discriminate in the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate federal
law.” Kolstad, 527 U.S. at 535; Richardson, 334 F. Supp. 2d at 1320.
417.10 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FAILURE TO MITIGATE LOST
WAGES
[As a defense to (claimant’s) damages claim for lost wages and benefits,
(defendant) claims that (claimant) could have reduced [his] [her] damages by
making a reasonable effort to [seek] [retain] comparable employment.
Comparable employment means alternative employment similar to
(claimant’s) former job in the nature of the work, responsibilities and skills
required. (Claimant) need not accept employment that is unsuitable or
demeaning when compared with (claimant’s) former job.
If the greater weight of the evidence supports (defendant’s) claim that
there was comparable employment available to (claimant) and that (claimant)
failed to make a reasonable effort to [seek] [retain] such employment, then
you should reduce any lost wages and benefits you award to (claimant) by the
amount that (claimant) could have earned from the comparable employment.
If, however, the greater weight of the evidence does not support
(defendant’s) claim that there was comparable employment available to
(claimant) and that (claimant) failed to make a reasonable effort to [seek]
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 324
[retain] that employment, then your verdict should be for (claimant) in the
total amount of [his] [her] damages for lost wages and benefits.]
NOTES ON USE FOR 417.10
1. This instruction is given only if the defendant raised the affirmative
defense of failure to mitigate in a discharge or failure to hire case.
2. As to plaintiff’s “duty to mitigate” damages in cases involving
wrongful discharge, see generally Zayre Corp. v. Creech, 497 So. 2d 706, 708 (Fla.
4th DCA 1986); Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation v. Rierman, 370 So. 2d
33, 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Punkar v. King Plastic Corp., 290 So. 2d 505, 508
(Fla. 2d DCA 1974). This instruction does not use the termduty to mitigate”
because this is more accurately an application of the doctrine of avoidable
consequences. See System Components Corp. v. Fla. Dept. of Transp., 14 So. 3d
967, 982 (Fla. 2009).
3. Failure to Mitigate Lost Wages. With respect to the defendant’s
burden on this defense, federal courts have held that if the defendant proves the
claimant did not make a reasonable effort to seek out comparable employment, the
defendant has met its burden on this defense without the need to prove that
comparable employment was available to the claimant. See Weaver v. Casa
Gallardo, Inc., 922 F.2d 1515, 152728 (11th Cir. 1991); accord Greenway v.
Buffalo Hilton Hotel, 143 F.3d 47, 54 (2d Cir. 1998); Sellers v. Delgado Cmty.
College, 839 F.2d 1132, 1139 (5th Cir. 1988); NLRB v. Madison Courier, Inc., 472
F.2d 1307, 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (quoting Am. Bottling Co., 116 NLRB 1303,
1307 (1956)). No Florida appellate court has addressed this issue. The committee
takes no position on this issue, pending further development in Florida law.
417.11 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AFTER-ACQUIRED EVIDENCE
As a defense to (claimant’s) damages claim for (defendant’s) decision to
[discharge] [fail to hire] [(describe discriminatory treatment)] (claimant),
(defendant) claims that (claimant) engaged in wrongdoing or misconduct
during [his] [her] [employment] [job application process], which was of such
severity that if then known by (defendant) would have resulted in [his] [her]
[discharge] [failure to be hired] [(describe discriminatory treatment)].
If the greater weight of the evidence supports (defendant’s) claim that
(claimant) engaged in wrongdoing or misconduct that (defendant) did not
discover until after it [discharged] [failed to hire] [(describe discriminatory
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 325
treatment)] (claimant), you should reduce any damages for lost wages and
benefits that you award to (claimant) and calculate the total amount of [his]
[her] damages for lost wages and benefits from date of unlawful [discharge]
[failure to hire] [(describe discriminatory treatment)] to the date (defendant)
discovered the wrongdoing or misconduct.
(Claimant’s) wrongful conduct must have been of such severity that [he]
[she] in fact would have been [discharged] [not hired] [(describe discriminatory
treatment)] on those grounds alone if (defendant) had known of it at the time of
the [discharge] [failure to hire] [(describe discriminatory treatment)].
If, however, the greater weight of the evidence does not support
(defendant’s) claim that (claimant) engaged in wrongdoing or misconduct that
was discovered after the [discharge] [failure to hire] [(describe discriminatory
treatment)], then your verdict should be for (claimant) in the total amount of
[his] [her] damages for lost wages and benefits.
NOTES ON USE FOR 417.11
1. The doctrine of after-acquired evidence was established by the
Supreme Court in McKennon v. Nashville Banner Pub. Co., 513 U.S. 352, 115 S.
Ct. 879, 130 L. Ed. 2d 852 (1995), a case that arose under the ADEA. The after-
acquired evidence defense also applies to claims under the FCRA. See Brown
Distributing Co. of West Palm Beach v. Marcell, 890 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA
2005) (finding that the trial court erred by not giving the defendant-employer’s
proposed jury instruction on after-acquired evidence, which was “a fair reading of
the holding in McKennon and therefore appropriate as it accurately states the law
and is necessary for the jury to properly resolve the issues of the case”); Torres v.
TPUSA, Inc., No. 2:08cv618FtM29DNF, 2009 WL 764466, at *12 (M.D.
Fla., March 19, 2009) (holding that the doctrine of after-acquired evidence can be a
valid defense to a plaintiff’s claims of damages for violations of the FCRA); Neal
v. Manpower Intern., Inc., No. 3:00CV277/LAC, 2001 WL 1923127, at *14
(N.D. Fla., Sept. 17, 2001) (applying the after-acquired evidence defense to claims
under the FCRA).
2. The after-acquired evidence doctrine is a defense only to a claimant’s
damages claim; it has no bearing on liability. After-acquired evidence should not
be used to determine liability because “[t]he employer could not have been
motivated by the knowledge it did not have and it cannot now claim that the
employee was fired for the nondiscriminatory reason.” McKennon v. Nashville
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 326
Banner Pub. Co., 513 U.S. 352, 360, 115 S. Ct. 879, 130 L. Ed. 2d 852 (1995).
See also Crapp v. City of Miami Beach, 242 F.3d 1017, 1021 (11th Cir. 2001).
3. Misconduct in job application process. The Eleventh Circuit has held
“that the after-acquired evidence rule announced in McKennon applies to cases in
which the after-acquired evidence concerns the employee’s misrepresentations in a
job application or resume, as well as cases in which the after-acquired evidence
relates to employee wrongdoing during employment.” Wallace v. Dunn Const.
Co., Inc., 62 F.3d 374, 379 (11th Cir. 1995). See also Neal, 2001 WL 1923127, at
*14 (applying the after-acquired evidence defense where the plaintiff intentionally
falsified her employment application); Yeary v. Florida Dept. of Corrections, No.
95-0583-CIV-J-21-C, 1997 WL 284648, at *3 (M.D. Fla., May 13, 1997) (the after
acquired evidence “doctrine is equally applicable to instances of
misrepresentations and omissions by the employee in his or her job application”).
4. Reinstatement and front pay. Where the after-acquired evidence
defense would reduce a claimant’s damages for lost wages and benefits, “neither
reinstatement nor front pay is an appropriate remedy.” McKennon, 513 U.S. at
362363. See also Kovelesky v. First Data Corp., 534 Fed. Appx. 811, 814 (11th
Cir. 2013); Wallace, 62 F.3d at 380.
5. Compensatory damages. After-acquired evidence does not reduce or
preclude an award of compensatory damages even where such evidence reduces or
precludes back pay and reinstatement. Crapp, 242 F.3d at 1021 (holding that the
court’s decision to deny the plaintiff “backpay for a discriminatory termination and
yet award him compensatory damages for that termination” was appropriate and
consistent with McKennon). “Resolution of the [problem of after-acquired
evidence] must give proper recognition to the fact that [unlawful discrimination]
has occurred which must be deterred and compensated without undue infringement
upon the employer’s rights and prerogatives.” McKennon, 513 U.S. at 362.
417.12 REDUCTION OF DAMAGES TO PRESENT VALUE
Any amount of damages that you allow for wages and benefits to be lost
in the future should be reduced to its present money value and only the
present money value of those future economic damages should be included in
your verdict.
The present money value of future economic damages is the sum of
money needed now which, together with what that sum will earn in the future,
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 327
will compensate (claimant) for these losses as they are actually experienced in
future years.
NOTES ON USE FOR 417.12
1. Front pay is an equitable remedy that does not include a right to jury
determination. If the judge presents the issue to a jury with the other damages in
417.9, then this instruction should be given.
2. Designing a standard instruction for reduction of damages to present
value is complicated by the fact that there are several different methods used by
economists and courts to arrive at a present value determination. Cf., e.g., Delta
Air Lines, Inc. v. Ageloff, 552 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1989); Bould v. Touchette, 349 So.
2d 1181 (Fla. 1977) (even without evidence, juries may consider effects of
inflation); Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1953) (lost stream of income
approach); Renuart Lumber Yards v. Levine, 49 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1950) (using
approach similar to calculation of cost of annuity); Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
v. Garrison, 336 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (discussing real interest rate
discount method and inflation/market rate discount methods); see also Jones &
Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer, 462 U.S. 523 (1983); Culver v. Slater Boat Co.,
688 F.2d 280 (5th Cir. 1982); Beaulieu v. Elliott, 434 P.2d 665 (Alaska 1967) (total
offset method).
3. Until the Florida Supreme Court or the legislature adopts one
approach to the exclusion of other methods of calculating present money value, the
committee assumes that the present value of future economic damages is a finding
to be made by the jury on the evidence; or, if the parties offer no evidence to
control the finding, that the jury will properly resort to its own common knowledge
and by argument. See Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Burdi, 427 So. 2d 1048
(Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 328
SECTION 500 DAMAGES
A. Compensatory Damages
1. Personal Injury and Property Damages
501.1 Personal Injury and Property Damages: Introduction
501.2 Personal Injury and Property Damages: Elements
501.3 Motor Vehicle No-Fault Instruction
501.4 Comparative Negligence, Non-Party Fault and Multiple
Defendants
501.5 Other Contributing Causes of Damages
501.6 Mortality Tables
501.7 Reduction of Damages to Present Value
501.8 Collateral Source Rule
501.9 Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors
2. Wrongful Death Damages
502.1 Wrongful Death Damages: Introduction
502.2 Wrongful Death Damages: Elements for Estate and Survivors
502.3 Wrongful Death Damages of Estate and Survivors: Separate
Awards for Estate and Survivors
502.4 Wrongful Death Damages: Elements when There Are No
Survivors
502.5 Comparative Negligence, Non-Party Fault, and Multiple
Defendants
502.6 Mortality Tables
502.7 Reduction of Damages to Present Value
502.8 Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors
B. Punitive Damages
Note on Use for Punitive Damages Charges
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 329
503.1 Punitive Damages Bifurcated Procedure
503.2 Punitive Damages Non-Bifurcated Procedure
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 330
A. Compensatory Damages
1. Personal Injury and Property Damages
501.1 PERSONAL INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGES:
INTRODUCTION
a. When directed verdict is given on liability:
You should award (claimant) an amount of money that the greater
weight of the evidence shows will fairly and adequately compensate [him]
[her] for [his] [her] [loss] [injury] [or] [damage], including any damage
(claimant) is reasonably certain to [incur] [experience] in the future. You shall
consider the following elements:
b. All other cases:
If your verdict is for (defendant), you will not consider the matter of
damages. But if the greater weight of the evidence supports (claimant’s) claim,
you should determine and write on the verdict form, in dollars, the total
amount of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] which the greater weight of the
evidence shows will fairly and adequately compensate [him] [her] for [his]
[her] [loss] [injury] [or] [damage], including any damages that (claimant) is
reasonably certain to incur or experience in the future. You shall consider the
following elements:
NOTE ON USE FOR 501.1
If there is an issue of limitation on damages because of F.S. 627.737(2), use
instruction 501.3 instead of instruction 501.1 and 501.2. If there is a comparative
fault or Fabre issue, use the applicable parts of instruction 501.4 following either
instruction 501.2 or 501.3. See Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993). If
there are issues involving other contributing causes of damage, use instruction
501.5. To complete the instructions for Personal Injury and Property damages, use
the applicable parts of instructions 501.6501.9.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 331
501.2 PERSONAL INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGES: ELEMENTS
a. Injury, pain, disability, disfigurement, loss of capacity for enjoyment of life:
Any bodily injury sustained by (name) and any resulting pain and
suffering [disability or physical impairment] [disfigurement] [mental anguish]
[inconvenience] [or] [loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life] experienced in
the past [or to be experienced in the future]. There is no exact standard for
measuring such damage. The amount should be fair and just in the light of the
evidence.
b. Medical expenses:
Care and treatment of claimant:
The reasonable [value] [or] [expense] of [hospitalization and]
medical [and nursing] care and treatment necessarily or
reasonably obtained by (claimant) in the past [or to be so obtained
in the future].
Care and treatment of minor claimant after reaching majority:
The reasonable [value] [or] [expense] of [hospitalization and]
medical [and nursing] care and treatment necessarily or
reasonably to be obtained by (minor claimant) after [he] [she]
reaches the age of (legal age).
c. Lost earnings, lost time, lost earning capacity:
When lost earnings or lost working time shown:
[Any earnings] [Any working time] lost in the past [and any loss
of ability to earn money in the future].
When earnings or lost working time not shown:
Any loss of ability to earn money sustained in the past [and any
such loss in the future].
d. Spouse’s loss of consortium and services:
On the claim brought by (spouse), you should award (spouse) an amount
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 332
of money which the greater weight of the evidence shows will fairly and
adequately compensate (spouse) for any loss by reason of [his wife’s] [her
husband’s] injury, of [his] [her] services, comfort, society and attentions in the
past [and in the future] caused by the incident in question.
e. Parental damages for care and treatment of claimant’s minor child;
parental loss of child’s services, earnings, earning capacity:
On the claim[s] of (parent(s)), you should award (parent(s)) an amount of
money, which the greater weight of the evidence shows will fairly and
adequately compensate (parent(s)) for damages caused by the incident in
question. You shall consider the following element[s] of damage:
The reasonable [value] [or] [expense] of [hospitalization and] medical
[and nursing] care and treatment necessarily or reasonably obtained by
(parent(s)) for [his] [her] [their] child, (name), in the past [or to be so obtained
in the future until (name) reaches the age of (legal age)].
[Any loss by (parent(s)) by reason of [his] [her] [their] child’s injury, of
the [services] [earnings] [or] [earning ability] of [his] [her] [their] child in the
past [and in the future until the child reaches the age of (legal age)].]
[Any economic loss sustained by (parent(s)) [including] [any earnings
lost in the past] [and] [any loss of ability to earn money in the future]
reasonably resulting from the need to care or provide for the child because of
the child’s injury [until (name) reaches the age of (legal age)].]
f. Parental loss of filial consortium as a result of significant injury resulting in
child’s permanent disability:
In addition, if the greater weight of the evidence shows that (claimant
child) sustained a significant injury resulting in (claimant child’s) permanent
total disability, you shall consider the following element of damage:
Any loss by (parent(s)), by reason of that injury, of their child’s
companionship, society, love, affection, and solace in the past [and in the
future until the child reaches the age of (legal age)].
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support (parent(s)’s) claim
that their child sustained a significant injury resulting in permanent total
disability, your verdict should be for (defendant(s)) on this element of damage.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 333
NOTES ON USE FOR 501.2f
1. The committee believes that United States v. Dempsey, 635 So. 2d
961 (Fla. 1994), which recognizes a parental right of recovery for loss of filial
consortium, does not eliminate the common law right to recover for loss of the
child’s services or earnings. The common law also allows recovery for a parent’s
loss of earnings or other economic loss reasonably resulting from the need to care
for an injured child. Wilkie v. Roberts, 91 Fla. 1064, 109 So. 225 (Fla. 1926).
2. This instruction does not address the issue of a child with extra-
ordinary income-producing abilities prior to the injury. See Dempsey, 635 So. 2d at
965.
3. A loss of filial consortium claim may require separate interrogatories
on the verdict form on the issues of whether the child sustained a significant injury
resulting in permanent total disability, and the amount of damages on such a claim.
g. Unmarried dependent’s claim for loss of parental consortium:
In addition, if the greater weight of the evidence shows that (claimant
parent) sustained a significant injury resulting in (claimant parent’s) permanent
total disability, you shall consider the following element of damage:
Any loss by reason of (claimant parent’s) injury of (claimant parent’s)
services, comfort, companionship and society in the past and in the future.
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support the claim that
(claimant parent(s)’s) sustained a significant injury resulting in permanent
total disability, your verdict should be for (defendant(s)) on this element of
damage.
NOTES ON USE FOR 501.2g
1. If issues arise as to the child’s marital status, parentage, or
dependency, this instruction should be modified.
2. F.S. 768.0415 does not define “significant permanent injury,”
“dependent” or “permanent total disability.” Therefore, the instructions do not
attempt to define the terms.
3. F.S. 768.0415 refers only to “negligence.” The committee takes no
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 334
position as to whether the statute is limited to negligence cases or the definition of
“negligence” in this statutory context. For example, see F.S. 768.81(4)(a) defining
“negligence cases.”
4. Pending further development of the law, the committee takes no
position as to whether there may be elements of damage not specifically
enumerated in the statute.
5. The duration of future damages for which the child may recover is
unclear. Pending further development of the law, the committee takes no position
as to whether the statute limits recovery of future damages to the life of the parent
or the duration of the claimant’s dependency.
h. Property damage:
Any damage to [his] [her] [its] (identify automobile or other personal property).
The measure of such damage is:
[the difference between the value of the (name property) immediately
before (incident complained of) and its value immediately afterward.]
[the reasonable cost of repair, if it was practicable to repair the (name
property), with due allowance for any difference between its value
immediately before the (incident complained of) and its value after
repair.]
You shall also take into consideration any loss to (claimant) [for towing
or storage charges and] by being deprived of the use of [his] [her] [its] (name
property) during the period reasonably required for its [replacement] [repair].
NOTE ON USE FOR 501.2h
Concerning damages for loss of use, see Meakin v. Dreier, 209 So. 2d 252
(Fla. 2d DCA 1968). Concerning prejudgment interest, contrast Jacksonville, T. &
K. W. Ry. Co. v. Peninsular Land, Transportaion & Manufacturing, Co., 27 Fla. 1,
27 Fla. 157, 9 So. 661 (Fla. 1891), and McCoy v. Rudd, 367 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1979).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 335
501.3 MOTOR VEHICLE NO-FAULT INSTRUCTION
If your verdict is for (defendant)(s)), you will not consider the matter of
damages. But if the greater weight of the evidence supports (claimant’s) claim,
you should determine and write on the verdict form, in dollars, the total
amount of money that the greater weight of the evidence shows will fairly and
adequately compensate (claimant) for the following elements of damage [to the
extent that they have not been paid and are not payable by personal injury
protection benefits], including damage that (claimant) is reasonably certain to
incur in the future:
a. Medical expenses:
Care and treatment of claimant:
The reasonable [value] [or] [expense] of [hospitalization and] medical
[and nursing] care and treatment necessarily or reasonably obtained by
(claimant) in the past [or to be so obtained in the future].
Care and treatment of minor claimant after reaching majority:
The reasonable [value] [or] [expense] of [hospitalization and] medical
[and nursing] care and treatment necessarily or reasonably to be
obtained by (minor claimant) after [he] [she] reaches the age of (legal
age).
b. Lost earnings, lost time, lost earning capacity:
When lost earnings or lost working time shown:
[Any earnings] [Any working time] lost in the past [and any loss of
ability to earn money in the future].
When earnings or lost working time not shown:
Any of loss ability to earn money sustained in the past [and any such
loss in the future].
c. Property damage:
Any damage to [his] [her] [its] (identify automobile or other personal
property). The measure of such damage is:
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 336
[the difference between the value of the (name property) immediately
before (incident complained of) and its value immediately afterward.]
[the reasonable cost of repair, if it was practicable to repair the (name
property), with due allowance for any difference between its value
immediately before the (incident complained of) and its value after
repair.]
You shall also take into consideration any loss to (claimant) [for towing
or storage charges and] by being deprived of the use of [his] [her] [its] (name
property) during the period reasonably required for its [replacement] [repair].
NOTE ON USE FOR 501.3c
Concerning damages for loss of use, see Meakin v. Dreier, 209 So. 2d 252
(Fla. 2d DCA 1968). Concerning prejudgment interest, contrast Jacksonville, T. &
K. W. Ry. Co. v. Peninsular Land, Transportation & Manufacturing, Co., 27 Fla. 1,
27 Fla. 157, 9 So. 661 (Fla. 1891), and McCoy v. Rudd, 367 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1979).
You must next decide whether (claimant’s) [injury] [or] [disease],
resulting from the incident in this case, is permanent. An [injury] [or]
[disease] is permanent if it, in whole or in part, consists of:
[(1) a significant and permanent loss of an important bodily
function;] [or]
[(2) a significant and permanent scarring or disfigurement;] [or]
[(3) an injury that the evidence shows is permanent to a
reasonable degree of medical probability].
If the greater weight of the evidence does not establish that (claimant’s)
injury is permanent, then your verdict is complete. If, however, the greater
weight of the evidence shows that (claimant’s) [injury] [or] [disease] is
permanent, you should also award damages for [this] [these] additional
element[s] of damage:
d. Injury, pain, disability, disfigurement, loss of capacity for enjoyment of life:
Any bodily injury sustained by (name) and any resulting pain and
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 337
suffering [disability or physical impairment] [disfigurement] [mental anguish]
[inconvenience] [or] [loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life] experienced in
the past [or to be experienced in the future]. There is no exact standard for
measuring such damage. The amount should be fair and just in the light of the
evidence.
e. Spouse’s loss of consortium and services:
On the claim brought by (spouse), you should award (spouse) an amount
of money which the greater weight of the evidence shows will fairly and
adequately compensate (spouse) for any loss by reason of [his wife’s] [her
husband’s] injury, of [his] [her] services, comfort, society and attentions in the
past [and in the future] caused by the incident in question.
NOTES ON USE FOR 501.3
1. See F.S. 627.737(2) (1991). Use of the threshold instruction will in
most cases require the use of an interrogatory verdict form.
2. If there is proof that a claimant will incur future damages that are not
excluded from recovery by F.S. 627.737 (1991), such as where claimant at trial is
not at maximum medical improvement and will have a limited period of future lost
income or medical expenses, it will be necessary to add the following language
after the word “question”: “including any such damage as (claimant) is reasonably
certain to [incur] [experience] in the future.”
3. The committee has placed this instruction in the damages section
because the statute sets a threshold to the recovery of non-economic damages only.
If claimant does not establish permanency, claimant may still be entitled to recover
economic damages that exceed personal injury protection benefits. See F.S.
627.737(2) (1991); Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Tompkins, 651 So. 2d 89 (Fla.
1995). Therefore, negligence will still be an issue for the jury to decide where there
are recoverable economic damages even in cases where no permanency is found.
If, however, there are no recoverable damages or such damages are not submitted
to the jury, then the court may wish to modify the instruction. For example, the
court may instruct the jury: “If the greater weight of the evidence does not support
the claim on the issue of permanency, then your verdict should be for the
defendant.”
4. F.S. 627.737(2) (1991) does not define “permanent injury within a
reasonable degree of medical probability” that is established by expert testimony.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 338
Morey v. Harper, 541 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Fay v. Mincey, 454 So. 2d
587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Horowitz v. American Motorist Insurance Co., 343 So.
2d 1305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); see Bohannon v. Thomas, 592 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1992); City of Tampa v. Long, 638 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1994). Therefore, the
instructions do not attempt to define the terms and leave their explanation to the
testimony of the experts and argument of counsel. See Rivero v. Mansfield, 584 So.
2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), quashed in part, approved in part, 620 So. 2d 987;
see Philon v. Reid, 602 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). But see Weygant v. Fort
Myers Lincoln Mercury, Inc., 640 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 1994).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 339
501.4 COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, NON-PARTY FAULT AND
MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS
In determining the total amount of damages, you should not make any
reduction because of the negligence, if any, of (claimant) or (defendant(s)). The
court in entering judgment will make any appropriate reduction(s).
When a Fabre issue is involved:
In determining the total amount of damages, you should [also] not make
any reduction because of the [negligence] [fault], if any, of (identify any
additional person or entity who will be on verdict form). The court in entering
judgment will make any appropriate reductions.
NOTE ON USE FOR 501.4
When the jury is instructed to apportion fault, and a Fabre issue is involved,
see Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993), and Nash v. Wells Fargo
Services, Inc., 678 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1996). The third paragraph of this instruction
should be used to inform the jury of the appropriate procedure, so that the jury
does not make inappropriate adjustments to its verdict. There is support for giving
a special instruction explaining to the jury the impact and effect of an F.S. 768.81
apportionment of liability in such cases. See Slawson v. Fast Food Enterprises,
671 So. 2d 255, 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Seminole Gulf Railway, Limited
Partnership v. Fassnacht, 635 So. 2d 142, 144 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (Altenbernd, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part). Pending further development in the law,
the committee takes no position on this issue.
(Revised February 1, 2018)
501.5 OTHER CONTRIBUTING CAUSES OF DAMAGES
a. Aggravation or activation of disease or defect:
If you find that the (defendant(s)) caused a bodily injury, and that the
injury resulted in [an aggravation of an existing disease or physical defect]
[or] [activation of a latent disease or physical defect], you should attempt to
decide what portion of (claimant’s) condition resulted from the [aggravation]
[or] [activation]. If you can make that determination, then you should award
only those damages resulting from the [aggravation] [or] [activation].
However, if you cannot make that determination, or if it cannot be said that
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 340
the condition would have existed apart from the injury, then you should
award damages for the entire condition suffered by (claimant).
NOTE ON USE FOR 501.5a
This instruction is intended for use in situations in which a preexisting
physical condition is aggravated by the injury, or the injury activates a latent
condition. See C. F. Hamblen, Inc. v. Owens, 172 So. 694 (Fla. 1937). When
Instruction 501.5a is given, Instruction 401.12b (Concurring cause) is necessary.
See Hart v. Stern, 824 So. 2d 927, 93234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Auster v.
Gertrude & Philip Strax Breast Cancer Detection Institute, Inc., 649 So. 2d 883,
887 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
b. Subsequent injuries/multiple events:
You have heard that (claimant) may have been injured in two events. If
you decide that (claimant) was injured by (defendant) and was later injured by
another event, then you should try to separate the damages caused by the two
events and award (claimant) money only for those damages caused by
(defendant). However, if you cannot separate some or all of the damages, you
must award (claimant) any damages that you cannot separate as if they were
all caused by (defendant).
NOTES ON USE FOR 501.5b
1. Instruction 501.5b addresses the situation occurring in Gross v. Lyons,
763 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2000). It is not intended to address other situations. For
example, see Stuart v. Hertz Corp., 351 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1977), and Eli Witt Cigar
& Tobacco Co. v. Matatics, 55 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1951). The committee recognizes
that the instruction may be inadequate in situations other than the situation in
Gross.
2. The committee takes no position on whether the subsequent event is
limited to a tortious event, or may be a nontortious event.
c. Subsequent injuries caused by medical treatment:
If you find that (defendant(s)) caused [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to
(claimant), then (defendant(s)) [is] [are] also responsible for any additional
[loss] [injury] [or] [damage] caused by medical care or treatment reasonably
obtained by (claimant).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 341
NOTE ON USE FOR 501.5c
This instruction is intended for use in cases involving additional injury
caused by subsequent medical treatment. See, e.g., Stuart v. Hertz Corp., 351 So.
2d 703 (Fla. 1977); Pedro v. Baber, 83 So. 3d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Tucker v.
Korpita, 77 So. 3d 716, 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Nason v. Shafranski, 33 So. 3d
117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Dungan v. Ford, 632 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
(Revised April 21, 2016)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 342
501.6 MORTALITY TABLES
If the greater weight of the evidence shows that (claimant) has been
permanently injured, you may consider [his] [her] life expectancy. The
mortality tables received in evidence may be considered in determining how
long (claimant) may be expected to live. Mortality tables are not binding on
you but may be considered together with other evidence in the case bearing on
(claimant’s) health, age and physical condition, before and after the injury, in
determining the probable length of [his] [her] life.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 343
501.7 REDUCTION OF DAMAGES TO PRESENT VALUE
Any amount of damages which you allow for [future medical expenses],
[loss of ability to earn money in the future], [or] [(describe any other future
economic loss which is subject to reduction to present value)] should be reduced
to its present money value and only the present money value of these future
economic damages should be included in your verdict.
The present money value of future economic damages is the sum of
money needed now which, together with what that sum will earn in the future,
will compensate (claimant) for these losses as they are actually experienced in
future years.
NOTES ON USE FOR 501.7
1. Designing a standard instruction for reduction of damages to present
value is complicated by the fact that there are several different methods used by
economists and courts to arrive at a present-value determination. See, for example,
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Ageloff, 552 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1989), and Renuart Lumber
Yards v. Levine, 49 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1950) (using approach similar to calculation of
cost of annuity); Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer, 462 U.S. 523, 103 S.Ct.
2541, 76 L.Ed.2d 768 (1983), and Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1953) (lost
stream of income approach); Beaulieu v. Elliott, 434 P.2d 665 (Alaska 1967) (total
offset method); Culver v. Slater Boat Co., 688 F.2d 280 (5th Cir. 1982), and
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Garrison, 336 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
(discussing real interest rate discount method and inflation/market rate discount
methods); and Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1977) (even without
evidence, juries may consider the effects of inflation).
2. Until the Florida Supreme Court or the legislature adopts one
approach to the exclusion of other methods of calculating present money value, the
committee assumes that the present value of future economic damages is a finding
to be made by the jury on the evidence; or, if the parties offer no evidence to
control that finding, that the jury properly resorts to its own common knowledge as
guided by instruction 501.7 and by argument. See Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v.
Burdi, 427 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
3. This instruction conflicts with F.S. 768.77(2)(a)2. And should not be
given in medical malpractice cases when a party has requested that future damages
be paid in periodic payments.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 344
(Revised April 21, 2016)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 345
501.8 COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE
a. Tort actions generally:
You should not reduce the amount of compensation to which (claimant)
is otherwise entitled on account of [wages] [medical insurance payments] [or
other benefits (specify)] which the evidence shows (claimant) received from
[his] [her] [employer] [insurance company] [or some other source]. The court
will reduce as necessary the amount of compensation to which (claimant) is
entitled on account of any such payments.
b. Actions accruing before October 1, 1993, arising out of ownership,
operation, use or maintenance of a motor vehicle:
In this case, you should reduce the amount of compensation to which
(claimant) is otherwise entitled on account of [wages] [disability benefits]
[medical insurance benefits] [or other benefits (specify)] which the evidence
shows (claimant) received from [his] [her] [employer] [insurance company] [or
some other source].
c. Actions accruing on or after October 1, 1993, arising out of ownership,
operation, use, or maintenance of a motor vehicle:
Some expenses claimed as damages by (claimant) may have been paid
[or are payable] by personal injury protection insurance. You should not
award (claimant) any damages for [earnings lost in the past] [or] [past medical
expenses] that have been paid [or that are payable] by personal injury
protection insurance. [“Payable” expenses are expenses that have been
incurred and will be paid by personal injury protection insurance.]
NOTES ON USE FOR 501.8
1. If improper evidence of collateral benefits is inadvertently admitted or
if, in the circumstances of the case, the payment of collateral benefits is inferred,
instruction 501.8, the conventional collateral source instruction, should be given
immediately following mention in the instruction of the particular element of
damage to which the collateral source instruction is properly applicable. See
Greyhound Corp. v. Ford, 157 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); Paradis v. Thomas,
150 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). See F.S. 768.76, 1986 supplement,
concerning particular collateral source deductions by the court.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 346
2. Instruction 501.8b, not instruction 501.8a, should be given in all
actions for personal injury or wrongful death accruing before October 1, 1993,
arising out of the ownership, operation, use, or maintenance of a motor vehicle.
Instruction 501.8b is derived from F.S. 627.7372 (1987), which was repealed for
causes of action accruing on or after October 1, 1993. Ch. 93-245, §3, Laws of Fla.
That statute specified which benefits are defined as collateral sources and which
are specifically excluded from the definition.
3. In most cases, the parties will agree that PIP setoffs are to be applied
by the court post-trial. Absent such an agreement, in all actions for personal injury
or wrongful death accruing on or after October 1, 1993, arising out of the
ownership, operation, use, or maintenance of a motor vehicle, in which evidence is
presented that personal injury protection benefits have been paid or are payable,
instruction 501.8c should be given. See F.S. 627.736(3); Caruso v. Baumle, 880
So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2004). The bracketed language that constitutes the last sentence of
the first paragraph of instruction 501.8c should be given only when personal injury
protection benefits are payable for incurred expenses that have not yet been
processed or paid by the personal injury protection insurer at the time of trial. See
Rollins v. Pizzarelli, 761 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2000). It appears that “payable” personal
injury protection benefits do not include benefits for incurred expenses that have
been submitted to, but contested by, the PIP insurer at the time of trial, or in
situations where the PIP insurer is insolvent at the time of trial. Compare Rollins,
761 So. 2d at 299300. Pending further development of the law, however, the
committee takes no position as to whether the bracketed last sentence of instruction
501.8c should be given in such circumstance.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 347
501.9 LIABILITY OF MULTIPLE TORTFEASORS
a. Comparative negligence cases (special verdicts):
Even if you decide that [both] [more than one] of the defendant[s] were
negligent, you should determine [(claimant’s)] [each claimant’s] damages in a
single total amount, and write that amount, in dollars, on the verdict form.
b. Cases not requiring special verdicts:
If you find for (claimant) against [both] [more than one] of the
defendant[s], you should assess (claimant’s) damages in a single amount
against [both defendants] [the defendants whom you find to be liable to
(claimant)].
2. Wrongful Death Damages
502.1 WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES: INTRODUCTION
a. When directed verdict is given on liability:
You should award (decedent’s) personal representative an amount of
money that the greater weight of the evidence shows will fairly and adequately
compensate (decedent’s) estate and (decedent’s) survivors for their damages,
including any damages that the estate and the survivors are reasonably
certain to incur or experience in the future.
b. All other cases:
If your verdict is for (defendant), you will not consider the matter of
damages. But if the greater weight of the evidence supports (personal
representative’s) claim, you should determine and write on the verdict form, in
dollars, the total amount of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] which the greater
weight of the evidence shows the estate of (decedent) and [his] [her] survivors
sustained as a result of [his] [her] injury and death, including any damages
that the estate and the survivors are reasonably certain to incur or experience
in the future.
NOTES ON USE FOR 502.1
1. For Wrongful Death damage instructions, use the applicable parts of
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 348
instructions 502.1 502.4. If there is a comparative fault or Fabre issue, after
giving instructions on the elements of damages, use instruction 502.5. See Fabre
v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993). The note on use following instruction
502.5 provides more explanation of comparative fault and Fabre issues. To
complete the instructions for Wrongful Death damages, use the applicable parts of
instructions 502.6 502.8.
2. Model Instruction No. 2 illustrates the application of instructions
502.3 and 502.4 on wrongful death damages.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 349
502.2 WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES: ELEMENTS
FOR ESTATE AND SURVIVORS
ELEMENTS FOR ESTATE:
In determining the damages recoverable on behalf of (decedent’s) estate,
you shall consider the following elements:
a. Lost earnings:
The estate’s loss of earnings of (decedent) from the date of injury to the
date of death, [less any amount of monetary support you determine a survivor
lost during that period].
b. Lost accumulations:
The estate’s loss of net accumulations: “Net accumulations” is the part
of (decedent’s) net income [from salary or business] after taxes, including
pension benefits [but excluding income from investments continuing beyond
death], which (decedent), after paying [his] [her] personal expenses and
monies for the support of [his] [her] survivors, would have left as part of [his]
[her] estate if [he] [she] had lived [his] [her] normal life expectancy.
NOTE ON USE FOR 502.2b
The estate may recover lost accumulations when the sole survivor is a parent
without a cause of action in his or her own right, as well as when survivors include
a spouse or lineal descendant. F.S. 768.21(6)(a) (1985); Vildibill v. Johnson, 492
So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 1986). The committee expresses no opinion concerning whether
“net accumulations” include income ending at death which is not derived from
salary or business. See F.S. 768.18(5) (1985); Delta Airlines, Inc. v. Ageloff, 552
So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1989); Wilcox v. Leverock, 548 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 1989).
c. Medical or funeral expenses:
Medical or funeral expenses due to (decedent’s) injury or death which
[have become a charge against (decedent’s) estate] [were paid by or on behalf
of (decedent) by one other than a survivor].
ELEMENTS FOR SURVIVING SPOUSE,
CHILD, OR PARENTS OF CHILD:
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 350
In determining any damages to be awarded (decedent’s) personal
representative for the benefit of (decedent’s) surviving [spouse] [children] [or]
[parents], you shall consider certain additional elements of damage for which
there is no exact standard for fixing the compensation to be awarded. Any
such award should be fair and just in the light of the evidence regarding the
following elements:
d. Damages of surviving spouse:
The [(wife’s) (husband’s)] loss of (decedent’s) companionship and
protection, and [her] [his] mental pain and suffering as a result of (decedent’s)
injury and death [from the date of injury]. In determining the duration of the
losses, you may consider the [joint life expectancy of (decedent) and (surviving
spouse)] [life expectancy of (surviving spouse)] together with the other evidence
in the case.
NOTES ON USE FOR 502.2d
1. F.S. 768.18 and 768.21 (1990), applicable to causes of action accruing
after October 1, 1990, expand eligible survivor claimants in wrongful death actions
by surviving parents and children, but are not applicable to claims for medical
malpractice as defined by F.S. 766.106(1) (1989).
2. This instruction is intended to allow a jury determination, if warranted
by the evidence, that the surviving spouse’s loss will continue beyond the “joint
life expectancy” until the survivor’s death, or will end before that actuarial period
has elapsed.
e. Damages by surviving child:
The loss by (name all eligible children) of parental companionship,
instruction and guidance, and [his] [her] [their] mental pain and suffering as a
result of (decedent’s) injury and death [from the date of the injury]. In
determining the duration of those losses, you may consider the [joint life
expectancy of (decedent) and (surviving child) [each of (surviving children)]]
[life expectancy of (surviving children) [each of the surviving children]]
together with the other evidence in the case.
f. Damages by surviving parent of child:
The mental pain and suffering of (parents) as a result of the injury and
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 351
death of (child) [from the date of injury]. In determining the duration of
mental pain and suffering, you may consider the life [expectancy]
[expectancies] of (surviving parent(s)) together with the other evidence in the
case.
ELEMENTS FOR SURVIVORS, INCLUDING SURVIVING SPOUSE, CHILD, OR
PARENTS OF CHILD:
In determining any damages to be awarded (decedent’s) personal
representative for the benefit of [each of] (decedent’s) survivor[s]* (name them
all), you shall consider the following elements:
*Further instructions may be required if there is a factual question of
whether a person is a “survivor” within the meaning of F.S. 768.18(1).
g. Lost support and services:
The [survivor’s] [survivors’, (name them all)], loss, by reason of
(decedent’s) injury and death, of (decedent’s) support and services [including
interest at (legal rate) on any amount awarded for such loss from the date of
injury to the date of death]. In determining the duration of any future loss,
you may consider the joint life expectancy of the survivor(s) and (decedent)
[and the period of minority, ending at age 25, of a healthy minor child].
In evaluating past and future loss of support and services, you shall
consider the survivor’s relationship to (decedent), the amount of (decedent’s)
probable net income available for distribution to the survivor and the
replacement value of (decedent’s) services to the survivor(s). [“Support”
includes contributions in kind as well as sums of money. “Services” means
tasks regularly performed by (decedent) for a survivor that will be a necessary
expense to the survivor because of (decedent’s) death.]*
*The bracketed material should be given only when warranted by the
evidence and requested by a party.
NOTES ON USE FOR 502.2g
1. Period of minority. The period of minority for purposes of the
wrongful death act is age 25. F.S. 768.18(2). The bracketed reference to the period
of minority, in the first paragraph, should not be given if the minor survivor’s
dependency will continue beyond that age because the child is not “healthy,” or if
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 352
the decedent was a minor on whose support or services the claimant survivor
would remain dependent beyond that time.
2. Support and services specially defined. The special definitions of
these terms bracketed in the second paragraph should be given only when
warranted by the evidence and requested by a party.
h. Medical and funeral expenses paid by survivor:
[Medical] [or] [funeral] expenses due to (decedent’s) [injury] [or] [death]
paid by any survivor.
(Revised November 2, 2017.)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 353
502.3 WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES OF ESTATE AND SURVIVORS:
SEPARATE AWARDS FOR ESTATE AND SURVIVORS
Any damages that you find were sustained by (decedent’s) estate and by
(name survivors) shall be separately stated in your verdict.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 354
502.4 WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES:
ELEMENTS WHEN THERE ARE NO SURVIVORS
In determining the damages recoverable on behalf of (decedent’s) estate,
you shall consider the following elements:
a. Lost earnings:
Loss of earnings of (decedent) from the date of injury to the date of
death.
b. Medical or funeral expenses:
Medical or funeral expenses due to (decedent’s) injury or death that
have become a charge upon [his] [her] estate or were paid by or on behalf of
(decedent).
c. Lost accumulations:
The estate’s loss of net accumulations: “Net accumulations” is the part
of (decedent’s) net income [from salary or business] after taxes, including
pension benefits [but excluding income from investments continuing beyond
death], which the decedent would have left as part of [his] [her] estate if [he]
[she] had lived [his] [her] normal life expectancy.
NOTE ON USE FOR 502.4c
When it is shown that decedent had no survivors as defined in F.S.
768.18(1), lost accumulations are recoverable only if decedent was age 25 or over.
F.S. 768.21(6)(a) (1985). The committee expresses no opinion concerning whether
“net accumulations” include income ending at death which is not derived from
salary or business. See F.S. 768.18(5) (1985).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 355
502.5 COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, NON-PARTY FAULT
AND MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS
In determining the total amount of damages to (decedent’s) estate and
[his] [her] survivors as a result of [his] [her] injury and death, you should not
make any reduction because of the negligence, if any, of (decedent or survivor
or any other person). The court in entering judgment will make any
appropriate reduction(s).
When a Fabre issue is involved:
In determining the total amount of damages, you should [also] not make
any reduction because of the [negligence] [fault], if any, of (identify any
additional person or entity who will be on verdict form). The court in entering
judgment will make any appropriate reduction(s).
NOTES ON USE FOR 502.5
1. When the jury is instructed to apportion fault and a Fabre issue is
involved, see Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993), and Nash v. Wells
Fargo Services, Inc., 678 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1996). The third paragraph of this
instruction should be used to inform the jury of the appropriate procedure, so the
jury does not make inappropriate adjustments to its verdict. There is support for
giving a special instruction explaining to the jury the impact and effect of F.S.
768.81 apportionment of liability in such cases. See Slawson v. Fast Food
Enterprises, 671 So. 2d 255, 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Seminole Gulf Railway
Limited Partnership v. Fassnacht, 635 So. 2d 142, 144 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
(Altenbernd, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Pending further
development in the law, the committee takes no position on this issue.
2. The personal representative of the decedent’s estate is the only
appropriate party to bring a wrongful death claim, and the decedent’s comparative
fault, if any, will reduce the total recovery of the personal representative. However,
it may also be necessary to have a specific determination by the jury of the
survivor’s comparative negligence, which would be applied only to reduce that
survivor’s recovery. See F.S. 768.20; Frazier v. Metropolitan Dade County, 701
So. 2d 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Childers v. Schachner, 612 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1993); Gurney v. Cain, 588 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
(Revised February 1, 2018)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 356
502.6 MORTALITY TABLES
a. Personal representative claiming damages for benefit of decedent’s estate:
In determining how long (decedent) would have lived, had [he] [she]
lived out [his] [her] normal life, you may consider [his] [her] life expectancy at
the time of [his] [her] death. The mortality tables received in evidence may be
considered in determining how long [he] [she] may have been expected to live.
Mortality tables are not binding on you but may be considered together with
other evidence in the case bearing on [his] [her] health, age and physical
condition, before [his] [her] [injury and] death, in determining the probable
length of [his] [her] life.
b. Personal representative claiming damages for loss to survivor:
In determining the duration of any future loss sustained by (name
survivors) by reason of the death of (decedent), you may consider the joint life
expectancy of (name survivors) and (decedent). The joint life expectancy is that
period of time when both the decedent and a survivor would have remained
alive. The mortality tables received in evidence may be considered, together
with the other evidence in the case, in determining how long each may have
been expected to live.
NOTE ON USE FOR 502.6b
Because instruction 502.6b will almost invariably be preceded by instruction
502.6a, it is unnecessary to make repeated elaboration in instruction 502.6b of the
“other evidence in the case.”
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 357
502.7 REDUCTION OF DAMAGES TO PRESENT VALUE
Any amount of damages which you allow for [loss of earnings] [the
estate’s loss of net accumulations], [or] [(describe any other future economic loss
which is subject to reduction to present value)] should be reduced to its present
money value and only the present money value of these future economic
damages should be included in your verdict.
The present money value of future economic damages is the sum of
money needed now which, together with what that sum will earn in the future,
will compensate (claimant) for these losses as they are actually experienced in
future years.
NOTES ON USE FOR 502.7
1. Designing a standard instruction for reduction of damages to present
value is complicated by the fact that there are several different methods used by
economists and courts to arrive at a present-value determination. See, for example,
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Ageloff, 552 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1989), and Renuart Lumber
Yards v. Levine, 49 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1950) (using approach similar to calculation of
cost of annuity); Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer, 462 U.S. 523, 103 S.Ct.
2541, 76 L.Ed.2d 768 (1983), and Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1953) (lost
stream of income approach); Beaulieu v. Elliott, 434 P.2d 665 (Alaska 1967) (total
offset method); Culver v. Slater Boat Co., 688 F.2d 280 (5th Cir. 1982), and
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Garrison, 336 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
(discussing real interest rate discount method and inflation/market rate discount
methods); and Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1977) (even without
evidence, juries may consider effects of inflation).
2. Until the Supreme Court or the legislature adopts one approach to the
exclusion of other methods of calculating present money value, the committee
assumes that the present value of future economic damages is a finding to be made
by the jury on the evidence; or, if the parties offer no evidence to control that
finding, that the jury properly resorts to its own common knowledge as guided by
instruction 502.7 and by argument. See Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Burdi,
427 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
3. This instruction conflicts with F.S. 768.77(2)(a)2. and should not be
given in medical malpractice cases when a party has requested that future damages
be paid in periodic payments.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 358
(Revised April 21, 2016)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 359
502.8 LIABILITY OF MULTIPLE TORTFEASORS
a. Comparative negligence cases (special verdicts):
Even if you decide that [both] [more than one] of the defendant[s] were
negligent, you should determine [(claimant’s)] [each claimant’s] damages in a
single total amount, and write that amount, in dollars, on the verdict form.
b. Cases not requiring special verdicts:
If you find for (claimant) against [both] [more than one] of the
defendant[s], you should assess (claimant’s) damages in a single amount
against [both defendants] [the defendants whom you find to be liable to
(claimant)].
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 360
B. PUNITIVE DAMAGES
NOTE ON USE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES CHARGES
Effective October 1, 1999, F.S. 768.735 changed the common law of
punitive damages. These instructions are intended to comply with those statutory
provisions. For instructions applicable to causes of action arising prior to October
1, 1999, see Appendix C to this book.
These instructions are intended for use in the majority of punitive damages
cases with causes of action arising on or after October 1, 1999. They may not be
applicable in cases involving a defendant acting under the influence of drugs or
alcohol. See F.S. 768.736 (1999). Likewise, these instructions may not be
applicable in cases involving child abuse, abuse of the elderly, or abuse of the
developmentally disabled, or any civil action arising under F.S. Chapter 400. See
F.S. 768.735 (1999).
Under certain circumstances, an additional instruction may be required
regarding the upper limit on the amount of punitive damages. See Wransky v.
Dalfo, 801 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
Upon timely motion, a demand for punitive damages and determination of
the issues raised by such a demand must be submitted to the jury under the
bifurcated procedure established in W.R. Grace & Co. v. Waters, 638 So. 2d 502
(Fla. 1994). Instruction 503.1 is intended to comply with the required bifurcated
procedure. Absent a timely motion, punitive damage issues will be decided under a
non-bifurcated procedure, as provided in 503.2.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 361
503.1 PUNITIVE DAMAGES BIFURCATED PROCEDURE
a. First stage of bifurcated punitive damages procedure:
There is an additional claim in this case that you must decide. If you
find for (claimant) and against (defendant(s)), you must decide whether, in
addition to compensatory damages, punitive damages are warranted as
punishment to [one or more of] (defendant(s)) and as a deterrent to others.
The trial of the punitive damages issue is divided into two parts. In this
first part, you will decide whether the conduct of (defendant(s) or individual(s)
whose conduct may warrant punitive damages) is such that punitive damages are
warranted. If you decide that punitive damages are warranted, we will
proceed to the second part of that issue during which the parties may present
additional evidence and argument on the issue of punitive damages. I will then
give you additional instructions, after which you will decide whether, in your
discretion, punitive damages will be assessed and, if so, the amount.
b(1). Punitive damages for acts of an individual defendant:
(Claimant) claims that punitive damages should be awarded against
(defendant) for [his] [her] [its] conduct in (describe the alleged punitive conduct).
Punitive damages are warranted against (defendant) if you find by clear and
convincing evidence that (defendant) was guilty of intentional misconduct or
gross negligence, which was a substantial cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]
to (claimant). Under those circumstances you may, in your discretion, award
punitive damages against (defendant). If clear and convincing evidence does
not show such conduct by (defendant), punitive damages are not warranted
against (defendant).
“Intentional misconduct” means that (defendant) had actual knowledge
of the wrongfulness of the conduct and there was a high probability of injury
or damage to (claimant) and, despite that knowledge, [he] [she] intentionally
pursued that course of conduct, resulting in injury or damage. “Gross
negligence” means that (defendant’s) conduct was so reckless or wanting in
care that it constituted a conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety,
or rights of persons exposed to such conduct.
“Clear and convincing evidence” differs from the “greater weight of the
evidence” in that it is more compelling and persuasive. As I have already
instructed you, “greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 362
and convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
b(2). Direct liability for acts of managing agent, primary owner, or certain
others:
(Claimant) claims that punitive damages should be awarded against
(defendant) for the acts of (managing agent, primary owner, or other person
whose conduct may warrant punitive damages without proof of a superior’s fault)
in (describe the alleged punitive conduct). Punitive damages are warranted
against (defendant) if you find by clear and convincing evidence that (managing
agent, primary owner, or other person whose conduct may warrant punitive
damages without proof of a superior’s fault) [was] [were] personally guilty of
intentional misconduct or gross negligence which was a substantial cause of
[loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant). Under those circumstances you
may, in your discretion, award punitive damages against (defendant
corporation or partnership). If clear and convincing evidence does not show such
conduct by (managing agent, primary owner, or other person whose conduct may
warrant punitive damages without proof of a superior’s fault), punitive damages
are not warranted against (defendant).
[“Intentional misconduct” means that (person whose conduct may
warrant punitive damages) had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the
conduct and there was a high probability of injury or damage to (claimant)
and, despite that knowledge, [he] [she] intentionally pursued that course of
conduct, resulting in injury or damage. “Gross negligence” means that the
conduct of (person whose conduct may warrant punitive damages) was so
reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard or
indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct.]
[“Clear and convincing evidence” differs from the “greater weight of
the evidence” in that it is more compelling and persuasive. As I have already
instructed you, “greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive
and convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.]
b(3). Vicarious liability for acts of employee:
(Claimant) claims that punitive damages should be awarded against
(employee/agent) and (defendant employer) for (employee/agent’s) conduct in
(describe the alleged punitive conduct). Punitive damages are warranted against
(employee/agent) if you find by clear and convincing evidence that
(employee/agent) was personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 363
negligence, which was a substantial cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to
(claimant). Under those circumstances you may, in your discretion, award
punitive damages against (employee/agent). If clear and convincing evidence
does not show such conduct by (employee/agent), punitive damages are not
warranted against either (employee/agent) or (defendant employer).
If you find that punitive damages are warranted against
(employee/agent) you may also, in your discretion, award punitive damages
against (defendant employer) if you find from clear and convincing evidence
that:
(A). (defendant employer) actively and knowingly participated in
such conduct of (employee/agent); or
(B). the [officers] [directors] [or] [managers] of (defendant
employer) knowingly condoned, ratified, or consented to
such conduct of (employee/agent); or
(C). (defendant employer) engaged in conduct that constituted
gross negligence and that contributed to the [loss] [damage]
[or] [injury] to (claimant).
If clear and convincing evidence does not show such conduct by
(defendant employer) punitive damages are not warranted against (defendant
employer).
[“Intentional misconduct” means that (person whose conduct may
warrant punitive damages) had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the
conduct and there was a high probability of injury or damage to (claimant)
and, despite that knowledge, [he] [she] intentionally pursued that course of
conduct, resulting in injury or damage. “Gross negligence” means that the
conduct of (person whose conduct may warrant punitive damages) was so
reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard or
indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct.]
[“Clear and convincing evidence” differs from the “greater weight of
the evidence” in that it is more compelling and persuasive. As I have already
instructed you, “greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive
and convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.]
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 364
b(4). Vicarious liability for acts of employee where employee is not a party or is
not being sued for punitive damages:
(Claimant) claims that punitive damages should be awarded against
(defendant employer) for (employee/agent’s) conduct in (describe the alleged
punitive conduct). Punitive damages are warranted if you find by clear and
convincing evidence that (employee/agent) was personally guilty of intentional
misconduct or gross negligence, which was a substantial cause of [loss]
[injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant) and that:
(A) (defendant employer) actively and knowingly participated in
such conduct of (employee/agent); or
(B) the [officers] [directors] [or] [managers] of (defendant
employer) knowingly condoned, ratified, or consented to
such conduct of (employee/agent); or
(C) (defendant employer) engaged in conduct that constituted
gross negligence and that contributed to the [loss] [damage]
[or] [injury] to (claimant).
Under those circumstances you may, in your discretion, award punitive
damages against (defendant employer). If clear and convincing evidence does
not show such conduct by (employee/agent), punitive damages are not
warranted against (defendant employer).
[“Intentional misconduct” means that (person whose conduct may
warrant punitive damages) had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the
conduct and there was a high probability of injury or damage to (claimant)
and, despite that knowledge, [he] [she] intentionally pursued that course of
conduct, resulting in injury or damage. “Gross negligence” means that the
conduct of (person whose conduct may warrant punitive damages) was so
reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard or
indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct.]
[“Clear and convincing evidence” differs from the “greater weight of
the evidence” in that it is more compelling and persuasive. As I have already
instructed you, “greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive
and convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.]
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 365
(Proceed to 601.01 et seq. and balance of instructions for the completion of the
jury instructions.)
c. Second stage of bifurcated punitive damage procedure:
c(1). Opening instruction, second stage:
Members of the jury, I am now going to tell you about the rules of law
that apply to determining whether punitive damages should be assessed and,
if so, in what amount. When I finish with these instructions, the parties will
present additional evidence. You should consider this additional evidence
along with the evidence already presented, and you should decide any
disputed factual issues by the greater weight of the evidence. “Greater weight
of the evidence” means the more persuasive and convincing force and effect of
the entire evidence in the case.
c(2). Punitive damages determination of amount:
You are to decide the amount of punitive damages, if any, to be assessed
as punishment against (defendant(s)) and as a deterrent to others. This amount
would be in addition to the compensatory damages you have previously
awarded. In making this determination, you should consider the following:
(A). the nature, extent and degree of misconduct and the
related circumstances, including the following:
i. whether the wrongful conduct was motivated solely by
unreasonable financial gain;
ii. whether the unreasonably dangerous nature of the conduct,
together with the high likelihood of injury resulting from
the conduct, was actually known by [(defendant)] [(the
managing agent, director, officer, or other person responsible
for making policy decisions on behalf of the defendant)];
iii. whether, at the time of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage],
[(defendant)] [(the managing agent, director, officer, or other
person responsible for making policy decisions on behalf of the
defendant)] had a specific intent to harm (claimant) and the
conduct of [(defendant)] [(the managing agent, director,
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 366
officer, or other person responsible for making policy decisions
on behalf of the defendant)] did in fact harm (claimant), [and]
[(B). [the financial resources of (defendant(s)); and]*
*Refer to Note on Use 5.
[(C). (Identify any other circumstance that the jury may consider in
determining the amount of punitive damages.)]*
*Refer to Note on Use 6.
[However, you may not award an amount that would financially destroy
(defendant(s)).]*
*Refer to Note on Use 7.
You may in your discretion decline to assess punitive damages. [You
may assess punitive damages against one defendant and not the other[s] or
against more than one defendant. Punitive damages may be assessed against
different defendants in different amounts.]
d. Closing instruction, second stage:
Members of the jury, you have now heard and received all of the
evidence on the issue of punitive damages. Your verdict on the issues raised by
the punitive damages claim of (claimant) against (defendant(s)) must be based
on the evidence that has been received during the trial of the first phase of this
case and on the evidence that has been received in these proceedings and the
law on which I have instructed you. In reaching your verdict, you are not to
be swayed from the performance of your duty by prejudice or sympathy for
or against any party.
Your verdict must be unanimous, that is, your verdict must be agreed to
by each of you.
You will be given a form of verdict, which I shall now read to you:
When you have agreed on your verdict, the foreman or forewoman,
acting for the jury, should date and sign the verdict. You may now retire to
consider your verdict.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 367
NOTES ON USE FOR 503.1
1. This instruction is designed so it can be given before the taking of
evidence. Instruction 503.1a and the applicable part of 503.1b should be given as
part of the general instruction on the case. Instruction 503.1c is designed to be
given before the beginning of stage two of the punitive damages trial. And
instruction 503.1d is designed to be given at the close of the evidence in the stage
two proceeding.
2. Instruction 503.1a should be given in all cases involving bifurcated
proceedings.
Instruction 503.1b(1) should be given when the demand for punitive
damages is based on the conduct of an individual defendant.
Instruction 503.1b(2) should be given when the demand for punitive
damages is based on the conduct of a managing agent or principal. Bankers
Multiple Line Insurance Co. v. Farish, 464 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1985). That person
should be named in 503.1b(2). Pending further development in the law, the
committee takes no position regarding whether the independent negligence must be
on the part of a managing agent or principal or whether it can be based on the
independent negligence of another employee. See Schropp v. Crown Eurocars,
Inc., 654 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1995) and Partington v. Metallic Engineering, 792 So.
2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). In appropriate cases a corporate policy can provide
the basis for punitive damages against a corporation even though the particular
officers or agents of the corporation responsible for the policy are not discovered
or identified. See, e.g., Schropp at 1162 (Wells, J. concurring). In those cases, the
instruction will need to be modified accordingly.
Instruction 503.1b(3) should be given when there is a demand for punitive
damages against an employer/principal based on the conduct of an employee and
punitive damages are also being sought against the employee. There may be
situations other than employer-employee relationships where vicarious liability for
punitive damages may be imposed. See, e.g., Knepper v. Genstar Corp., 537 So.
2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (joint venture); Soden v. Starkman, 218 So. 2d 763
(Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (partnership).
Instruction 503.1b(4) should be given when there is a demand for punitive
damages against the employer/principal for the acts of an employee, but the
employee is not a defendant or is not being sued for punitive damages.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 368
In cases involving both direct and vicarious liability claims, instructions
503.1b(2) and 503.1c(2) or c(3) should be given with appropriate transitional
language with respect to the claims based on vicarious liability. The paragraphs
defining “intentional misconduct” and “clear and convincing evidence” are
bracketed because, once given, they do not have to be repeated.
3. Instructions 503.1b(1)b(4) are designed for use in most common-law
tort cases. However, certain types of intentional torts may require a punitive
damage charge appropriate to the particular tort. See, e.g., First Interstate
Development Corp. v. Ablanedo, 511 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1987); Metropolitan Life
Insurance Co. v. McCarson, 467 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1985). The same may be true
when punitive damages are authorized by statute. See, e.g., Home Insurance Co. v.
Owens, 573 So. 2d 343, 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
4. It is not the purpose of instruction 503.1c second stage instructions to
allow parties to relitigate in the second stage of the bifurcated proceeding, by new
evidence or by argument, the underlying question decided in the first stage of the
proceeding of whether an award of punitive damages is warranted. Rather, the
purpose of instruction 503.1c is to advise the jury that in the second stage of the
proceeding, evidence may be presented and argued which will allow the jury in its
discretion to determine the amount of an award of punitive damages, and that the
amount which the jury determines appropriate could be zero.
5. Instruction 503.1c(2)(B) should only be used when evidence of a
defendant’s financial worth is introduced.
6. Instruction 503.1c(2)(C) should be used only after the court has
determined that the evidence includes some additional circumstance that may
affect the amount of punitive damages. See, e.g., Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
v. Ballard, 749 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1999) (listing various such factors). See generally
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d
809 (1996). One such circumstance is the assessment of punitive damages against
the defendant in prior cases. See W.R. Grace & Co. v. Waters, 638 So. 2d 502 (Fla.
1994).
7. This instruction is to be given when requested by the defendant. See
Wransky v. Dalfo, 801 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). It appears that this
instruction can only be used when evidence of the defendant’s net worth has been
introduced. See Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1977); Rinaldi v. Aaron,
314 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1975). This instruction is not intended to supplant the court’s
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 369
function in determining whether a verdict is constitutional. See BMW of North
America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996);
Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1, 111 S.Ct. 1032, 113
L.Ed.2d 1 (1991). The committee notes that many reported decisions have used
alternative terms such as “bankrupt” or “economically castigate” to describe this
limitation, instead of or in addition to the term “financially destroy.” See, e.g.,
Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978); Lehman v. Spencer Ladd’s
Inc., 182 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 1966). The committee has selected the term “financially
destroy” for its simplicity, but does not intend to foreclose the use of other legally
valid terms where appropriate under the facts of the particular case.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 370
503.2 PUNITIVE DAMAGES NON-BIFURCATED PROCEDURE
a. Punitive damages generally:
There is an additional claim in this case that you must decide. If you
find for (claimant) and against (defendant(s)), you must decide whether, in
addition to compensatory damages, punitive damages are warranted as
punishment to [one or more of] (defendant(s)) and as a deterrent to others.
b(1). Punitive damages for acts of an individual defendant:
(Claimant) claims that punitive damages should be awarded against
(defendant) for [his] [her] [its] conduct in (describe the alleged punitive conduct).
Punitive damages are warranted against (defendant) if you find by clear and
convincing evidence that (defendant) was guilty of intentional misconduct or
gross negligence, which was a substantial cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]
to (claimant). Under those circumstances you may, in your discretion, award
punitive damages against (defendant). If clear and convincing evidence does
not show such conduct by (defendant), punitive damages are not warranted
against (defendant).
“Intentional misconduct” means that (defendant) had actual knowledge
of the wrongfulness of the conduct and that there was a high probability that
injury or damage to (claimant) and, despite that knowledge, [he] [she]
intentionally pursued that course of conduct, resulting in injury or damage.
“Gross negligence” means that (defendant’s) conduct was so reckless or
wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard or indifference to the
life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct.
“Clear and convincing evidence” differs from the “greater weight of the
evidence” in that it is more compelling and persuasive. As I have already
instructed you, “greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive
and convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
b(2). Direct liability for acts of managing agent, primary owner, or certain
others:
(Claimant) claims that punitive damages should be awarded against
(defendant) for the acts of (managing agent, primary owner, or other person
whose conduct may warrant punitive damages without proof of a superior’s fault)
in (describe the alleged punitive conduct). Punitive damages are warranted
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 371
against (defendant) if you find by clear and convincing evidence that (managing
agent, primary owner, or other person whose conduct may warrant punitive
damages without proof of a superior’s fault) [was] [were] personally guilty of
intentional misconduct or gross negligence which was a substantial cause of
[loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant). Under those circumstances you
may, in your discretion, award punitive damages against (defendant
corporation or partnership). If clear and convincing evidence does not show
such conduct by (managing agent, primary owner, or other person whose conduct
may warrant punitive damages without proof of a superior’s fault), punitive
damages are not warranted against (defendant).
[“Intentional misconduct” means that (person whose conduct may
warrant punitive damages) had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the
conduct and there was a high probability of injury or damage to (claimant)
and, despite that knowledge, [he] [she] intentionally pursued that course of
conduct, resulting in injury or damage. “Gross negligence” means that the
conduct of (person whose conduct may warrant punitive damages) was so
reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard or
indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct.]
[“Clear and convincing evidence” differs from the “greater weight of
the evidence” in that it is more compelling and persuasive. As I have already
instructed you, “greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive
and convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.]
b(3). Vicarious liability for acts of employee:
(Claimant) claims that punitive damages should be awarded against
(employee/agent) and (defendant employer) for (employee/agent’s) conduct in
(describe the alleged punitive conduct). Punitive damages are warranted against
(employee/agent) if you find by clear and convincing evidence that
(employee/agent) was personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross
negligence, which was a substantial cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to
(claimant). Under those circumstances you may, in your discretion, award
punitive damages against (employee/agent). If clear and convincing evidence
does not show such conduct by (employee/agent) punitive damages are not
warranted against either (employee/agent) or (defendant employer).
If you find that that punitive damages are warranted against
(employee/agent) you may also, in your discretion, award punitive damages
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 372
against (defendant employer) if you find from clear and convincing evidence
that:
(A). (defendant employer) actively and knowingly participated
in such conduct of (employee/agent); or
(B). the [officers] [directors] [or] [managers] of (defendant
employer) knowingly condoned, ratified, or consented to
such conduct of (employee/agent); or
(C). (defendant employer) engaged in conduct that constituted
gross negligence and that contributed to the [loss]
[damage] [or] [injury] to (claimant).
If clear and convincing evidence does not show such conduct by
(defendant employer), punitive damages are not warranted against (defendant
employer).
[“Intentional misconduct” means that (person whose conduct may
warrant punitive damages) had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the
conduct and there was a high probability of injury or damage to (claimant)
and, despite that knowledge, [he] [she] intentionally pursued that course of
conduct, resulting in injury or damage. “Gross negligence” means that the
conduct of (person whose conduct may warrant punitive damages) was so
reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard or
indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct.]
[“Clear and convincing evidence” differs from the “greater weight of
the evidence” in that it is more compelling and persuasive. As I have already
instructed you, “greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive
and convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.]
(b)(4). Vicarious liability for acts of employee where employee is not a party
or is not being sued for punitive damages:
(Claimant) claims that punitive damages should be awarded against
(defendant employer) for (employee/agent’s) conduct in (describe the alleged
punitive conduct). Punitive damages are warranted if you find by clear and
convincing evidence that (employee/agent) was personally guilty of intentional
misconduct or gross negligence, which was a substantial cause of [loss]
[injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant) and that:
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 373
(A). (defendant employer) actively and knowingly participated
in such conduct of (employee/agent); or
(B). the [officers] [directors] [or] [managers] of (defendant
employer) knowingly condoned, ratified, or consented to
such conduct of (employee/agent); or
(C). (defendant employer) engaged in conduct that constituted
gross negligence and that contributed to the [loss]
[damage] [or] [injury] to (claimant).
Under those you may, in your discretion, award punitive damages
against (defendant employer). If clear and convincing evidence does not show
such conduct by (employee/agent), punitive damages are not warranted
against (defendant employer).
[“Intentional misconduct” means that (person whose conduct may
warrant punitive damages) had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the
conduct and there was a high probability of injury or damage to (claimant)
and, despite that knowledge, [he] [she] intentionally pursued that course of
conduct, resulting in injury or damage. “Gross negligence” means that the
conduct of (person whose conduct may warrant punitive damages) was so
reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard or
indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct.]
[“Clear and convincing evidence” differs from the “greater weight of
the evidence” in that it is more compelling and persuasive. As I have already
instructed you, “greater weight of the evidence means the more persuasive
and convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.]
c. Closing punitive damage instruction:
If you decide that punitive damages that are warranted against [one or
more of] (defendant(s)) then you must decide the amount of punitive damages,
if any, to be assessed as punishment against (defendant(s)) and as a deterrent
to others. This amount would be in addition to the compensatory damages you
have previously awarded. In making this determination, you should consider
the following:
(1). the nature, extent and degree of misconduct and the
related circumstances, including the following:
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 374
(A). whether the wrongful conduct was motivated solely
by unreasonable financial gain;
(B). whether the unreasonably dangerous nature of the
conduct, together with the high likelihood of injury
resulting from the conduct, was actually known by
[(defendant)] [(the managing agent, director, officer, or
other person responsible for making policy decisions on
behalf of the defendant)];
(C). whether, at the time of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage],
[(defendant)] [(the managing agent, director, officer, or
other person responsible for making policy decisions on
behalf of the defendant)] had a specific intent to harm
(claimant) and the conduct of [(defendant)] [(the
managing agent, director, officer, or other person
responsible for making policy decisions on behalf of the
defendant)] did in fact harm (claimant), [and]
[(2). [the financial resources of (defendant(s)); and]*
*Refer to Note on Use 4.
[(3). (identify any other circumstance that the jury may consider in
determining the amount of punitive damages.)]*
*Refer to Note on Use 6.
[However, you may not award an amount that would financially destroy
(defendant(s)).]*
*Refer to Note on Use 7.
You may in your discretion decline to assess punitive damages. [You
may assess punitive damages against one defendant and not the other[s] or
against more than one defendant. Punitive damages may be assessed against
different defendants in different amounts.]
(Proceed to 601.01 et seq. and balance of instructions for the completion of the
jury instructions.)
NOTES ON USE TO 503.2
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 375
1. This instruction is designed so it can be given before the taking of
evidence. Instruction 503.2a and the applicable part of 503.2b should be given as
part of the general instruction on the case.
2. Instruction 503.2a should be given in all non-bifurcated cases.
Instruction 503.2b(1) should be given when the demand for punitive
damages is based on the conduct of an individual defendant.
Instruction 503.2b(2) should be given when the demand for punitive
damages is based on the conduct of a managing agent or principal. Bankers
Multiple Line Insurance Co. v. Farish, 464 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1985). That person
should be named in 503.2b(2). Pending further development in the law, the
committee takes no position regarding whether the independent negligence must be
on the part of a managing agent or principal or whether it can be based on the
independent negligence of another employee. See Schropp v. Crown Eurocars,
Inc., 654 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1995); Partington v. Metallic Engineering, 792 So. 2d
498 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). In appropriate cases a corporate policy can provide the
basis for punitive damages against a corporation even though the particular officers
or agents of the corporation responsible for the policy are not discovered or
identified. See, e.g., Schropp at 1162 (Wells, J. concurring). In those cases, the
instruction will need to be modified accordingly.
Instruction 503.2b(3) should be given when there is a demand for punitive
damages against an employer/principal based on the conduct of an employee and
punitive damages are also being sought against both the employee and employer.
There may be situations other than employer-employee relationships where
vicarious liability for punitive damages may be imposed. See, e.g., Knepper v.
Genstar Corp., 537 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (joint venture); Soden v.
Starkman, 218 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (partnership).
Instruction 503.2b(4) should be given when there is a demand for punitive
damages against the employer/principal for the acts of an employee, but the
employee is not a defendant or is not being sued for punitive damages.
In cases involving both direct and vicarious liability claims, instructions
503.2b(2) and 503.2b(3) or b(4) should be given with appropriate transitional
language with respect to the claims based on vicarious liability. The paragraphs
defining “intentional misconduct” and “clear and convincing evidence” are
bracketed because, once given, they do not have to be repeated.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 376
3. Instructions 503.2b(1)b(4) are designed for use in most common-law
tort cases. However, certain types of intentional torts may require a punitive
damage charge appropriate to the particular tort. See, e.g., First Interstate
Development Corp. v. Ablanedo, 511 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1987); Metropolitan Life
Insurance Co. v. McCarson, 467 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1985). The same may be true
where punitive damages are authorized by statute. See, e.g., Home Insurance Co. v.
Owens, 573 So. 2d 343, 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
4. Instruction 503.2c(2) should only be used when evidence of a
defendant’s financial worth is introduced.
5. It is not the purpose of these instructions to allow parties to relitigate
in the second stage of the bifurcated proceeding, by new evidence or by argument,
the underlying question decided in the first stage of the proceeding of whether an
award of punitive damages is warranted. Rather, the purpose of these instructions
is to advise the jury that in the second stage of the proceeding, evidence may be
presented and argued which will allow the jury in its discretion to determine the
amount of an award of punitive damages, and that the amount which the jury
determines appropriate could be zero.
6. Instruction 503.2c(3) should be used only after the court has
determined that the evidence includes some additional circumstance that may
affect the amount of punitive damages. See, e.g., Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
v. Ballard, 749 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1999) (listing various such factors). See generally
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d
809 (1996). One such circumstance is the assessment of punitive damages against
the defendant in prior cases. See W.R. Grace & Co. v. Waters, 638 So. 2d 502 (Fla.
1994).
7. This instruction is to be given when requested by the defendant. See
Wransky v. Dalfo, 801 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). It appears that this
instruction can only be used when evidence of the defendant’s net worth has been
introduced. See Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1977); Rinaldi v. Aaron,
314 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1975). This instruction is not intended to supplant the court’s
function in determining whether a verdict is constitutional. See BMW of North
America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996);
Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1, 111 S.Ct. 1032, 113
L.Ed.2d 1 (1991). The committee notes that many reported decisions have used
alternative terms such as “bankrupt” or “economically castigate” to describe this
limitation, instead of or in addition to the term “financially destroy.” See, e.g.,
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 377
Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978); Lehman v. Spencer Ladd’s,
Inc., 182 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 1966). The committee has selected the term “financially
destroy” for its simplicity, but does not intend to foreclose the use of other legally
valid terms where appropriate under the facts of the particular case.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 378
SECTION 600 SUBSTANTIVE INSTRUCTIONS GENERAL
601.1 Weighing the Evidence
601.2 Believability of Witnesses
601.3 Jury to Be Guided by Official English
Translation/Interpretation
601.4 Multiple Claims, Numerous Parties, Consolidated Cases
601.5 Concluding Instruction (Before Final Argument)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 379
601.1 WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE
In deciding this case, it is your duty as jurors [to decide the issues, and
only those issues, that I submit for your determination] [to answer certain
questions I ask you to answer on a special form, called a verdict form]. You
must come to an agreement about [your verdict] [what your answers will be.
Your agreed-upon answers to my questions are called your jury verdict].
The evidence in this case consists of the sworn testimony of the
witnesses, all exhibits received in evidence [and] all facts that were admitted
or agreed to by the parties [, and any fact of which the court has taken judicial
notice (explain as necessary)].
In reaching your verdict, you must think about and weigh the testimony
and any documents, photographs, or other material that has been received in
evidence. You may also consider any facts that were admitted or agreed to by
the lawyers. Your job is to determine what the facts are. You may use reason
and common sense to reach conclusions. You may draw reasonable inferences
from the evidence. But you should not guess about things that were not
covered here. And, you must always apply the law as I have explained it to
you.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 380
601.2 BELIEVABILITY OF WITNESSES
a. General considerations:
Let me speak briefly about witnesses. In evaluating the believability of
any witness and the weight you will give the testimony of any witness, you may
properly consider the demeanor of the witness while testifying; the frankness
or lack of frankness of the witness; the intelligence of the witness; any interest
the witness may have in the outcome of the case; the means and opportunity
the witness had to know the facts about which the witness testified; the ability
of the witness to remember the matters about which the witness testified; and
the reasonableness of the testimony of the witness, considered in the light of
all the evidence in the case and in the light of your own experience and
common sense.
b. Expert witnesses:
[You have heard opinion testimony [on certain technical subjects] from
[a person] [persons] referred to as [an] expert witness[es].] [Some of the
testimony before you was in the form of opinions about certain technical
subjects.]
You may accept such opinion testimony, reject it, or give it the weight
you think it deserves, considering the knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education of the witness, the reasons given by the witness for the opinion
expressed, and all the other evidence in the case.
c. Witness talked to lawyer:
[It is entirely proper for a lawyer to talk to a witness about what
testimony the witness would give if called to the courtroom. The witness
should not be discredited just because the witness talked with a lawyer about
[his] [her] testimony.]
NOTES ON USE FOR 601.2
1. Expert witness. See F.S. 90.702 (1985), and Shaw v. Puleo, 159 So. 2d
641 (Fla. 1964). The court will select one or the other introductory sentence in
keeping with the court’s practice and preference in announcing before the jury, or
acceding to counsel’s characterization, that a tendered witness is an “expert.”
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 381
2. Common knowledge and everyday experience. Except to the extent
indicated in instruction 601.2, the committee recommends that the jury not be
instructed that the jurors may bring to bear their “common knowledge and
everyday experience.”
3. Failure to produce witness. The committee recommends that no
instruction be given. While it may be permissible in some circumstances to instruct
the jury regarding inferences arising from a party’s failure to produce a witness
(compare Weeks v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 132 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1961), with Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co. v. Perry, 326 F.2d 921
(5th Cir. 1964)), the committee believes that generally such inferences are more
properly referred to in counsel’s argument.
4. Witness talked to lawyer. This may be given if requested as either a
substantive or a curative instruction whenever there is testimony that a witness
spoke to or met with an attorney for one of the parties. This instruction is not
meant to prohibit or limit argument by counsel of the general considerations set
forth in 601.2a.
(Revised November 2, 2017.)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 382
601.3 JURY TO BE GUIDED BY OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION/INTERPRETATION
[A] [Some] witness[es] have testified in (language used) which was
interpreted into English.
The evidence you are to consider is only that provided through the
official court interpreters. Although some of you may know (language used), it
is important that all jurors consider the same evidence. Therefore, you must
base your decision on the evidence presented in the English interpretation.
You must disregard any different meaning.
If, during the testimony there was a question as to the accuracy of the
English interpretation and steps were taken to resolve any discrepancies and
despite these efforts a discrepancy remains, I emphasize that you must rely
only upon the official English interpretation as provided by the court
interpreter and disregard any other contrary interpretation.
NOTES ON USE FOR 601.3
1. See United States v. Franco, 136 F.3d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1998);
United States v. Rrapi, 175 F.3d 742, 748 (9th Cir. 1999); United States v.
Fuentes-Montijo, 68 F.3d 352, 35556 (9th Cir. 1995).
2. When instructing the jury at the beginning of the case, use instruction
202.5 instead of this instruction. See Model Instruction No. 1.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 383
601.4 MULTIPLE CLAIMS, NUMEROUS PARTIES, CONSOLIDATED
CASES
In your deliberations, you will consider and decide [several] [(state the
number)] distinct claims. (Identify claims to be considered.) Although these
claims have been tried together, each is separate from the other[s], and each
party is entitled to have you separately consider each claim as it affects that
party. Therefore, in your deliberations, you should consider the evidence as it
relates to each claim separately, as you would had each claim been tried
before you separately.
NOTE ON USE FOR 601.4
This instruction is applicable to two or more consolidated actions as well as
to two or more claims in the same action by or against different persons or by or
against the same person in different capacities. The committee recommends that
this instruction not be given to distinguish between a primary claim and a
derivative claim (e.g., that of the injured party and that of his or her spouse) or
between a claim against a party primarily liable and a claim against a party liable
only vicariously (e.g., claims against a party actively negligent and against his
employer) or claims under F.S. 768.0415.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 384
601.5 CONCLUDING INSTRUCTION (BEFORE FINAL ARGUMENT)
That is the law you must follow in deciding this case. The attorneys for
the parties will now present their final arguments. When they are through, I
will have a few final instructions about your deliberations.
NOTE ON USE FOR 601.5
Instruction 601.5 is for use when instructing the jury before final argument.
If the court’s instruction is to be given after final argument, skip to instruction 700
and omit the bracketed sentence in the first paragraph.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 385
SECTION 700 CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS
700 Closing Instructions
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 386
SECTION 700 CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the jury, you have now heard all the evidence, my
instructions on the law that you must apply in reaching your verdict and the
closing arguments of the attorneys. You will shortly retire to the jury room to
decide this case. [Before you do so, I have a few last instructions for you.]
During deliberations, jurors must communicate about the case only
with one another and only when all jurors are present in the jury room. You
will have in the jury room all of the evidence that was received during the
trial. In reaching your decision, do not do any research on your own or as a
group. Do not use dictionaries, the Internet, or any other reference materials.
Do not investigate the case or conduct any experiments. Do not visit or view
the scene of any event involved in this case or look at maps or pictures on the
Internet. If you happen to pass by the scene, do not stop or investigate. All
jurors must see or hear the same evidence at the same time. Do not read, listen
to, or watch any news accounts of this trial.
You are not to communicate with any person outside the jury about this
case. Until you have reached a verdict, you must not talk about this case in
person or through the telephone, writing, or electronic communication, such
as a blog, twitter, e-mail, text message, or any other means. Do not contact
anyone to assist you, such as a family accountant, doctor, or lawyer. These
communications rules apply until I discharge you at the end of the case.
If you become aware of any violation of these instructions or any other
instruction I have given in this case, you must tell me by giving a note to the
bailiff.
Any notes you have taken during the trial may be taken to the jury
room for use during your discussions. Your notes are simply an aid to your
own memory, and neither your notes nor those of any other juror are binding
or conclusive. Your notes are not a substitute for your own memory or that of
other jurors. Instead, your verdict must result from the collective memory
and judgment of all jurors based on the evidence and testimony presented
during the trial.
At the conclusion of the trial, the bailiff will collect your notes, which
will be immediately destroyed. No one will ever read your notes.
In reaching your verdict, do not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, public
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 387
opinion, or any other sentiment for or against any party to influence your
decision. Your verdict must be based on the evidence that has been received
and the law on which I have instructed you.
Reaching a verdict is exclusively your job. I cannot participate in that
decision in any way and you should not guess what I think your verdict should
be from something I may have said or done. You should not think that I
prefer one verdict over another. Therefore, in reaching your verdict, you
should not consider anything that I have said or done, except for my specific
instructions to you.
Pay careful attention to all the instructions that I gave you, for that is
the law that you must follow. You will have a copy of my instructions with you
when you go to the jury room to deliberate. All the instructions are important,
and you must consider all of them together. There are no other laws that
apply to this case, and even if you do not agree with these laws, you must use
them in reaching your decision in this case.
When you go to the jury room, the first thing you should do is choose a
presiding juror to act as a foreperson during your deliberations. The
foreperson should see to it that your discussions are orderly and that everyone
has a fair chance to be heard.
It is your duty to talk with one another in the jury room and to consider
the views of all the jurors. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but
only after you have considered the evidence with the other members of the
jury. Feel free to change your mind if you are convinced that your position
should be different. You should all try to agree. But do not give up your
honest beliefs just because the others think differently. Keep an open mind so
that you and your fellow jurors can easily share ideas about the case.
[I will give you a verdict form with questions you must answer. I have
already instructed you on the law that you are to use in answering these
questions. You must follow my instructions and the form carefully. You must
consider each question separately. Please answer the questions in the order
they appear. After you answer a question, the form tells you what to do next. I
will now read the form to you: (read form of verdict)]
[You will be given (state number) forms of verdict, which I shall now
read to you: (read form of verdict(s))]
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 388
[If you find for (claimant(s)), your verdict will be in the following form:
(read form of verdict)]
[If you find for (defendant(s)), your verdict will be in the following form:
(read form of verdict)]
Your verdict[s] must be unanimous, that is, your verdict must be agreed
to by each of you. When you have [agreed on your verdict[s]] [finished filling
out the form[s]], your foreperson must write the date and sign it at the bottom
and return the verdict[s] to the bailiff.
If any of you need to communicate with me for any reason, write me a
note and give it to the bailiff. In your note, do not disclose any vote or split or
the reason for the communication.
You may now retire to decide your verdict[s].
NOTES ON USE FOR 700
1. When final instructions are read to the jury before the attorney’s
closing arguments, this instruction should not be given at that time. It should be
given following closing arguments, just before the jury retires to deliberate. If,
however, the entire instruction is given after final arguments, omit the bracketed
sentence in the first paragraph.
2. Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.451 governs jurors’ use of
electronic devices. Rule 2.451(b)(1) requires the trial court to remove cell phones
and other electronic devices from jurors during their deliberations. This instruction
may need to be modified to reflect the practices of a particular trial court when
removing jurors’ cell phones. The portion of this instruction dealing with
communication with others and outside research may need to be modified to
include other specific means of communication or research as technology
develops.
3. Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.430(k) provides that at the
conclusion of the trial, the court shall collect and immediately destroy all juror
notes.
4. Quotient verdict. The committee recommends that no instruction
generally be given to admonish the jury against returning a “quotient verdict.”
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 389
5. When it is impracticable to take all of the evidence into the jury room,
this instruction should be modified accordingly.
(Revised February 1, 2018)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 390
SECTION 800 SUPPLEMENTAL MATTERS
801.1 Juror Questions During Deliberations
801.2 Read-Back of Testimony
801.3 Jury Deadlocked
801.4 Instructions upon Discharge of Jury
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 391
801.1 JUROR QUESTIONS DURING DELIBERATIONS
Members of the jury, I have discussed your [note] [question] with the
attorneys. You have [asked the following question] [made the following
request]:
(read juror’s note):
If I have not read your [note] [question] correctly, please raise your
hand.
(clarify question as needed):
1. The answer is:
(respond to question):
OR
2. I am not able to [answer] [respond to] this [question]
[request] because it [calls for information that is not in
evidence] [is not proper to be considered in this case]
[(other reason why question or request is improper)]. Your
decision must be based only on the evidence presented in
the trial and the law that I have given you. [If you have
any other specific questions, please send another note, and
I will see if I can answer it.] [(other appropriate response)].
NOTES ON USE FOR 801.1
1. The procedure contained in 801.1 assumes that a juror question or
request will be in writing. Oral questions from jurors are discouraged.
2. In responding to a juror’s question or request, the court should answer
as specifically as possible. To avoid inadvertent error, it is a good practice to
prepare a written answer with the assistance of the attorneys and then read this
answer to the jury.
3. All written questions and answers should be preserved and placed in
the court file.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 392
801.2 READ-BACK OF TESTIMONY
a. Read-back granted as requested:
Members of the jury, you have asked that the following testimony be
read back to you: (describe testimony)
The court reporter will now read the testimony, which you have
requested.
OR
b. Read-back deferred:
Members of the jury, I have discussed with the attorneys your request
to have certain testimony read back to you. It will take approximately (amount
of time) to have the court reporter prepare and read back the requested
testimony.
I now direct you to return to the jury room and discuss your request
further. If you are not able to resolve your question about the requested
testimony by relying on your collective memory, then you should write down a
more specific description of the part of the witness(es)’ testimony which you
want to hear again. Make your request for reading back testimony as specific
as possible.
c. Read-back denied:
Members of the jury, you have asked that the following testimony be
read back to you: (describe testimony)
I am not able to grant your request because (give reason(s) for denying
request).
NOTES ON USE FOR 801.2
1. In civil cases, the decision to allow read-back of testimony lies within
the sound discretion of the trial court. Broward County School Bd. v. Ruiz, 493 So.
2d 474, 479480 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). However, the trial court must not tell jurors
that they are prohibited from requesting a read-back of testimony. Johnson v. State,
53 So. 3d 1003 (Fla. 2010).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 393
2. Any read-back of testimony must take place in open court. Transcripts
or tapes of testimony must not be sent back to the jury room.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 394
801.3 JURY DEADLOCKED
Members of the jury, we understand you are having difficulty reaching
a verdict. This case is important to the parties, and we appreciate your efforts.
But I am going to ask you to go back to try again to reach a verdict if you
reasonably can.
Please carefully consider the views of all the jurors, including those you
disagree with. Keep an open mind and feel free to change your view if you
conclude it is wrong.
You should not, however, give up your own conscientiously held views
simply to end the case or avoid further discussion. Each of you must decide
the case for yourself and not merely go along with the conclusions of other
jurors.
If you cannot agree on what a witness said, you may ask that the court
reporter read back to you a portion of any witness’s testimony. To avoid
delay, your request should be as specific as possible.
You may now return to the jury room for further deliberations.
NOTES ON USE FOR 801.3
1. This instruction should not be given unless the jury indicates it is
deadlocked. Moore v. State, 635 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Armstrong v.
State, 364 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
2. This instruction should be given only once. If after having received
this instruction, the jury announces again that it is deadlocked, the jury cannot be
sent back for further deliberations. Tomlinson v. State, 584 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1991).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 395
801.4 INSTRUCTION UPON DISCHARGE OF JURY
Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the parties, lawyers and the people
of the State of Florida, I wish to thank you for your time and consideration of
this case.
I also wish to advise you of some very special privileges enjoyed by
jurors.
No juror can be required to talk about the discussions that occurred in
the jury room, except by court order. For many centuries, our society has
relied upon juries for consideration of difficult cases. We have recognized for
hundreds of years that a jury’s deliberations, discussions and votes should
remain their private affair as long as they wish it. Therefore, the law gives you
a unique privilege not to speak about the jury’s work.
The lawyers and their representatives are not permitted to initiate any
communication with you about the trial. However, you may speak to the
lawyers or anyone else about the trial. You also have the right to refuse to
speak with anyone. A request may come from those who are simply curious,
or from those who might seek to find fault with you. It will be up to you to
decide whether to preserve your privacy as a juror.
(In discharging the jury, the court should advise them of their further
responsibilities, if any.)
NOTE ON USE FOR 801.4
After this instruction, the jury should be discharged and no further
discussion should be had between the judge and the jurors, or between the
attorneys and jurors, except in accordance with applicable law. See Fla.R.Civ.P.
1.431(h); Rule Reg. Fla. Bar 4-3.5(d)(4).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 396
APPENDIX A
MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
Summary
The following Model Jury Instructions are included to illustrate the use of Florida
Standard Jury Instructions. The hypothetical facts upon which each instruction is
based are set forth before the instruction. The committee made arbitrary decisions
about various factors involved in each hypothetical case, and the Model
Instructions are not intended to be incorporated entirely into a court’s instruction.
The numbers of the instructions used in the examples are indicated within brackets.
In instances in which changes have been made to adapt the standard instructions to
the circumstances of the hypothetical case, the committee has italicized the
instructions.
These Model Instructions are provided only as examples of how the instructions
are intended to be used. Revisions in the Model Instructions often lag some time
behind revisions in the substantive charges the use of which is illustrated in the
Model Instructions. DO NOT, therefore, rely on the Model Instructions for correct
wording when preparing instructions. Always refer to the standard instructions and
forms provided in Parts I through VIII.
Model Instruction No. 1: Automobile collision; comparative negligence; single
claimant and defendant; no counterclaim; no-fault issue; witnesses testifying in
foreign language; instructions for beginning and end of case; use of special verdict
in burden of proof and damage instructions
Model Instruction No. 2: Automobile collision; driver’s comparative negligence
including failure to wear seat belt; aggravation of pre-existing injury; multiple
events
Model Instruction No. 3: Automobile collision; comparative negligence; wrongful
death damages; Fabre issue
Model Instruction No. 4: Automobile collision; comparative negligence; claim and
counterclaim
Model Instruction No. 5: Injury in three-car collision; settlement with injured party
by one tortfeasor; independent contribution claim by him against others;
reasonableness of settlement as well as liability contested
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 397
Model Instruction No. 6: Claimant suing three alleged joint tortfeasors;
comparative negligence in issue; contribution shares to be determined in action
Model Instruction No. 7: Product liability case; negligence and strict liability
claims; comparative negligence defense; aggravation of pre-existing injury
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 398
MODEL INSTRUCTION NO. 1
Automobile collision; comparative negligence; single claimant and defendant;
no counterclaim; no-fault issue; witnesses testifying in foreign language;
instructions for beginning and end of case; use of special verdict in burden of
proof and damage instructions
Facts of the hypothetical case:
John Doe was injured when the automobile he was driving collided with one
driven by Rachel Rowe. After obtaining medical attention, including a course of
treatment by Dr. Dubious, John Doe sued Rachel Rowe.Rachel Rowe pleaded
comparative negligence. Further, her medical expert opined that Dr. Dubious’s
treatment was not reasonable or necessary, and may actually have harmed John
Doe. Questions of negligence, comparative negligence, causation, permanency of
John Doe’s injuries and damages are to be submitted to the jury. Traffic Accident
Reconstruction experts testified in the case. There is no Fabre issue. Several
witnesses will testify in Spanish.
The court’s instruction:
These instructions illustrate: (1) instructions to be given at the beginning of
the case, (a) before Voir Dire, and (b) after Voir Dire, including evidentiary
instructions as they may occur during the course of the trial, (2) instructions to be
given before hearing evidence (3) instructions to be given before final argument
and the closing instructions to be given after final argument. Instruction number
(3), to be given before final argument, also illustrates how the court could utilize
the Special Verdict questions in the burden of proof portion of the instruction.
Instruction (4) is to be given following closing arguments.
(1) Instruction for the beginning of the case:
Before Voir Dire
[201.1] Welcome. [I] [The clerk] will now administer your oath.
[101.1] Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will answer truthfully
all questions asked of you as prospective jurors [so help you God]?
[continuation of 201.1] Now that you have been sworn, I’d like to give
you an idea about what we are here to do.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 399
This is a civil trial. A civil trial is different from a criminal case, where
a defendant is charged by the state prosecutor with committing a crime. The
subject of a civil trial is a disagreement between people or companies [or
others, as appropriate], where the claims of one or more of these parties have
been brought to court to be resolved. “It is called a trial of a lawsuit.
This is a case about an automobile collision. John Doe alleges that he
was permanently injured when the automobile he was driving collided with
one driven by Rachel Rowe. John Doe has sued Rachel Rowe and alleges that
she was negligent and that her negligence was the cause of the accident.
Rachel Rowe denies that she was negligent and alleges that John Doe was
comparatively negligent.
The incident involved in this case occurred on (date) at (location). (Add
any other information relevant to voir dire).
The principal witnesses who will testify in this case are (list the
witnesses).
Judge/Court: I am the Judge. You may hear people occasionally refer to
me as “The Court.” That is the formal name for my role. My job is to
maintain order and decide how to apply the rules of the law to the trial. I will
also explain various rules to you that you will need to know in order to do
your job as the jury. It is my job to remain neutral on the issues of this
lawsuit.
Parties: A party who files a lawsuit is called the Plaintiff. A party that is
sued is called the Defendant.
Attorneys: The attorneys have the job of representing their clients. That
means they speak for their client here at the trial. They have taken oaths as
attorneys to do their best and to follow the rules for their profession.
Plaintiff’s Counsel: The attorney on this side of the courtroom, (introduce
by name), represents (client name) and is the person who filed the lawsuit here
at the courthouse. [His] [Her] job is to present [his] [her] client’s side of things
to you. [He] [She] and [his] [her] client will be referred to most of the time as
“the plaintiff.(Attorney name), will you please introduce who is sitting at the
table with you?
[Plaintiff without Counsel: (Introduce claimant by name), on this side of the
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 400
courtroom, is the person who filed the lawsuit at the courthouse. (Claimant) is
not represented by an attorney and will present [his] [her] side of things to
you [himself] [herself].]
Defendant’s Counsel: The attorney on this side of the courtroom,
(introduce by name), represents (client name), the one who has been sued. [His]
[Her] job is to present [his] [her] client’s side of things to you. [He] [She] and
[his] [her] client will usually be referred to here as “the defendant.” (Attorney
name), will you please introduce who is sitting at the table with you?
[Defendant’s Counsel: The attorney on this side of the courtroom,
(introduce by name), represents (client name), the one who has been sued. [His]
[Her] job is to present [his] [her] client’s side of things to you. [He] [She] and
[his] [her] client will usually be referred to here as “the defendant.” [His]
[Her] client (defendant uninsured or underinsured motorist carrier) is (claimant’s
name) motor vehicle insurance company and provided [him] [her] [uninsured]
[underinsured] motorist coverage, which may be available to pay some or all
of the damages that may be awarded.]*
*Use the bracketed paragraph above when the case involves an uninsured
or underinsured motorist carrier.
[Defendant without Counsel: (Introduce defendant by name), on this side of
the courtroom, is the one who has been sued. (Defendant) is not represented by
an attorney and will present [his] [her] side of things to you [himself]
[herself].]
Court Clerk: This person sitting in front of me, (name), is the court clerk.
[He] [She] is here to assist me with some of the mechanics of the trial process,
including the numbering and collection of the exhibits that are introduced in
the course of the trial.
Court Reporter: The person sitting at the stenographic machine, (name),
is the court reporter. [His] [Her] job is to keep an accurate legal record of
everything we say and do during this trial.
Bailiff: The person over there, (name), is the bailiff. [His] [Her] job is to
maintain order and security in the courtroom. The bailiff is also my
representative to the jury. Anything you need or any problems that come up
for you during the course of the trial should be brought to [him] [her].
However, the bailiff cannot answer any of your questions about the case. Only
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 401
I can do that.
Jury: Last, but not least, is the jury, which we will begin to select in a
few moments from among all of you. The jury’s job will be to decide what the
facts are and what the facts mean. Jurors should be as neutral as possible at
this point and have no fixed opinion about the lawsuit.
In order to have a fair and lawful trial, there are rules that all jurors
must follow. A basic rule is that jurors must decide the case only on the
evidence presented in the courtroom. You must not communicate with
anyone, including friends and family members, about this case, the people and
places involved, or your jury service. You must not disclose your thoughts
about this case or ask for advice on how to decide this case.
I want to stress that this rule means you must not use electronic devices
or computers to communicate about this case, including tweeting, texting,
blogging, e-mailing, posting information on a website or chat room, or any
other means at all. Do not send or accept any messages to or from anyone
about this case or your jury service.
You must not do any research or look up words, names, [maps], or
anything else that may have anything to do with this case. This includes
reading newspapers, watching television or using a computer, cell phone, the
Internet, any electronic device, or any other means at all, to get information
related to this case or the people and places involved in this case. This applies
whether you are in the courthouse, at home, or anywhere else.
Many of you may have cell phones, tablets, laptops, or other electronic
devices with you here in the courtroom.**
**The trial judge should select one of the following two alternative
instructions explaining the rules governing jurors’ use of electronic devices,
as explained in Note on Use 1.
Alternative A: [All cell phones, computers, tablets, or other types of
electronic devices must be turned off while you are in the courtroom. Turned
off means that the phone or other electronic device is actually off and not in a
silent or vibrating mode. You may use these devices during recesses, but even
then you may not use your cell phone or electronic device to find out any
information about the case or communicate with anyone about the case or the
people involved in the case. Do not take photographs, video recordings, or
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 402
audio recordings of the proceedings or of your fellow jurors. After each
recess, please double check to make sure your cell phone or electronic device
is turned off. At the end of the case, while you are deliberating, you must not
communicate with anyone outside the jury room. You cannot have in the jury
room any cell phones, computers, or other electronic devices. If someone
needs to contact you in an emergency, the court can receive messages and
deliver them to you without delay. A contact phone number will be provided
to you.]
Alternative B: [You cannot have any cell phones, tablets, laptops, or
other electronic devices in the courtroom. You may use these devices during
recesses, but even then you may not use your cell phone or electronic device to
find out any information about the case or communicate with anyone about
the case or the people involved in the case. Do not take photographs, video
recordings, or audio recordings of the proceedings or your fellow jurors. At
the end of the case, while you are deliberating, you must not communicate
with anyone outside the jury room. If someone needs to contact you in an
emergency, the court can receive messages and deliver them to you without
delay. A contact phone number will be provided to you.]
What are the reasons for these rules? These rules are imposed because
jurors must decide the case without distraction and only on the evidence
presented in the courtroom. If you investigate, research, or make inquiries on
your own outside of the courtroom, the trial judge has no way to make sure
that the information you obtain is proper for the case. The parties likewise
have no opportunity to dispute or challenge the accuracy of what you find.
That is contrary to our judicial system, which assures every party the right to
ask questions about and challenge the evidence being considered against it
and to present argument with respect to that evidence. Any independent
investigation by a juror unfairly and improperly prevents the parties from
having that opportunity our judicial system promises.
Any juror who violates these restrictions jeopardizes the fairness of
these proceedings, and a mistrial could result that would require the entire
trial process to start over. A mistrial is a tremendous expense and
inconvenience to the parties, the court, and the taxpayers. If you violate these
rules, you may be held in contempt of court, and face sanctions, such as
serving time in jail, paying a fine, or both.
All of your communications with courtroom personnel, or me, will be
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 403
part of the record of these proceedings. That means those communications
shall either be made in open court with the court reporter present or, if they
are in writing, the writing will be filed with the court clerk. I have instructed
the courtroom personnel that any communications you have with them
outside of my presence must be reported to me, and I will tell the parties [and
their attorneys] about any communication from you that I believe may be of
interest to the parties [and their attorneys].
However, you may communicate directly with courtroom personnel
about matters concerning your comfort and safety, such as [juror parking]
[location of break areas] [how and when to assemble for duty] [dress] [what
personal items can be brought into the courthouse or jury room] [list any
other types of routine ex parte communications permitted].
If you become aware of any violation of these instructions or any other
instruction I give in this case, you must tell me by giving a note to the bailiff.
[201.3] The last thing I want to do, before we begin to select the jury, is
to explain to you how the selection process works.
This is the part of the case where the parties and their lawyers have the
opportunity to get to know a little bit about you, in order to help them come to
their own conclusions about your ability to be fair and impartial, so they can
decide who they think should be the jurors in this case.
How we go about that is as follows: First, I’ll ask some general
questions of you. Then, each of the lawyers will have more specific questions
that they will ask of you. After they have asked all of their questions, I will
meet with them and they will tell me their choices for jurors. Each side can
ask that I exclude a person from serving on a jury if they can give me a reason
to believe that he or she might be unable to be fair and impartial. That is
what is called a challenge for cause. The lawyers also have a certain number
of what are called peremptory challenges, by which they may exclude a person
from the jury without giving a reason. By this process of elimination, the
remaining persons are selected as the jury. It may take more than one
conference among the parties, their attorneys, and me before the final
selections are made.
The questions that you will be asked during this process are not
intended to embarrass you or unnecessarily pry into your personal affairs, but
it is important that the parties and their attorneys know enough about you to
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 404
make this important decision. If a question is asked that you would prefer not
to answer in front of the whole courtroom, just let me know and you can come
up here and give your answer just in front of the attorneys and me. If you
have a question of either the attorneys or me, don’t hesitate to let me know.
There are no right or wrong answers to the questions that will be asked
of you. The only thing that I ask is that you answer the questions as frankly
and as honestly and as completely as you can. You [will take] [have taken] an
oath to answer all questions truthfully and completely and you must do so.
Remaining silent when you have information you should disclose is a violation
of that oath as well. If a juror violates this oath it not only may result in
having to try the case all over again but also can result in civil and criminal
penalties against a juror personally. So, again, it is very important that you
be as honest and complete with your answers as you possibly can. If you don’t
understand the question, please raise your hand and ask for an explanation or
clarification.
In sum, this is a process to assist the parties and their attorneys to select
a fair and impartial jury. All of the questions they ask you are for this
purpose. If, for any reason, you do not think you can be a fair and impartial
juror, you must tell us.
2. Voir Dire:
Instructions After Voir Dire
[101.2] Members of the jury, do you solemnly swear or affirm that you
will well and truly try this case between John Doe and Rachel Rowe, and a
true verdict render according to the law and evidence?
[202.1] You have now taken an oath to serve as jurors in this trial.
Before we begin, I am going to tell you about the rules of law that apply to this
case. It is my intention to give you [all] [most] of the rules of law but it might
be that I will not know for sure all of the law that might apply in this case
until all of the evidence is presented. However, I can anticipate most of the law
and give it to you at the beginning of the trial so that you can better
understand what to be looking for as the evidence is presented. If I later
decide that different law applies to the case, I will call that to your attention.
In any event, at the end of the evidence I will give you the final instructions
that you must use to decide this case and it is those instructions on which you
must base your verdict. At that time, you will have a complete written set of
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 405
the instructions so you do not have to memorize what I am about to tell you.
[401.2] The claims and defenses in this case are as follows. John Doe
claims that Rachel Rowe was negligent in the operation of the vehicle she was
driving which caused him harm.
Rachel Rowe denies that claim and also claims that John Doe was
himself negligent in the operation of his vehicle, which caused his harm.
The parties must prove their claims by the greater weight of the
evidence. I will now define some of the terms you will use in deciding this case.
[401.3] “Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and
convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
[401.4] Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care, which is the care
that a reasonably careful person would use under like circumstances.
Negligence is doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do
under like circumstances or failing to do something that a reasonably careful
person would do under like circumstances.
If there is an issue about the applicability of a statute
this instruction would be omitted at this time.
[401.9] (Read or paraphrase the applicable statute or refer to the ordinance
or regulation admitted in evidence.) Violation of this statute is evidence of
negligence. It is not, however, conclusive evidence of negligence. If you find
that Rachel Rowe violated this statute, you may consider that fact, together
with the other facts and circumstances, in deciding whether she was negligent.
[401.12(a)] Negligence is a legal cause of loss, injury, or damage if it
directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes
substantially to producing such loss, injury, or damage, so that it can
reasonably be said that, but for the negligence, the loss, injury, or damage
would not have occurred.
[401.12(b)] In order to be regarded as a legal cause of loss, injury, or
damage negligence need not be the only cause. Negligence may be a legal
cause of loss, injury, or damage even though it operates in combination with
some other cause if the negligence contributes substantially to producing such
loss, injury, or damage.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 406
[401.18] The issues you must decide on John Doe’s claim against Rachel
Rowe are whether Rachel Rowe was negligent in the operation of her vehicle,
and, if so, whether that negligence was a legal cause of the loss, injury, or
damage to John Doe.
[401.21] If the greater weight of the evidence does not support John
Doe’s claim, your verdict should be for Rachel Rowe.
[401.22] If, however, the greater weight of the evidence supports John
Doe’s claim, then you shall consider the defense raised by Rachel Rowe.
[401.22(a)] On that defense, the issue for you to decide is whether John
Doe was himself negligent in the operation of his vehicle and, if so, whether
that negligence was a contributing legal cause of injury or damage to John
Doe.
[401.23] If the greater weight of the evidence does not support Rachel
Rowe’s defense and the greater weight of the evidence supports John Doe’s
claim, then your verdict should be for John Doe in the total amount of his
damages.
If, however, the greater weight of the evidence shows that both John
Doe and Rachel Rowe were negligent and that the negligence of each
contributed as a legal cause of loss, injury, or damage sustained by John Doe,
you should decide and write on the verdict form, which I will give you at the
end of the case, what percentage of the total negligence of both parties to this
action you apportion to each of them.
[501.3] If your verdict is for Rachel Rowe, you will not consider the
matter of damages. But, if the greater weight of the evidence supports John
Doe’s claim, you should determine and write on the verdict form, in dollars,
the total amount of money that the greater weight of the evidence shows will
fairly and adequately compensate John Doe for the following elements of
damage to the extent that they have not been paid and are not payable by
personal injury protection benefits, including damage that John Doe is
reasonably certain to incur in the future:
The reasonable expense of hospitalization and medical care and
treatment necessarily or reasonably obtained by John Doe in the past, or to be
so obtained in the future.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 407
Any earnings lost in the past, and any loss of ability to earn money in
the future.
You must next decide whether John Doe’s injury, resulting from the
incident in this case, is permanent. An injury is permanent if it, in whole or in
part, consists of an injury that the evidence shows is permanent to a
reasonable degree of medical probability.
If the greater weight of the evidence does not establish that John Doe’s
injury is permanent, then your verdict is complete. If, however, the greater
weight of the evidence shows that John Doe’s injury is permanent, you should
also award damages for this additional element of damage:
Any bodily injury sustained by John Doe and any resulting pain and
suffering, disability or physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish,
inconvenience or loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life experienced in the
past, or to be experienced in the future. There is no exact standard for
measuring such damage. The amount should be fair and just, in the light of
the evidence.
[501.4] In determining the total amount of damages, you should not
make any reduction because of the negligence, if any, of John Doe. The court
will enter a judgment based on your verdict and, if you find that John Doe
was negligent in any degree, the court, in entering judgment, will reduce the
total amount of damages by the percentage of negligence, which you find was
caused by John Doe.
[501.5c] If you find that Rachel Roe caused loss, injury, or damage to
John Doe, then Rachel Roe is also responsible for any additional loss, injury,
or damage caused by medical care or treatment reasonably obtained by John
Doe.
[501.6] If the greater weight of the evidence shows that John Doe has
been permanently injured, you may consider his life expectancy. Mortality
tables may be received in evidence and, if they are, you may consider them in
determining how long John Doe may be expected to live. Mortality tables are
not binding on you, but may be considered together with other evidence in the
case bearing on John Doe’s health, age and physical condition, before and
after the injury, in determining the probable length of his life.
[501.7] Any amount of damages, which you allow for future medical
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 408
expenses or loss of ability to earn money in the future, should be reduced to its
present money value, and only the present money value of these future
economic damages should be included in your verdict. The present money
value of future economic damages is the sum of money needed now which,
together with what that sum will earn in the future, will compensate John Doe
for these losses as they are actually experienced in future years.
[601.1] In deciding this case, it is your duty as jurors to decide the
issues, and only those issues, that I submit for your determination at the end of
the case and to answer certain questions I will ask you to answer on a special
form, called a special verdict. You must come to an agreement about what
your answers will be. Your agreed-upon answers to my questions are called
your jury verdict.
In reaching your verdict, you must think about and weigh the testimony
and any documents, photographs, or other material that has been received in
evidence. You may also consider any facts that were admitted or agreed to by
the lawyers. Your job is to determine what the facts are. You may use reason
and common sense to reach conclusions. You may draw reasonable inferences
from the evidence. But you should not guess about things that were not
covered here. And, you must always apply the law as I finally explain it to you
at the end of the case.
[601.2(a)] Let me speak briefly about witnesses. In evaluating the
believability of any witness and the weight you will give the testimony of any
witness, you may properly consider the demeanor of the witness while
testifying; the frankness or lack of frankness of the witness; the intelligence of
the witness; any interest the witness may have in the outcome of the case; the
means and opportunity the witness had to know the facts about which the
witness testified; the ability of the witness to remember the matters about
which the witness testified; and the reasonableness of the testimony of the
witness, considered in the light of all the evidence in the case and in the light
of your own experience and common sense.
[601.2(b)] Some of the testimony you hear may be in the form of opinions
about certain technical subjects.
You may accept such opinion testimony, reject it, or give it the weight
you think it deserves, considering the knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education of the witness, the reasons given by the witness for the opinion
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 409
expressed, and all the other evidence in the case.
[202.2] Now that you have heard the law, I want to let you know what
you can expect as the trial proceeds.
Opening Statements: In a few moments, the attorneys will each have a
chance to make what are called opening statements. In an opening statement,
an attorney is allowed to give you [his] [her] views about what the evidence
will be in the trial and what you are likely to see and hear in the testimony.
Evidentiary Phase: After the attorneys’ opening statements the plaintiff
will bring his witnesses and evidence to you, followed by the defendant.
Evidence: Evidence is the information that the law allows you to see or
hear in deciding this case. Evidence includes the testimony of the witnesses,
documents, and anything else that I instruct you to consider.
Witnesses: A witness is a person who takes an oath to tell the truth and
then answers attorneys’ questions for the jury. The answering of attorneys’
questions by witnesses is called “giving testimony.” Testimony means
statements that are made when someone has sworn an oath to tell the truth.
The plaintiff’s lawyer will normally ask a witness the questions first.
That is called direct examination. Then the defense lawyer may ask the same
witness additional questions about whatever the witness has testified to. That
is called cross-examination. Certain documents or other evidence may also be
shown to you during direct or cross-examination. After the plaintiff’s
witnesses have testified, the defendant will have the opportunity to put
witnesses on the stand and go through the same process. Then the plaintiff’s
lawyer gets to do cross-examination. The process is designed to be fair to both
sides.
It is important that you remember that testimony comes from witnesses.
The attorneys do not give testimony and they are not themselves witnesses.
Objections: Sometimes the attorneys will disagree about the rules for
trial procedure when a question is asked of a witness. When that happens, one
of the lawyers may make what is called an “objection.” The rules for a trial
can be complicated, and there are many reasons for the attorneys to object.
You should simply wait for me to decide how to proceed. If I say that an
objection is “sustained,” that means you should disregard the question and
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 410
the witness may not answer the question. If I say that the objection is
“overruled,” that means the witness may answer the question.
When there is an objection and I make a decision, you must not assume
from that decision that I have any particular opinion other than that the rules
for conducting a trial are being correctly followed. If I say a question may not
be asked or answered, you must not try to guess what the answer would have
been. That is against the rules, too.
Side Bar Conferences: Sometimes I will need to speak to the attorneys
about legal elements of the case that are not appropriate for the jury to hear.
The attorneys and I will try to have as few of these conferences as possible
while you are giving us your valuable time in the courtroom. But, if we do
have to have such a conference during testimony, we will try to hold the
conference at the side of my desk so that we do not have to take a break and
ask you to leave the courtroom.
Recesses: Breaks in an ongoing trial are usually called “recesses.”
During a recess you still have your duties as a juror and must follow the rules,
even while having coffee, at lunch, or at home.
Instructions Before Closing Arguments: After all the evidence has been
presented to you, I will again instruct you on the law that you must follow. At
that time you will have a written set of the instructions for your use.
Closing Arguments: The attorneys will then have the opportunity to
make their final presentations to you, which are called closing arguments.
Final Instructions: After you have heard the closing arguments, I will
instruct you further in the law as well as explain to you the procedures you
must follow to decide the case.
Deliberations: After you hear the final jury instructions, you will go to
the jury room and discuss and decide the questions I have put on your verdict
form. [You will have a copy of the jury instructions to use during your
discussions.] The discussions you have and the decisions you make are usually
called “jury deliberations.” Your deliberations are absolutely private and
neither I nor anyone else will be with you in the jury room.
Verdict: When you have finished answering the questions, you will give
the verdict form to the bailiff, and we will all return to the courtroom where
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 411
your verdict will be read. When that is completed, you will be released from
your assignment as a juror.
What are the rules?
Finally, before we begin the trial, I want to give you just a brief
explanation of rules you must follow as the case proceeds.
Keeping an Open Mind. You must pay close attention to the testimony
and other evidence as it comes into the trial. However, you must avoid
forming any final opinion or telling anyone else your views on the case until
you begin your deliberations. This rule requires you to keep an open mind
until you have heard all of the evidence and is designed to prevent you from
influencing how your fellow jurors think until they have heard all of the
evidence and had an opportunity to form their own opinions. The time and
place for coming to your final opinions and speaking about them with your
fellow jurors is during deliberations in the jury room, after all of the evidence
has been presented, closing arguments have been made, and I have instructed
you on the law. It is important that you hear all of the facts and that you hear
the law and how to apply it before you start deciding anything.
Consider Only the Evidence. It is the things you hear and see in this
courtroom that matter in this trial. The law tells us that a juror can consider
only the testimony and other evidence that all the other jurors have also heard
and seen in the presence of the judge and the lawyers. Doing anything else is
wrong and is against the law. That means that you cannot do any work or
investigation of your own about the case. You cannot obtain on your own any
information about the case or about anyone involved in the case, from any
source whatsoever, including the Internet, and you cannot visit places
mentioned in the trial.
Do not provide any information about this case to anyone, including
friends or family members. Do not let anyone, including the closest family
members, make comments to you or ask questions about the trial. Similarly, it
is important that you avoid reading any newspaper accounts or watching or
listening to television or radio comments that have anything to do with this
case or its subject.
No Mid-Trial Discussions. When we are in a recess, do not discuss
anything about the trial or the case with each other or with anyone else. If
attorneys approach you, don’t speak with them. The law says they are to
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 412
avoid contact with you. If an attorney will not look at you or speak to you, do
not be offended or form a conclusion about that behavior. The attorney is not
supposed to interact with jurors outside of the courtroom and is only
following the rules. The attorney is not being impolite. If an attorney or
anyone else does try to speak with you or says something about the case in
your presence, please inform the bailiff immediately.
Only the Jury Decides. Only you get to deliberate and answer the verdict
questions at the end of the trial. I will not intrude into your deliberations at
all. I am required to be neutral. You should not assume that I prefer one
decision over another. You should not try to guess what my opinion is about
any part of the case. It would be wrong for you to conclude that anything I say
or do means that I am for one side or another in the trial. Discussing and
deciding the facts is your job alone.
[202.3] If you would like to take notes during the trial, you may do so.
On the other hand, of course, you are not required to take notes if you do not
want to. That will be left up to you individually.
You will be provided with a note pad and a pen for use if you wish to
take notes. Any notes that you take will be for your personal use. However,
you should not take them with you from the courtroom. During recesses, the
bailiff will take possession of your notes and will return them to you when we
reconvene. After you have completed your deliberations, the bailiff will collect
your notes, which will be immediately destroyed. No one will ever read your
notes.
If you take notes, do not get so involved in note-taking that you become
distracted from the proceedings. Your notes should be used only as aids to
your memory.
Whether or not you take notes, you should rely on your memory of the
evidence and you should not be unduly influenced by the notes of other jurors.
Notes are not entitled to any greater weight than each juror’s memory of the
evidence.
[202.4] During the trial, you may have a question you think should be
asked of a witness. If so, there is a procedure by which you may request that I
ask the witness a question. After all the attorneys have completed their
questioning of the witness, you should raise your hand if you have a question.
I will then give you sufficient time to write the question on a piece of paper,
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 413
fold it, and give it to the bailiff, who will pass it to me. You must not show
your question to anyone or discuss it with anyone.
I will then review the question with the attorneys. Under our law, only
certain evidence may be considered by a jury in determining a verdict. You
are bound by the same rules of evidence that control the attorneys’ questions.
If I decide that the question may not be asked under our rules of evidence, I
will tell you. Otherwise, I will direct the question to the witness. The attorneys
may then ask follow-up questions if they wish. If there are additional
questions from jurors, we will follow the same procedure again.
By providing this procedure, I do not mean to suggest that you must or
should submit written questions for witnesses. In most cases, the lawyers will
have asked the necessary questions.
[202.5] During the trial, some witnesses may testify in Spanish which will
be interpreted in English.
The evidence you are to consider is only that provided through the
official court interpreters. Although some of you may know Spanish, it is
important that all jurors consider the same evidence. Therefore, you must
accept the English interpretation. You must disregard any different meaning.
If, however, during the testimony there is a question as to the accuracy
of the English interpretation, you should bring this matter to my attention
immediately by raising your hand. You should not ask your question or make
any comment about the interpretation in the presence of the other jurors, or
otherwise share your question or concern with any of them. I will take steps to
see if your question can be answered and any discrepancy resolved. If,
however, after such efforts a discrepancy remains, I emphasize that you must
rely only upon the official English interpretation as provided by the court
interpreter and disregard any other contrary interpretation.
The attorneys will now present their opening statements after which you
will begin hearing the evidence.
(2) Evidence instructions during trial
Evidence instructions are to be given during the trial process when/if the
particular evidentiary issue occurs and the instruction becomes applicable. Here
is a listing of the available standard jury instructions on evidence:
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 414
301.1 Deposition Testimony, Interrogatories, Stipulated Testimony,
Stipulations, and Admissions
301.2 Instruction when First Item of Documentary, Photographic, or
Physical Evidence Is Admitted
301.3 Instruction when Evidence is First Published to Jurors
301.4 Instruction Regarding Visual or Demonstrative Aids
301.5 Evidence Admitted for a Limited Purpose
301.6 Jury to Be Guided by Official English Translation/Interpretation
301.7 Jury to Be Guided by Official English Transcript of Recording in
Foreign Language (Accuracy Not in Dispute)
301.8 Jury to Be Guided by Official English Translation/Interpretation
Transcript of Recording in Foreign Language (Accuracy in Dispute)
301.9 Disregard Stricken Matter
301.10 Instruction Before Recess
301.11 Failure to Maintain Evidence or Keep a Record
(3) Instruction before final argument:
[401.1] 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, however, the same as [if different
explain how] 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.
[401.2] The claims and defenses in this case are as follows. John Doe
claims that Rachel Rowe was negligent in the operation of the vehicle she was
driving which caused him harm.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 415
Rachel Rowe denies that claim and also claims that John Doe was
himself negligent in the operation of his vehicle, which caused his harm.
The parties must prove their claims by the greater weight of the
evidence. I will now define some of the terms you will use in deciding this case.
[401.3] “Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and
convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
[401.4] Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care, which is the care
that a reasonably careful person would use under like circumstances.
Negligence is doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do
under like circumstances or failing to do something that a reasonably careful
person would do under like circumstances.
[401.9] (Read or paraphrase the applicable statute or refer to the ordinance
or regulation admitted in evidence.) Violation of this statute is evidence of
negligence. It is not, however, conclusive evidence of negligence. If you find
that Rachel Rowe violated this statute, you may consider that fact, together
with the other facts and circumstances, in deciding whether she was negligent.
[401.12(a)] Negligence is a legal cause of loss, injury, or damage if it
directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes
substantially to producing such loss, injury, or damage, so that it can
reasonably be said that, but for the negligence, the loss, injury, or damage
would not have occurred.
[401.12(b)] In order to be regarded as a legal cause of loss, injury, or
damage negligence need not be the only cause. Negligence may be a legal
cause of loss, injury, or damage even though it operates in combination with
some other cause if the negligence contributes substantially to producing such
loss, injury, or damage.
[401.18] The issues you must decide on John Doe’s claim against Rachel
Rowe are whether Rachel Rowe was negligent in the operation of her vehicle,
and, if so, whether that negligence was a legal cause of the loss, injury, or
damage to John Doe.
You will be given a Special Verdict to use in this case. The first question in
the Special Verdict is:
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 416
1. Was there negligence on the part of Defendant, RACHEL ROWE,
which was a legal cause of damage to Plaintiff, JOHN DOE?
YES NO
[401.21, 22] If the greater weight of the evidence supports John Doe’s
claim, you will answer that question “YES.” If, however, your answer to
question 1 is “NO,” your verdict is for the Defendant, and you should not
proceed further, except to date and sign the Special Verdict and return it to the
courtroom.
If you answered the first question YES, then you shall consider the
defense raised by Rachel Rowe.
[401.22(a)] On that defense, the issue for you to decide is whether John
Doe was himself negligent in the operation of his vehicle and, if so, whether
that negligence was a contributing legal cause of injury or damage to John
Doe. In connection with that defense, the second question in the Special Verdict
is:
2. Was there negligence on the part of Plaintiff, JOHN DOE, which
was a legal cause of his damage?
YES NO
[401.23] If the greater weight of the evidence supports Rachel Rowe’s
defense, you will answer that question “Yes.” If, however, your answer to that
question is “NOand the greater weight of the evidence supports John Doe’s
claim, then your verdict should be for John Doe in the total amount of his
damages and you will skip the third question in the Special Verdict and proceed
directly to the questions concerning damages.
If, however, the greater weight of the evidence shows that both John
Doe and Rachel Rowe were negligent and that the negligence of each
contributed as a legal cause of loss, injury, or damage sustained by John Doe,
you should decide and write on the verdict form what percentage of the total
negligence of both parties to this action you apportion to each of them. In that
connection, the third question in the Special Verdict is:
3. State the percentage of negligence which was a legal cause of
damage to Plaintiff, JOHN DOE, that you charge to:
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 417
RACHEL ROWE %
JOHN DOE %
[501.3] If your verdict is for Rachel Rowe, you will not consider the
matter of damages. But, if the greater weight of the evidence supports John
Doe’s claim and you answered the first question “YES,” you should determine
and write on the verdict form, in dollars, the total amount of money that the
greater weight of the evidence shows will fairly and adequately compensate
John Doe for the following elements of damage to the extent that they have
not been paid and are not payable by personal injury protection benefits,
including damage that John Doe is reasonably certain to incur in the future:
The reasonable expense of hospitalization and medical care and
treatment necessarily or reasonably obtained by John Doe in the past, or to be
so obtained in the future:
Any earnings lost in the past, and any loss of ability to earn money in
the future.
These appear as questions 4 and 5 in the Special Verdict.
You must next decide whether John Doe’s injury, resulting from the
incident in this case, is permanent. An injury is permanent if it, in whole or in
part, consists of an injury that the evidence shows is permanent to a
reasonable degree of medical probability.
If the greater weight of the evidence does not establish that John Doe’s
injury is permanent, then your verdict is complete. If, however, the greater
weight of the evidence shows that John Doe’s injury is permanent, you should
also award damages for this additional element of damage:
Any bodily injury sustained by John Doe and any resulting pain and
suffering, disability or physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish,
inconvenience or loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life experienced in the
past, or to be experienced in the future. There is no exact standard for
measuring such damage. The amount should be fair and just, in the light of
the evidence.
This appears as question 6 in the Special Verdict.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 418
[501.4] In determining the total amount of damages, you should not
make any reduction because of the negligence, if any, of John Doe. The court
will enter a judgment based on your verdict and, if you find that John Doe
was negligent in any degree, the court, in entering judgment, will reduce the
total amount of damages by the percentage of negligence which you apportion
to John Doe.
[501.6] If the greater weight of the evidence shows that John Doe has
been permanently injured, you may consider his life expectancy. The
mortality tables received in evidence may be considered in determining how
long John Doe may be expected to live. Mortality tables are not binding on
you, but may be considered together with other evidence in the case bearing
on John Doe’s health, age and physical condition, before and after the injury,
in determining the probable length of his life.
[501.7] Any amount of damages which you allow for future medical
expenses or loss of ability to earn money in the future should be reduced to its
present money value, and only the present money value of these future
economic damages should be included in your verdict. The present money
value of future economic damages is the sum of money needed now which,
together with what that sum will earn in the future, will compensate John Doe
for these losses as they are actually experienced in future years.
[601.1] In deciding this case, it is your duty as jurors to decide the
issues, and only those issues, that I submit for your determination and to
answer the questions I have asked you to answer on the special verdict. You
must come to an agreement about what your answers will be. Your agreed-
upon answers to my questions are called your jury verdict.
In reaching your verdict, you must think about and weigh the testimony
and any documents, photographs, or other material that has been received in
evidence. You may also consider any facts that were admitted or agreed to by
the lawyers. Your job is to determine what the facts are. You may use reason
and common sense to reach conclusions. You may draw reasonable inferences
from the evidence. But you should not guess about things that were not
covered here. And, you must always apply the law as I have explained it to
you.
[601.2(a)] Let me speak briefly about witnesses. In evaluating the
believability of any witness and the weight you will give the testimony of any
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 419
witness, you may properly consider the demeanor of the witness while
testifying; the frankness or lack of frankness of the witness; the intelligence of
the witness; any interest the witness may have in the outcome of the case; the
means and opportunity the witness had to know the facts about which the
witness testified; the ability of the witness to remember the matters about
which the witness testified; and the reasonableness of the testimony of the
witness, considered in the light of all the evidence in the case and in the light
of your own experience and common sense.
[601.2(b)] Some of the testimony before you was in the form of opinions
about certain technical subjects.
You may accept such opinion testimony, reject it, or give it the weight
you think it deserves, considering the knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education of the witness, the reasons given by the witness for the opinion
expressed, and all the other evidence in the case.
[601.3] Some witnesses testified in Spanish during this trial, which had
to be interpreted into English. The evidence you are to consider is only that
provided through the official court interpreters. Although some of you may
know Spanish, it is important that all jurors consider the same evidence.
Therefore, you must base your decision on the evidence presented in the
English interpretation. You must disregard any different meaning.
[601.5] That is the law you must follow in deciding this case. The
attorneys for the parties will now present their final arguments. When they
are through, I will have a few final instructions about your deliberations.
(4) Instruction following closing arguments:
[700] Members of the jury, you have now heard all the evidence, my
instructions on the law that you must apply in reaching your verdict, and the
closing arguments of the attorneys. You will shortly retire to the jury room to
decide this case. Before you do so, I have a few last instructions for you.
You will have in the jury room all of the evidence that was received
during the trial. In reaching your decision, do not do any research on your
own or as a group. Do not use dictionaries, the Internet, or other reference
materials. Do not investigate the case or conduct any experiments. Do not
contact anyone to assist you, such as a family accountant, doctor, or lawyer.
Do not visit or view the scene of any event involved in this case. If you happen
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 420
to pass by the scene, do not stop or investigate. All jurors must see or hear the
same evidence at the same time. Do not read, listen to, or watch any news
accounts of this trial.
Any notes you have taken during the trial may be taken to the jury
room for use during your discussions. Your notes are simply an aid to your
own memory, and neither your notes nor those of any other juror are binding
or conclusive. Your notes are not a substitute for your own memory or that of
other jurors. Instead, your verdict must result from the collective memory
and judgment of all jurors based on the evidence and testimony presented
during the trial.
At the conclusion of the trial, the bailiff will collect your notes, which
will be immediately destroyed. No one will ever read your notes.
In reaching your verdict, do not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, public
opinion or any other sentiment for or against any party to influence your
decision. Your verdict must be based on the evidence that has been received
and the law on which I have instructed you.
Reaching a verdict is exclusively your job. I cannot participate in that
decision in any way and you should not guess what I think your verdict should
be from something I may have said or done. You should not think that I
prefer one verdict over another. Therefore, in reaching your verdict, you
should not consider anything that I have said or done, except for my specific
instructions to you.
Pay careful attention to all the instructions that I gave you for that is the
law that you must follow. You will have a copy of my instructions with you
when you go to the jury room to deliberate. All the instructions are important
and you must consider all of them together. There are no other laws that
apply to this case and even if you do not agree with these laws, you must use
them in reaching your decision in this case.
When you go to the jury room, the first thing you should do is choose a
presiding juror. The presiding juror should see to it that your discussions are
orderly and that everyone has a fair chance to be heard.
It is your duty to talk with one another in the jury room and to consider
the views of all the jurors. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but
only after you have considered the evidence with the other members of the
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 421
jury. Feel free to change your mind if you are convinced that your position
should be different. You should all try to agree. But do not give up your
honest beliefs just because the others think differently. Keep an open mind so
that you and your fellow jurors can easily share ideas about the case.
I will give you a verdict form with questions you must answer. I have
already instructed you on the law that you are to use in answering these
questions. You must follow my instructions and the form carefully. You must
consider each question separately. Please answer the questions in the order
they appear. After you answer a question, the form tells you what to do next. I
will now read the form to you: (read form of verdict)
Your verdict must be unanimous, that is, your verdict must be agreed to
by each of you. When you are finished filling out the form, your presiding
juror must write the date and sign it at the bottom. Return the form to the
bailiff.
If any of you need to communicate with me for any reason, write me a
note and give it to the bailiff. In your note, do not disclose any vote or split or
the reason for the communication.
You may now retire to decide your verdict.
Special Verdict Form
VERDICT
We, the jury, return the following verdict:
1. Was there negligence on the part of Defendant, RACHEL ROWE,
which was a legal cause of damage to Plaintiff, JOHN DOE?
YES NO
If your answer to question 1 is NO, your verdict is for the Defendant, and you
should not proceed further, except to date and sign this verdict form and
return it to the courtroom. If your answer to question 1 is YES, please answer
question 2.
2. Was there negligence on the part of Plaintiff, JOHN DOE, which
was a legal cause of his damage?
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 422
YES NO
If your answer to question 2 is YES, please answer question 3. If your answer
to question 2 is NO, please skip question 3 and answer questions 4 and 5.
3. State the percentage of negligence which was a legal cause of
damage to Plaintiff, JOHN DOE, that you apportion to:
RACHEL ROWE %
JOHN DOE %
Total must be 100%
In determining the amount of any damages, do not make any reduction
because of the negligence, if any, of Plaintiff, JOHN DOE. If you find Plaintiff,
JOHN DOE, negligent in any degree, the court, in entering judgment, will
reduce JOHN DOE’S total amount of damages (100%) by the percentage of
negligence that you apportion to JOHN DOE.
Please answer questions 4 and 5.
4. What is the total amount of JOHN DOE’S
damages for medical expenses incurred in the past, and
medical expenses to be incurred in the future? $
5. What is the total amount of JOHN DOE’S
damages for lost earnings in the past and loss of
earning capacity in the future? $
If the greater weight of the evidence shows that JOHN DOE’S injuries
were in whole or in part permanent within a reasonable degree of medical
probability, please answer question 6:
6. What is the total amount of JOHN DOE’S
damages for pain and suffering, disability, physical
impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish,
inconvenience, aggravation of a disease or physical
defect and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life
sustained in the past and to be sustained in the future? $
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 423
TOTAL DAMAGES OF JOHN DOE
(add lines 1, 2, and, if applicable, 3) $
SO SAY WE ALL, this day of , 2
FOREPERSON
(Revised February 1, 2018)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 424
MODEL INSTRUCTION NO. 2
Automobile collision; driver’s comparative negligence including failure to
wear seat belt; aggravation of pre-existing injury; multiple events
Facts of the hypothetical case:
Jane Doe was injured when the automobile she was driving collided with
one driven by Richard Rowe. Jane Doe, who is married to John Doe, sued Richard
Rowe. Richard Rowe pleaded that Jane Doe was comparatively negligent because
of the operation of her own vehicle and because she was not wearing a seat belt at
the time of the collision. There are issues of a pre-existing injury and multiple
accidents. Questions of negligence, causation and damages are to be submitted to
the jury.
The court’s instruction:
The committee assumes that the court will give these instructions as part of
the instruction at the beginning of the case and that these instructions will be given
again before Final Argument. When given at the beginning of the case, 202.1 will
be used in lieu of 401.1 and these instructions will be followed by the applicable
portions of 202.2 through 202.5. See Model Instruction No. 1 for a full illustration
of an instruction at the beginning of the case.
[401.1] 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, however, the same as 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.
[401.2] The claims and defenses in this case are as follows. Jane Doe
claims that Richard Rowe was negligent in the operation of the vehicle he was
driving which caused her harm.
Richard Rowe denies that claim and also claims that Jane Doe was
herself negligent in the operation of her vehicle and in her failure to use her
seat belt, both of which caused her harm.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 425
The parties must prove their claims by the greater weight of the
evidence. I will now define some of the terms you will use in deciding this case.
[401.3] “Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and
convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
[401.4] Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care, which is the care
that a reasonably careful person would use under like circumstances.
Negligence is doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do
under like circumstances or failing to do something that a reasonably careful
person would do under like circumstances.
[401.9] F.S. 316.614, provides that “[i]t is unlawful for any person . . . [t]o
operate a motor vehicle in this state unless the person is restrained by a safety
belt.” Violation of this statute is evidence of negligence. It is not, however,
conclusive evidence of negligence. If you find that Jane Doe violated this
statute, you may consider that fact, together with the other facts and
circumstances, in deciding whether she was negligent.
[401.12(a)] Negligence is a legal cause of loss, injury, or damage if it
directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes
substantially to producing such loss, injury, or damage, so that it can
reasonably be said that, but for the negligence, the loss, injury, or damage
would not have occurred.
[401.12(b)] In order to be regarded as a legal cause of loss, injury, or
damage negligence need not be the only cause. Negligence may be a legal
cause of loss, injury, or damage even though it operates in combination with
some other cause if the negligence contributes substantially to producing such
loss, injury, or damage.
[401.12(c)] Negligence may also be a legal cause of loss, injury, or
damage even though it operates in combination with the act of another or
some other cause occurring after the negligence occurs if such other cause was
itself reasonably foreseeable and the negligence contributes substantially to
producing such loss, injury, or damage.
[401.18] The issues you must decide on Jane Doe’s claim against
Richard Rowe are whether Richard Rowe was negligent in the operation of
his vehicle, and, if so, whether that negligence was a legal cause of the loss,
injury, or damage to Jane Doe.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 426
[401.21] If the greater weight of the evidence does not support Jane
Doe’s claim, your verdict should be for Richard Rowe.
[401.22] If, however, the greater weight of the evidence supports Jane
Doe’s claim, then you shall consider the defense raised by Richard Rowe.
[401.22(a)] On that defense, the issue for you to decide is whether Jane
Doe was herself negligent in the operation of her vehicle and/or in failing to
wear her seat belt, if so, whether that negligence was a contributing legal
cause of injury or damage to Jane Doe.
[401.23] If the greater weight of the evidence does not support Richard
Rowe’s defense and the greater weight of the evidence supports Jane Doe’s
claim, then your verdict should be for Jane Doe in the total amount of her
damages.
If, however, the greater weight of the evidence shows that both Richard
Rowe and Jane Doe were negligent and that the negligence of each
contributed as a legal cause of loss, injury, or damage sustained by Jane Doe,
you should decide and write on the verdict form what percentage of the total
negligence of both parties to this action you apportion to each of them.
[501.1(b)] If your verdict is for Richard Rowe you will not consider the
matter of damages. But if the greater weight of the evidence supports Jane
Doe’s claim, you should determine and write on the verdict form, in dollars,
the total amount of loss, injury or damage which the greater weight of the
evidence shows will fairly and adequately compensate her for her loss, injury,
or damage, including any damages Jane Doe is reasonably certain to incur or
experience in the future. You shall consider the following elements:
[501.2(a)] Any bodily injury sustained, any resulting pain and suffering,
disability or physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, incon-
venience or loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life experienced in the past,
or to be experienced in the future. There is no exact standard for measuring
such damage. The amount should be fair and just, in the light of the evidence.
[501.2(b)] The reasonable expense of hospitalization and medical care
and treatment necessarily or reasonably obtained in the past, or to be so
obtained in the future.
[501.2(c)] Any earnings lost in the past, and any loss of ability to earn
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 427
money in the future.
[501.2(d)] On the claim brought by John Doe, you should award his wife
an amount of money which the greater weight of the evidence shows will fairly
and adequately compensate John Doe for any loss by reason of his wife’s
injury, of her services, comfort, society, and attentions in the past and in the
future caused by the incident in question.
[501.2(h)] Any damage to Jane Doe’s automobile. The measure of such
damage is the reasonable cost of repair, if it was practicable to repair the
automobile, with due allowance for any difference between its value
immediately before the collision and its value after repair. You shall also take
into consideration any loss Jane Doe sustained for towing or storage charges
and by being deprived of the use of her automobile during the period
reasonably required for its repair.
[501.4] In determining the total amount of damages, you should not
make any reduction because of the negligence, if any, of Jane Doe. The court
will enter a judgment based on your verdict and, if you find that Jane Doe was
negligent in any degree, the court, in entering judgment, will reduce the total
amount of damages by the percentage of negligence which you apportion to
Jane Doe.
[501.5(a)] If you find that the Richard Rowe caused a bodily injury, and
that the injury resulted in an aggravation of an existing disease or physical
defect, you should attempt to determine what portion of Jane Doe’s condition
resulted from the aggravation. If you can make that determination, then you
should award only those damages resulting from the aggravation. However, if
you cannot make that determination, or if it cannot be said that the condition
would have existed apart from the injury, then you should award damages for
the entire condition suffered by Jane Doe.
[501.5(b)] You have also heard that Jane Doe may have been injured in
two events. If you decide that Jane Doe was injured by Richard Rowe and was
later injured by another event, then you should try to separate the damages
caused by the two events and award Jane Doe money only for those damages
caused by Richard Rowe. However, if you decide that you cannot separate
some or all of the damages, you must award Jane Doe any damages that you
cannot separate, as if they were all caused by Richard Rowe.
[501.6] If the greater weight of the evidence shows that Jane Doe has
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 428
been permanently injured, you may consider her life expectancy. The
mortality tables received in evidence may be considered in determining how
long Jane Doe may be expected to live. Mortality tables are not binding on
you, but may be considered together with other evidence in the case bearing
on Jane Doe’s health, age, and physical condition, before and after the injury,
in determining the probable length of her life.
[501.7] Any amount of damages which you allow for future medical
expenses or loss of ability to earn money in the future should be reduced to its
present money value, and only the present money value of these future
economic damages should be included in your verdict. The present money
value of future economic damages is the sum of money needed now which,
together with what that sum will earn in the future, will compensate Jane Doe
for these losses as they are actually experienced in future years.
[601.1] In deciding this case, it is your duty as jurors to decide the
issues, and only those issues, that I submit for your determination and to
answer certain questions I ask you to answer on a special form, called a
verdict form. You must come to an agreement about what your answers will
be. Your agreed-upon answers to my questions are called your jury verdict.
In reaching your verdict, you must think about and weigh the testimony
and any documents, photographs, or other material that has been received in
evidence. You may also consider any facts that were admitted or agreed to by
the lawyers. Your job is to determine what the facts are. You may use reason
and common sense to reach conclusions. You may draw reasonable inferences
from the evidence. But you should not guess about things that were not
covered here. And, you must always apply the law as I have explained it to
you.
[601.2(a)] Let me speak briefly about witnesses. In evaluating the
believability of any witness and the weight you will give the testimony of any
witness, you may properly consider the demeanor of the witness while
testifying; the frankness or lack of frankness of the witness; the intelligence of
the witness; any interest the witness may have in the outcome of the case; the
means and opportunity the witness had to know the facts about which the
witness testified; the ability of the witness to remember the matters about
which the witness testified; and the reasonableness of the testimony of the
witness, considered in the light of all the evidence in the case and in the light
of your own experience and common sense.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 429
[601.2(b)] Some of the testimony before you was in the form of opinions
about certain technical subjects.
You may accept such opinion testimony, reject it, or give it the weight
you think it deserves, considering the knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education of the witness, the reasons given by the witness for the opinion
expressed, and all the other evidence in the case.
[601.5] That is the law you must follow in deciding this case. The
attorneys for the parties will now present their final arguments. When they
are through, I will have a few final instructions about your deliberations.
Following closing arguments, the final instructions are given:
[700] Members of the jury, you have now heard all the evidence, my
instructions on the law that you must apply in reaching your verdict, and the
closing arguments of the attorneys. You will shortly retire to the jury room to
decide this case. Before you do so, I have a few last instructions for you.
You will have in the jury room all of the evidence that was received
during the trial. In reaching your decision, do not do any research on your
own or as a group. Do not use dictionaries, the Internet, or other reference
materials. Do not investigate the case or conduct any experiments. Do not
contact anyone to assist you, such as a family accountant, doctor, or lawyer.
Do not visit or view the scene of any event involved in this case. If you happen
to pass by the scene, do not stop or investigate. All jurors must see or hear the
same evidence at the same time. Do not read, listen to, or watch any news
accounts of this trial.
Any notes you have taken during the trial may be taken to the jury
room for use during your discussions. Your notes are simply an aid to your
own memory, and neither your notes nor those of any other juror are binding
or conclusive. Your notes are not a substitute for your own memory or that of
other jurors. Instead, your verdict must result from the collective memory
and judgment of all jurors based on the evidence and testimony presented
during the trial.
At the conclusion of the trial, the bailiff will collect your notes, which
will be immediately destroyed. No one will ever read your notes.
In reaching your verdict, do not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, public
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 430
opinion or any other sentiment for or against any party to influence your
decision. Your verdict must be based on the evidence that has been received
and the law on which I have instructed you.
Reaching a verdict is exclusively your job. I cannot participate in that
decision in any way and you should not guess what I think your verdict should
be from something I may have said or done. You should not think that I
prefer one verdict over another. Therefore, in reaching your verdict, you
should not consider anything that I have said or done, except for my specific
instructions to you.
Pay careful attention to all the instructions that I gave you for that is the
law that you must follow. You will have a copy of my instructions with you
when you go to the jury room to deliberate. All the instructions are important
and you must consider all of them together. There are no other laws that
apply to this case and even if you do not agree with these laws, you must use
them in reaching your decision in this case.
When you go to the jury room, the first thing you should do is choose a
presiding juror. The presiding juror should see to it that your discussions are
orderly and that everyone has a fair chance to be heard.
It is your duty to talk with one another in the jury room and to consider
the views of all the jurors. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but
only after you have considered the evidence with the other members of the
jury. Feel free to change your mind if you are convinced that your position
should be different. You should all try to agree. But do not give up your
honest beliefs just because the others think differently. Keep an open mind so
that you and your fellow jurors can easily share ideas about the case.
I will give you a verdict form with questions you must answer. I have
already instructed you on the law that you are to use in answering these
questions. You must follow my instructions and the form carefully. You must
consider each question separately. Please answer the questions in the order
they appear. After you answer a question, the form tells you what to do next. I
will now read the form to you: (read form of verdict)
Your verdict must be unanimous, that is, your verdict must be agreed to
by each of you. When you are finished filling out the form, your presiding
juror must write the date and sign it at the bottom. Return the form to the
bailiff.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 431
If any of you need to communicate with me for any reason, write me a
note and give it to the bailiff. In your note, do not disclose any vote or split or
the reason for the communication.
You may now retire to decide your verdict.
Special Verdict Form
VERDICT
We, the jury, return the following verdict:
1. Was there negligence on the part of Defendant, RICHARD
ROWE, which was a legal cause of damage to Plaintiff, JANE DOE?
YES NO
If your answer to question 1 is NO, your verdict is for the defendant, and you
should not proceed further, except to date and sign this verdict form and return it to
the courtroom. If your answer to question 1 is YES, please answer question 2.
2. Was there negligence on the part of Plaintiff, JANE DOE, which
was a legal cause of her damage?
YES NO
If your answer to question 2 is YES, please answer question 3. If your answer to
question 2 is NO, skip question 3 and answer questions 4, 5, and 6.
3. State the percentage of any negligence which was a legal cause of
damage to Plaintiff, JANE DOE, that you apportion to:
Defendant, RACHEL ROWE %
Plaintiff, JOHN DOE %
Total must be 100%
In determining the total amount of damages, do not make any reduction because of
the negligence, if any, of plaintiff, JANE DOE. If you find Plaintiff, JANE DOE,
was negligent in any degree, the court, in entering judgment, will reduce JANE
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 432
DOE’S total amount of damages (100%) by the percentage of negligence which
you apportion to JANE DOE.
Please answer questions 4, 5, and 6.
4. What is the total amount of JANE DOE’S
damages for lost earnings in the past, loss of earning
capacity in the future, medical expenses incurred in
the past, and medical expenses to be incurred in the
future? $
5. What is the total amount of JANE DOE’S
damages for pain and suffering, disability, physical
impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish,
inconvenience, aggravation of a disease or physical
defect, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life
sustained in the past and to be sustained in the future? $
TOTAL DAMAGES OF JANE DOE
(add lines 1 and 2) $
6. What is the total amount of JOHN DOE’S damage caused by the
loss of his wife’s:
[a.] comfort, society, and attention? $
[b.] services $
TOTAL DAMAGES OF JOHN DOE
(add lines 3a and 3b) $
SO SAY WE ALL, this day of , 2
FOREPERSON
NOTE ON USE
This model instruction illustrates the instruction to be given when it is
alleged that a driver was comparatively negligent for not wearing a seat belt.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 433
Different factual situations may require that different portions of F.S. 316.614, be
read or paraphrased. See Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corp., 693 So.2d 934 (Fla. 1996).
(Revised February 1, 2018)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 434
MODEL INSTRUCTION NO. 3
Automobile collision; comparative negligence; wrongful death damages;
Fabre issue
Facts of the hypothetical case:
Mary Smith, as personal representative of the estate of John Smith,
deceased, has brought an action against Fast Transport Company for damages
resulting from the instantaneous death of John Smith in a collision between his car
and a tractor trailer owned by Fast Transport Company and driven by Joe Johnson,
Fast Transport’s employee. There is no issue as to Fast Transport’s responsibility
for any negligence of its driver, Johnson. Questions of negligence, comparative
negligence, causation and damages for the estate and for the benefit of the widow
and a daughter, Nancy, who is 15 years old are to be submitted to the jury.
Additionally, Joe Johnson claims that his actions were due to the negligence of
another driver, Bill Jones.
The court’s instruction:
The committee assumes that the court will give these instructions at the
beginning of the case and that these instructions will be given again before final
argument. When given at the beginning of the case, 202.1 will be used in lieu of
401.1 and these instructions will be followed by the applicable portions of 202.2
through 202.5. See Model Instruction No. 1 for a full illustration of an instruction
at the beginning of the case.
[401.1] 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, however, the same as 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.
[401.2] The claims and defenses in this case are as follows. Mary Smith,
as personal representative of the estate of John Smith, claims that Fast
Transport’s driver, Joe Johnson, was negligent in the operation of the vehicle
he was driving which caused the death of John Smith.
Fast Transport denies that claim and also claims that John Smith was
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 435
himself negligent in the operation of his vehicle, which caused his death.
Additionally, Fast Transport claims that John Smith’s death was due to
negligence of Bill Jones, who is not a party to this case.
The parties must prove their claims by the greater weight of the
evidence. I will now define some of the terms you will use in deciding this case.
[401.3] “Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and
convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
[401.4] Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care, which is the care
that a reasonably careful person would use under like circumstances.
Negligence is doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do
under like circumstances or failing to do something that a reasonably careful
person would do under like circumstances.
[401.12(a)] Negligence is a legal cause of a death if it directly and in
natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to
producing such death, so that it can reasonably be said that, but for the
negligence, the death would not have occurred.
[401.12(b)] In order to be regarded as a legal cause of loss, injury, or
damage negligence need not be the only cause. Negligence may be a legal
cause of death even though it operates in combination with the act of another
or some other cause if the negligence contributes substantially to producing
such death.
[401.13(b)] The court has determined and now instructs you that Fast
Transport is responsible for any negligence of its employee, Joe Johnson.
[401.18] The issues you must decide on Mary Smith’s claim against Fast
Transport are whether Fast Transport’s employee, Joe Johnson, was
negligent in the operation of his vehicle, and, if so, whether that negligence
was a legal cause of John Smith’s death.
[401.21] If the greater weight of the evidence does not support Mary
Smith’s claim, your verdict should be for Fast Transport.
[401.22] If, however, the greater weight of the evidence supports Mary
Smith’s claim, then you shall consider the defenses raised by Fast Transport.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 436
[401.22(a)] On Fast Transport’s first defense, the issues for you to decide
are whether John Smith was himself negligent in the operation of his vehicle
and, if so, whether that negligence was a contributing legal cause of his death.
[401.22(f)] On Fast Transport’s second defense, the issues for you to
decide are whether Bill Jones was also negligent in the operation of his vehicle
and, if so, whether that negligence was a contributing legal cause of John
Smith’s death.
[401.23] If the greater weight of the evidence does not support Fast
Transport’s defenses and the greater weight of the evidence supports Mary
Smith’s claim, then your verdict should be for Mary Smith as personal
representative of the estate of John Smith, in the total amount of the damages
sustained by those for whom this action is brought.
If, however, the greater weight of the evidence shows that either John
Smith and/or Bill Jones were negligent and that the negligence of one or each
contributed as a legal cause to the death of John Smith, you should decide and
write on the verdict form what percentage of the total negligence of all parties
to this action you apportion to each of them.
[502.1(b)] If your verdict is for Fast Transport, you will not consider the
matter of damages. But if the greater weight of the evidence supports Mary
Smith’s claim, as personal representative of the estate of John Smith, you
should determine and write on the verdict form, in dollars, the total amount of
loss, injury, or damage which the greater weight of the evidence shows the
estate of John Smith and Mary Smith and Nancy Smith sustained as a result
of John Smith’s death, including any damages that Mary Smith and Nancy
Smith are reasonably certain to experience in the future.
[502.2] In determining any damages sustained by John Smith’s estate,
you shall consider the following elements:
[502.2(b)] The estate’s loss of net accumulations: “Net accumulations” is
the part of the decedent’s net income from salary or business after taxes,
including pension benefits, which the decedent, after paying his personal
expenses and monies for the support of his survivors, would have left as part
of his estate if he had lived his normal life expectancy.
[502.2(c)] Medical and funeral expenses due to the decedent’s death
which have become a charge against the decedent’s estate.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 437
In determining any damages to be awarded for the benefit of Mary
Smith and Nancy Smith, you shall consider certain additional elements of
damage. There is no exact standard for fixing the compensation to be awarded
for these elements. Any such award should be fair and just in the light of the
evidence regarding the following elements.
[502.2(d)] Mary Smith’s loss of John Smith’s companionship and
protection, and her mental pain and suffering as a result of John Smith’s
death. In determining the duration of the losses, you may consider the life
expectancy of the surviving spouse, Mary Smith, together with the other
evidence in the case.
[502.2(e)] The loss by Nancy Smith of parental companionship,
instruction and guidance, and her mental pain and suffering as a result of
John Smith’s death. In determining the duration of those losses, you may
consider the life expectancy of the surviving child, Nancy Smith, together with
the other evidence in the case.
In determining any damages to be awarded for the benefit of Mary
Smith and Nancy Smith, you shall also consider these additional elements of
damage.
[502.2(g)] The loss of support and services sustained by Mary Smith and
Nancy Smith, by reason of John Smith’s injury and death. In determining the
duration of any future loss, you may consider the joint life expectancy of the
survivor and the decedent, and the period of minority, ending at age 25, of a
healthy minor child.
In evaluating past and future loss of support and services, you shall
consider the survivor’s relationship to John Smith, the amount of John
Smith’s probable net income available for distribution to Mary Smith and
Nancy Smith and the replacement value of John Smith’s services to the
survivor. “Support” includes contributions in kind, as well as sums of money.
“Services” means tasks regularly performed by the decedent for a survivor
that will be a necessary expense to the survivor because of the decedent’s
death.
[502.3] Any damages that you find were sustained by the decedent’s
estate and by each survivor shall be separately stated in your verdict.
[502.5] In determining the total amount of any damages sustained by
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 438
the John Smith estate and Mary Smith and Nancy Smith as a result of his
death, you should not make any reduction because of the negligence, if any, of
John Smith or Bill Jones. The court in entering judgment will make the
appropriate reductions.
[502.6(a)] In determining how long John Smith would have lived, had he
lived out his normal life, you may consider his life expectancy at the time of
his death. The mortality tables received in evidence may be considered in
determining how long he may have been expected to live. Mortality tables are
not binding on you, but may be considered together with other evidence in the
case bearing on his health, age and physical condition, before his death, in
determining the probable length of his life.
[502.6(b)] In determining the duration of any future loss sustained by
Mary Smith and Nancy Smith by reason of the death of John Smith, you may
consider the life expectancy of each. The mortality tables received in evidence
may be considered, together with other evidence in the case bearing on the
health, age, and physical condition of each, in determining how long each may
be expected to live.
[502.7] Any amount of damages which you allow for lost net
accumulations or for loss of the decedent’s support and services in the future
should be reduced to its present money value, and only the present money
value of these future economic damages should be included in your verdict.
The present money value of future economic damages is the sum of money
needed now which, together with what that sum will earn in the future, will
compensate Mary Smith and Nancy Smith for these losses as they are actually
experienced in future years.
[601.1] In deciding this case, it is your duty as jurors to decide the
issues, and only those issues, that I submit for your determination and to
answer certain questions I ask you to answer on a special form, called a
verdict form. You must come to an agreement about what your answers will
be. Your agreed-upon answers to my questions are called your jury verdict.
In reaching your verdict, you must think about and weigh the testimony
and any documents, photographs, or other material that has been received in
evidence. You may also consider any facts that were admitted or agreed to by
the lawyers. Your job is to determine what the facts are. You may use reason
and common sense to reach conclusions. You may draw reasonable inferences
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 439
from the evidence. But you should not guess about things that were not
covered here. And, you must always apply the law as I have explained it to
you.
[601.2(a)] Let me speak briefly about witnesses. In evaluating the
believability of any witness and the weight you will give the testimony of any
witness, you may properly consider the demeanor of the witness while
testifying; the frankness or lack of frankness of the witness; the intelligence of
the witness; any interest the witness may have in the outcome of the case; the
means and opportunity the witness had to know the facts about which the
witness testified; the ability of the witness to remember the matters about
which the witness testified; and the reasonableness of the testimony of the
witness, considered in the light of all the evidence in the case and in the light
of your own experience and common sense.
[601.2(b)] Some of the testimony before you was in the form of opinions
about certain technical subjects.
You may accept such opinion testimony, reject it, or give it the weight
you think it deserves, considering the knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education of the witness, the reasons given by the witness for the opinion
expressed, and all the other evidence in the case.
[601.5] That is the law you must follow in deciding this case. The
attorneys for the parties will now present their final arguments. When they
are through, I will have a few final instructions about your deliberations.
Following closing arguments, the final instructions are given:
[700] Members of the jury, you have now heard all the evidence, my
instructions on the law that you must apply in reaching your verdict, and the
closing arguments of the attorneys. You will shortly retire to the jury room to
decide this case. Before you do so, I have a few last instructions for you.
You will have in the jury room all of the evidence that was received
during the trial. In reaching your decision, do not do any research on your
own or as a group. Do not use dictionaries, the Internet, or other reference
materials. Do not investigate the case or conduct any experiments. Do not
contact anyone to assist you, such as a family accountant, doctor, or lawyer.
Do not visit or view the scene of any event involved in this case. If you happen
to pass by the scene, do not stop or investigate. All jurors must see or hear the
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 440
same evidence at the same time. Do not read, listen to, or watch any news
accounts of this trial.
Any notes you have taken during the trial may be taken to the jury
room for use during your discussions. Your notes are simply an aid to your
own memory, and neither your notes nor those of any other juror are binding
or conclusive. Your notes are not a substitute for your own memory or that of
other jurors. Instead, your verdict must result from the collective memory
and judgment of all jurors based on the evidence and testimony presented
during the trial.
At the conclusion of the trial, the bailiff will collect your notes, which
will be immediately destroyed. No one will ever read your notes.
In reaching your verdict, do not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, public
opinion or any other sentiment for or against any party to influence your
decision. Your verdict must be based on the evidence that has been received
and the law on which I have instructed you.
Reaching a verdict is exclusively your job. I cannot participate in that
decision in any way and you should not guess what I think your verdict should
be from something I may have said or done. You should not think that I
prefer one verdict over another. Therefore, in reaching your verdict, you
should not consider anything that I have said or done, except for my specific
instructions to you.
Pay careful attention to all the instructions that I gave you for that is the
law that you must follow. You will have a copy of my instructions with you
when you go to the jury room to deliberate. All the instructions are important
and you must consider all of them together. There are no other laws that
apply to this case and even if you do not agree with these laws, you must use
them in reaching your decision in this case.
When you go to the jury room, the first thing you should do is choose a
presiding juror. The presiding juror should see to it that your discussions are
orderly and that everyone has a fair chance to be heard.
It is your duty to talk with one another in the jury room and to consider
the views of all the jurors. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but
only after you have considered the evidence with the other members of the
jury. Feel free to change your mind if you are convinced that your position
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 441
should be different. You should all try to agree. But do not give up your
honest beliefs just because the others think differently. Keep an open mind so
that you and your fellow jurors can easily share ideas about the case.
I will give you a verdict form with questions you must answer. I have
already instructed you on the law that you are to use in answering these
questions. You must follow my instructions and the form carefully. You must
consider each question separately. Please answer the questions in the order
they appear. After you answer a question, the form tells you what to do next. I
will now read the form to you: (read form of verdict)
Your verdict must be unanimous, that is, your verdict must be agreed to
by each of you. When you are finished filling out the form, your presiding
juror must write the date and sign it at the bottom. Return the form to the
bailiff.
If any of you need to communicate with me for any reason, write me a
note and give it to the bailiff. In your note, do not disclose any vote or split or
the reason for the communication.
You may now retire to decide your verdict.
Special Verdict Form
VERDICT
We, the jury, return the following verdict:
1. Was there negligence on the part of Joe Johnson, FAST
TRANSPORT COMPANY’S driver, which was a legal cause of the death of
John Smith?
YES NO
If your answer to question 1 is NO, your verdict is for the defendant, and you
should not proceed further, except to date and sign this verdict form and
return it to the courtroom. If your answer to question 1 is YES, please answer
question 2.
2. Was there negligence on the part of the decedent, John Smith,
which was a legal cause of his death?
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 442
YES NO
3. Was there negligence on the part of Bill Jones, which was a legal
cause of John Smith’s death?
YES NO
If your answer to either question 2 or 3 is YES, please answer question
4. If your answer to questions 2 and 3 is NO, skip question 4 and answer
questions 5, 6, and 7.
4. State the percentage of any negligence, which was a legal cause of
John Smith’s death, that you apportion to:
Joe Johnson (Fast Transit
Company’s driver) %
John Smith (decedent) %
Bill Jones (other driver) %
Total must be 100%
In determining the total amount of damages, do not make any reduction
because of the negligence, if any, of the decedent, John Smith or of Bill Jones.
If you find that either John Smith or Bill Jones were to any extent negligent,
the court, in entering judgment, will make an appropriate reduction in the
damages awarded.
Please answer questions 5, 6, and 7.
DAMAGES OF THE ESTATE
5. What is the total amount of any damages
lost by the estate for the amount of any medical or
funeral expenses resulting from John Smith’s injury
and death? $
DAMAGES OF MARY SMITH
6a. What is the total amount of damages
sustained by MARY SMITH for the loss of
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 443
John Smith’s support and services? $
6b. What is the total amount of damages
sustained by MARY SMITH for the loss of her
husband’s companionship and protection and
from her pain and suffering as a result of
John Smith’s injury and death? $
TOTAL DAMAGES OF MARY SMITH
(add lines 6a and 6b) $
DAMAGES OF NANCY SMITH
7a. What is the total amount of any damages
sustained by NANCY SMITH for her loss of John
Smith’s support and services? $
7b. What is the amount of damages
sustained by NANCY SMITH for the loss of
parental companionship, instruction and
guidance and NANCY SMITH’S pain and
suffering as a result of John Smith’s injury
and death? $
TOTAL DAMAGES OF NANCY SMITH
(add lines 7a and 7b) $
SO SAY WE ALL, this day of , 2
FOREPERSON
(Revised February 1, 2018)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 444
MODEL INSTRUCTION NO. 4
Automobile collision; comparative negligence; claim and counterclaim
Facts of the hypothetical case:
Betty Jones and Rachel Rowe were both injured when their automobiles
collided at an intersection. Betty Jones sued Rachel Rowe, who denied the
allegations of negligence, pleaded in defense that Betty Jones was negligent and
counterclaimed for her own damages. On the counterclaim, Betty Jones denied that
she was negligent and pleaded in defense that Rachel Rowe was negligent.
The court’s instruction:
The committee assumes that the court will give these instructions at the
beginning of the case and that these instructions will be given again before final
argument. When given at the beginning of the case, 202.1 will be used in lieu of
401.1 and these instructions will be followed by the applicable portions of 202.2
through 202.5. See Model Instruction No. 1 for a full illustration of an instruction
at the beginning of the case.
[401.1] 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, however, the same as 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.
[401.2] The claims and defenses in this case are as follows. Betty Jones
claims that Rachel Rowe was negligent in the operation of the vehicle she was
driving which caused her harm.
Rachel Rowe denies that claim and claims instead that it was Betty Jones
who was negligent in the operation of her vehicle, which caused harm to
Rachel Rowe.
The parties must prove their claims by the greater weight of the
evidence. I will now define some of the terms you will use in deciding this case.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 445
[401.3] “Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and
convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
[401.4] Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care, which is the care
that a reasonably careful person would use under like circumstances.
Negligence is doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do
under like circumstances or failing to do something that a reasonably careful
person would do under like circumstances.
[401.9] (Read or paraphrase the applicable statute or refer to the ordinance
or regulation admitted in evidence.) Violation of this statute is evidence of
negligence. It is not, however, conclusive evidence of negligence. If you find
that either Rachel Rowe or Betty Jones violated this statute, you may consider
that fact, together with the other facts and circumstances, in deciding whether
she was negligent.
[401.12(a)] Negligence is a legal cause of loss, injury, or damage if it
directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes
substantially to producing such loss, injury, or damage, so that it can
reasonably be said that, but for the negligence, the loss, injury, or damage
would not have occurred.
[401.12(b)] Negligence may be a legal cause of loss, injury, or damage
even though it operates in combination with some other cause if the negligence
contributes substantially to producing such loss, injury, or damage.
[401.18] The issues you must decide on Betty Jones’ claim against
Rachel Rowe are whether Rachel Rowe was negligent in the operation of her
vehicle, and, if so, whether that negligence was a legal cause of the loss, injury,
or damage to Betty Jones.
[401.21] If the greater weight of the evidence does not support Betty
Jones’ claim, your verdict on that claim should be for Rachel Rowe.
Similarly, the issues for your determination on the claim of Rachel Rowe
against Betty Jones are whether Betty Jones was negligent in the operation her
vehicle, and, if so, whether such negligence was a legal cause of loss, injury, or
damage to Rachel Rowe.
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support Rachel Rowe’s
claim, then your verdict on that claim should be for Betty Jones.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 446
If the greater weight of the evidence supports the claim of Betty Jones, and
shows that the negligence of Rachel Rowe was a legal cause of loss, injury, or
damage to Betty Jones, but does not support the claim of Rachel Rowe, your
verdict should be for Betty Jones in the total amount of her damages.
Similarly, if the greater weight of the evidence supports the claim of
Rachel Rowe and shows that the negligence of Betty Jones was a legal cause of
loss, injury, or damage to Rachel Rowe, but does not support the claim of Betty
Jones, your verdict should be for Rachel Rowe in the total amount of her
damages.
If, however, the greater weight of the evidence shows that both Betty Jones
and Rachel Rowe were negligent, and that the negligence of each contributed as
a legal cause of loss, injury, or damage to each, you should determine what
percentage of the total negligence of both parties to this action you apportion to
each of them.
[501.1(b)] If your verdict is for Rachel Rowe on the claim of Betty Jones
you will not consider the matter of Betty Jones’ damages. Similarly, if your
verdict is for Betty Jones on the claim of Rachel Rowe, you will not consider the
matter of Rachel Rowe’s damages. But if the greater weight of the evidence
supports the claim of either Betty Jones or Rachel Rowe, or both of their claims,
you should determine and write on the verdict form, in dollars, the total amount
of loss, injury, or damages which the greater weight of the evidence shows will
fairly and adequately compensate the claimant for such loss, injury, or damage,
including any damages the claimant is reasonably certain to incur or experience
in the future. You shall consider the following elements:
[501.2(a)] Any bodily injury sustained, any resulting pain and suffering,
disability or physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish,
inconvenience or loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life experienced in the
past, or to be experienced in the future. There is no exact standard for
measuring such damage. The amount should be fair and just, in the light of
the evidence.
[501.2(b)] The reasonable expense of hospitalization and medical care
and treatment necessarily or reasonably obtained in the past, or to be so
obtained in the future.
[501.2(c)] Any earnings lost in the past, and any loss of ability to earn
money in the future.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 447
[501.2(h)] Any damage to Betty Jones’ or Rachel Rowe’s automobile.
The measure of such damage is the reasonable cost of repair, if it was
practicable to repair the automobile, with due allowance for any difference
between its value immediately before the collision and its value after repair.
You shall also take into consideration any loss for towing or storage charges
and by being deprived of the use of her automobile during the period
reasonably required for its repair.
[501.4] In determining the total amount of damages, you should not
make any reduction because of the negligence, if any, of Betty Jones and/or
Rachel Rowe. The court will enter a judgment based on your verdict and, if
you find that either Betty Jones and/or Rachel Rowe were negligent in any
degree, the court, in entering judgment, will reduce the total amount of
damages by the percentage of negligence, which you apportion to Betty Jones
and/or Rachel Rowe.
[501.6] If the greater weight of the evidence shows that either Betty
Jones and/or Rachel Rowe have been permanently injured, you may consider
her life expectancy. The mortality tables received in evidence may be
considered in determining how long Betty Jones and/or Rachel Rowe may be
expected to live. Mortality tables are not binding on you, but may be
considered together with other evidence in the case bearing on Betty Jones’
and/or Rachel Rowe’s health, age and physical condition, before and after the
injury, in determining the probable length of her life.
[501.7] Any amount of damages which you allow for future medical
expenses or loss of ability to earn money in the future should be reduced to its
present money value, and only the present money value of these future
economic damages should be included in your verdict. The present money
value of future economic damages is the sum of money needed now which,
together with what that sum will earn in the future, will compensate Betty
Jones and/or Rachel Rowe for these losses as they are actually experienced in
future years.
[601.1] In deciding this case, it is your duty as jurors to decide the
issues, and only those issues, that I submit for your determination and to
answer certain questions I ask you to answer on a special form, called a
verdict form. You must come to an agreement about what your answers will
be. Your agreed-upon answers to my questions are called your jury verdict.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 448
In reaching your verdict, you must think about and weigh the testimony
and any documents, photographs, or other material that has been received in
evidence. You may also consider any facts that were admitted or agreed to by
the lawyers. Your job is to determine what the facts are. You may use reason
and common sense to reach conclusions. You may draw reasonable inferences
from the evidence. But you should not guess about things that were not
covered here. And, you must always apply the law as I have explained it to
you.
[601.2(a)] Let me speak briefly about witnesses. In evaluating the
believability of any witness and the weight you will give the testimony of any
witness, you may properly consider the demeanor of the witness while
testifying; the frankness or lack of frankness of the witness; the intelligence of
the witness; any interest the witness may have in the outcome of the case; the
means and opportunity the witness had to know the facts about which the
witness testified; the ability of the witness to remember the matters about
which the witness testified; and the reasonableness of the testimony of the
witness, considered in the light of all the evidence in the case and in the light
of your own experience and common sense.
[601.2(b)] Some of the testimony before you was in the form of opinions
about certain technical subjects.
You may accept such opinion testimony, reject it, or give it the weight
you think it deserves, considering the knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education of the witness, the reasons given by the witness for the opinion
expressed, and all the other evidence in the case.
[601.5] That is the law you must follow in deciding this case. The
attorneys for the parties will now present their final arguments. When they
are through, I will have a few final instructions about your deliberations.
Following closing arguments, the final instructions are given:
[700] Members of the jury, you have now heard all the evidence, my
instructions on the law that you must apply in reaching your verdict, and the
closing arguments of the attorneys. You will shortly retire to the jury room to
decide this case. Before you do so, I have a few last instructions for you.
You will have in the jury room all of the evidence that was received
during the trial. In reaching your decision, do not do any research on your
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 449
own or as a group. Do not use dictionaries, the Internet, or other reference
materials. Do not investigate the case or conduct any experiments. Do not
contact anyone to assist you, such as a family accountant, doctor, or lawyer.
Do not visit or view the scene of any event involved in this case. If you happen
to pass by the scene, do not stop or investigate. All jurors must see or hear the
same evidence at the same time. Do not read, listen to, or watch any news
accounts of this trial.
Any notes you have taken during the trial may be taken to the jury
room for use during your discussions. Your notes are simply an aid to your
own memory, and neither your notes nor those of any other juror are binding
or conclusive. Your notes are not a substitute for your own memory or that of
other jurors. Instead, your verdict must result from the collective memory
and judgment of all jurors based on the evidence and testimony presented
during the trial.
At the conclusion of the trial, the bailiff will collect your notes, which
will be immediately destroyed. No one will ever read your notes.
In reaching your verdict, do not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, public
opinion, or any other sentiment for or against any party to influence your
decision. Your verdict must be based on the evidence that has been received
and the law on which I have instructed you.
Reaching a verdict is exclusively your job. I cannot participate in that
decision in any way and you should not guess what I think your verdict should
be from something I may have said or done. You should not think that I
prefer one verdict over another. Therefore, in reaching your verdict, you
should not consider anything that I have said or done, except for my specific
instructions to you.
Pay careful attention to all the instructions that I gave you for that is the
law that you must follow. You will have a copy of my instructions with you
when you go to the jury room to deliberate. All the instructions are important
and you must consider all of them together. There are no other laws that
apply to this case and even if you do not agree with these laws, you must use
them in reaching your decision in this case.
When you go to the jury room, the first thing you should do is choose a
presiding juror. The presiding juror should see to it that your discussions are
orderly and that everyone has a fair chance to be heard.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 450
It is your duty to talk with one another in the jury room and to consider
the views of all the jurors. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but
only after you have considered the evidence with the other members of the
jury. Feel free to change your mind if you are convinced that your position
should be different. You should all try to agree. But do not give up your
honest beliefs just because the others think differently. Keep an open mind so
that you and your fellow jurors can easily share ideas about the case.
I will give you a verdict form with questions you must answer. I have
already instructed you on the law that you are to use in answering these
questions. You must follow my instructions and the form carefully. You must
consider each question separately. Please answer the questions in the order
they appear. After you answer a question, the form tells you what to do next. I
will now read the form to you: (read form of verdict)
Your verdict must be unanimous, that is, your verdict must be agreed to
by each of you. When you are finished filling out the form, your presiding
juror must write the date and sign it at the bottom. Return the form to the
bailiff.
If any of you need to communicate with me for any reason, write me a
note and give it to the bailiff. In your note, do not disclose any vote or split or
the reason for the communication.
You may now retire to decide your verdict.
Special Verdict Form
VERDICT
We, the jury, return the following verdict:
1. Was there negligence on the part of RACHEL ROWE which was
a legal cause of damage to BETTY JONES?
YES NO
2. Was there negligence on the part of BETTY JONES which was a
legal cause of damage to RACHEL ROWE?
YES NO
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 451
If your answers to questions 1 and 2 are both NO, your verdict on each claim is for
the defendant, and you should not proceed further except to date and sign this
verdict form and return it to the courtroom. If your answer to either question 1 or 2
is YES, please answer question 3.
3. State the percentage of any negligence that you apportion to:
Rachel Rowe %
Betty Jones %
Total must be 100%
Your answers to question 3 must total 100%, and should include a zero for
any party you found not negligent in answer to questions 1 and 2. Please answer
question 4 only if your answer to question 1 is YES. Answer question 5 only if
your answer to question 2 is YES.
In determining the amount of damages, do not make any reduction because
of the negligence, if any, of BETTY JONES and/or RACHEL ROWE. If you find
that BETTY JONES and/or RACHEL ROWE were to any extent negligent, the
court in entering judgment will make an appropriate reduction in the damages
awarded.
Please answer questions 4, 5, 6 and 7.
DAMAGES OF BETTY JONES
4. What is the total amount of BETTY JONES’
damages for lost earnings in the past, loss of earning
capacity in the future, medical expenses incurred in
the past, medical expenses to be incurred in the future? $
5. What is the total amount of BETTY JONES’
damages for pain and suffering, disability, physical
impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish,
inconvenience, aggravation of a disease or physical
defect, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life
sustained in the past and to be sustained in the future? $
TOTAL DAMAGES OF BETTY JONES
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 452
(add lines 4 and 5) $
DAMAGES OF RACHEL ROWE
6. What is the total amount of RACHEL
ROWE’S damages for lost earnings in the past,
loss of earning capacity in the future, medical
expenses incurred in the past, medical expenses
to be incurred in the future? $
7. What is the total amount of RACHEL
ROWE’S damages for pain and suffering, disability,
physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish,
inconvenience, aggravation of a disease or physical
defect and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life
sustained in the past and to be sustained in the future? $
TOTAL DAMAGES OF RACHEL ROWE
(add lines 6 and 7) $
SO SAY WE ALL, this day of , 2
FOREPERSON
(Revised February 1, 2018)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 453
MODEL INSTRUCTION NO. 5
Injury in three-car collision; settlement with injured party by one tortfeasor;
independent contribution claim by him against others; reasonableness of
settlement as well as liability contested
Facts of the hypothetical case:
John Adams, driver of one of three vehicles involved in a collision, pre-
sented a claim for his injuries to Marvel Transport Co., owner of one of the other
vehicles. Marvel, taking into consideration Adams’ injuries, his comparative
negligence and its potential exposure, paid Adams $75,000.00 and obtained a
general release of all responsible persons. Marvel then sued the owner of the other
vehicle, Perishable Produce, Inc., for contribution. The issues to be resolved by the
jury are whether Perishable’s driver was negligent in contributing to Adams’
injuries, whether the amount paid by Marvel was reasonable and, if Perishable’s
driver was negligent, the relative degrees of responsibility of Marvel and
Perishable.
The court’s instruction:
The committee assumes that the court will give these instructions at the
beginning of the case and that these instructions will be given again before final
argument. When given at the beginning of the case, 202.1 will be used in lieu of
412.3 and these instructions will be followed by the applicable portions of 202.2
through 202.5. See Model Instruction No. 1 for a full illustration of an instruction
at the beginning of the case.
[412.3] 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, however, the same as 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.
[412.4] The claims and defenses in this case are as follows. Marvel
Transport Co. seeks to recover from Perishable Produce, Inc., part of the sum
of $75,000.00, which Marvel Transport Co. paid John Adams to satisfy the
claim of John Adams resulting from his injury in the three vehicle accident
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 454
involving John Adams, and vehicles owned by Marvel Transport Co. and
Perishable Produce, Inc. Marvel Transport Co. claims that Perishable
Produce, Inc. was partly negligent in causing the collision.
Perishable Produce, Inc. denies that claim.
Marvel Transport Co. must prove its claim by the greater weight of the
evidence. I will now define some of the terms you will use in deciding this case.
[412.5] “Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and
convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
[412.6] Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care, which is the care
that a reasonably careful person would use under like circumstances.
Negligence is doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do
under like circumstances or failing to do something that a reasonably careful
person would do under like circumstances.
[412.7(a)] Negligence is a legal cause of loss, injury, or damage if it
directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes
substantially to producing such loss, injury, or damage, so that it can
reasonably be said that, but for the negligence, the loss, injury, or damage
would not have occurred.
[412.7(b)] In order to be regarded as a legal cause of loss, injury, or
damage negligence need not be the only cause. Negligence may be a legal
cause of loss, injury, or damage even though it operates in combination with
the act of another or some other cause if the negligence contributes
substantially to producing such loss, injury, or damage.
[412.8] The issues for you to decide are whether Tom Jones, the
employee of Perishable, was negligent in his operation of Perishable’s truck,
which was involved in the collision and, if so, whether such negligence was a
legal cause of injury or damage to John Adams.
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support the claim of
Marvel Transport Co. against Perishable Produce, Inc., your verdict should
be for Perishable Produce, Inc.
However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports the claim of
Marvel Transport Co., you should also determine whether the amount of
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 455
money paid by Marvel Transport Co. to John Adams was reasonable under
all of the circumstances shown by the evidence. If the greater weight of the
evidence shows that the amount of money paid by Marvel Transport to John
Adams did not exceed a reasonable amount under all of the circumstances,
you should so find by your verdict. However, if the amount of money paid by
Marvel Transport Co. to John Adams exceeded a reasonable amount, you
should determine the amount which would have been reasonable under all of
the circumstances for Marvel Transport Co. to pay to John Adams in
settlement. The court will then determine the amount that Marvel Transport
Co. will recover from Perishable Produce, Inc.
In deciding whether the amount of money paid by Marvel Transport
Co. to John Adams was reasonable, I instruct you that John Adams would
have been able to sue Marvel Transport Co. for an amount of money that
would fairly and adequately compensate him for his loss, injury, and damage,
including any damage that John Adams would have been reasonably certain
to incur or experience in the future, for the following elements:
[501.2(a)] Any bodily injury sustained by John Adams and any resulting
pain and suffering, disability or physical impairment, disfigurement, mental
anguish, inconvenience or loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life that he had
experienced in the past, or would have experienced in the future. There is no
exact standard for measuring such damage. The amount would have had to
have been fair and just, in the light of the evidence about his injuries.
[501.2(b)] The reasonable expense of hospitalization and medical care
and treatment necessarily or reasonably obtained by John Adams in the past,
or to be so obtained by him in the future.
[501.2(c)] Any earnings John Adams lost in the past, and any loss of
ability to earn money he had in the future.
[501.2(h)] Any damage to John Adams’ automobile. The measure of
such damage is the reasonable cost of repair, if it was practicable to repair the
automobile, with due allowance for any difference between its value
immediately before the collision and its value after repair. It would also
include any loss John Adams sustained for towing or storage charges and
from being deprived of the use of his automobile during the period reasonably
required for its repair.
[601.1] In deciding this case, it is your duty as jurors to decide the
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 456
issues, and only those issues, that I submit for your determination and to
answer certain questions I ask you to answer on a special form, called a
verdict form. You must come to an agreement about what your answers will
be. Your agreed-upon answers to my questions are called your jury verdict.
In reaching your verdict, you must think about and weigh the testimony
and any documents, photographs, or other material that has been received in
evidence. You may also consider any facts that were admitted or agreed to by
the lawyers. Your job is to determine what the facts are. You may use reason
and common sense to reach conclusions. You may draw reasonable inferences
from the evidence. But you should not guess about things that were not
covered here. And, you must always apply the law as I have explained it to
you.
[601.2(a)] Let me speak briefly about witnesses. In evaluating the
believability of any witness and the weight you will give the testimony of any
witness, you may properly consider the demeanor of the witness while
testifying; the frankness or lack of frankness of the witness; the intelligence of
the witness; any interest the witness may have in the outcome of the case; the
means and opportunity the witness had to know the facts about which the
witness testified; the ability of the witness to remember the matters about
which the witness testified; and the reasonableness of the testimony of the
witness, considered in the light of all the evidence in the case and in the light
of your own experience and common sense.
[601.2(b)] Some of the testimony before you was in the form of opinions
about certain technical subjects.
You may accept such opinion testimony, reject it, or give it the weight
you think it deserves, considering the knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education of the witness, the reasons given by the witness for the opinion
expressed, and all the other evidence in the case.
[601.5] That is the law you must follow in deciding this case. The
attorneys for the parties will now present their final arguments. When they
are through, I will have a few final instructions about your deliberations.
Following closing arguments, the final instructions are given:
[700] Members of the jury, you have now heard all the evidence, my
instructions on the law that you must apply in reaching your verdict, and the
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 457
closing arguments of the attorneys. You will shortly retire to the jury room to
decide this case. Before you do so, I have a few last instructions for you.
You will have in the jury room all of the evidence that was received
during the trial. In reaching your decision, do not do any research on your
own or as a group. Do not use dictionaries, the Internet, or other reference
materials. Do not investigate the case or conduct any experiments. Do not
contact anyone to assist you, such as a family accountant, doctor, or lawyer.
Do not visit or view the scene of any event involved in this case. If you happen
to pass by the scene, do not stop or investigate. All jurors must see or hear the
same evidence at the same time. Do not read, listen to, or watch any news
accounts of this trial.
Any notes you have taken during the trial may be taken to the jury
room for use during your discussions. Your notes are simply an aid to your
own memory, and neither your notes nor those of any other juror are binding
or conclusive. Your notes are not a substitute for your own memory or that of
other jurors. Instead, your verdict must result from the collective memory
and judgment of all jurors based on the evidence and testimony presented
during the trial.
At the conclusion of the trial, the bailiff will collect your notes, which
will be immediately destroyed. No one will ever read your notes.
In reaching your verdict, do not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, public
opinion, or any other sentiment for or against any party to influence your
decision. Your verdict must be based on the evidence that has been received
and the law on which I have instructed you.
Reaching a verdict is exclusively your job. I cannot participate in that
decision in any way and you should not guess what I think your verdict should
be from something I may have said or done. You should not think that I
prefer one verdict over another. Therefore, in reaching your verdict, you
should not consider anything that I have said or done, except for my specific
instructions to you.
Pay careful attention to all the instructions that I gave you for that is the
law that you must follow. You will have a copy of my instructions with you
when you go to the jury room to deliberate. All the instructions are important
and you must consider all of them together. There are no other laws that
apply to this case and even if you do not agree with these laws, you must use
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 458
them in reaching your decision in this case.
When you go to the jury room, the first thing you should do is choose a
presiding juror. The presiding juror should see to it that your discussions are
orderly and that everyone has a fair chance to be heard.
It is your duty to talk with one another in the jury room and to consider
the views of all the jurors. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but
only after you have considered the evidence with the other members of the
jury. Feel free to change your mind if you are convinced that your position
should be different. You should all try to agree. But do not give up your
honest beliefs just because the others think differently. Keep an open mind so
that you and your fellow jurors can easily share ideas about the case.
I will give you a verdict form with questions you must answer. I have
already instructed you on the law that you are to use in answering these
questions. You must follow my instructions and the form carefully. You must
consider each question separately. Please answer the questions in the order
they appear. After you answer a question, the form tells you what to do next. I
will now read the form to you: (read form of verdict)
Your verdict must be unanimous, that is, your verdict must be agreed to
by each of you. When you are finished filling out the form, your presiding
juror must write the date and sign it at the bottom. Return the form to the
bailiff.
If any of you need to communicate with me for any reason, write me a
note and give it to the bailiff. In your note, do not disclose any vote or split or
the reason for the communication.
You may now retire to decide your verdict.
Special Verdict Form
VERDICT
We, the jury, return the following verdict:
1. Was there negligence on the part of Tom Jones, the driver of the
truck owned by Defendant, PERISHABLE PRODUCE, INC., which was a
legal cause of damage to John Adams?
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 459
YES NO
If your answer to question 1 is NO, your verdict is for defendant, and
you should not proceed further except to date and sign this verdict form and
return it to the courtroom. If your answer to question 1 is YES, please answer
question 2.
2. State the percentage of any negligence, which was a legal cause of
damage to John Adams, that you apportion to:
Tom Jones (Perishable Produce
Inc.’s driver) %
Frank Foot (Marvel Transport
Co. driver) %
Total must be 100%
Please answer question 3.
3. Did MARVEL TRANSPORT CO. payment of $75,000.00 to
Adams exceed a reasonable settlement under all of the circumstances?
YES NO
If your answer to question 3 is NO, do not proceed further except to
date and sign this verdict form and return it to the courtroom. If your answer
to question 3 is YES, please answer question 4.
4. What would have been a reasonable settlement, under all of the
circumstances, for MARVEL TRANSPORT COMPANY to pay Adams?
$
SO SAY WE ALL, this day of , 2
FOREPERSON
(revised February 1, 2018)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 460
MODEL INSTRUCTION NO. 6
Claimant suing three alleged joint tortfeasors; comparative negligence in
issue; contribution shares to be determined in action
Facts of the hypothetical case:
Mary Smith was injured while driving her car, which was involved in a four-
car pile-up. She filed suit against the drivers of the other vehiclesRon Rowe,
Sally Jones and Tom Torporalleging that their combined negligence caused the
pile-up and her injuries. All defendants have asserted that the negligence of Smith
contributed to her injuries. The defendants filed cross-claims raising the issue of
contribution. The court has determined that a single verdict can conveniently
determine the contribution shares of the defendants found to be liable to Smith.
The court’s instruction:
The committee assumes that the court will give these instructions at the
beginning of the case and that these instructions will be given again before final
argument. When given at the beginning of the case, 202.1 will be used in lieu of
401.1 and these instructions will be followed by the applicable portions of 202.2
through 202.5. See Model Instruction No. 1 for a full illustration of an instruction
at the beginning of the case.
[401.1] 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, however, the same as 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.
[401.2] The claims and defenses in this case are as follows. Mary Smith
claims that Ron Rowe and/or Sally Jones and/or Tom Torpor were negligent
in the operation of their vehicles, which caused her harm.
Ron Rowe, Sally Jones and Tom Torpor each deny that claim and they
each also claim that Mary Smith was herself negligent in the operation of her
vehicle, which caused her harm.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 461
The parties must prove their claims by the greater weight of the
evidence. I will now define some of the terms you will use in deciding this case.
[401.3] “Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and
convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
[401.4] Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care, which is the care
that a reasonably careful person would use under like circumstances.
Negligence is doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do
under like circumstances or failing to do something that a reasonably careful
person would do under like circumstances.
[401.12(a)] Negligence is a legal cause of loss, injury, or damage if it
directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes
substantially to producing such loss, injury, or damage, so that it can
reasonably be said that, but for the negligence, the loss, injury, or damage
would not have occurred.
[401.12(b)] In order to be regarded as a legal cause of loss, injury, or
damage negligence need not be the only cause. Negligence may be a legal
cause of loss, injury, or damage even though it operates in combination with
the act of another or some other cause if the negligence contributes
substantially to producing such loss, injury, or damage.
[401.18(b)] The issues you must decide on Mary Smith’s claim against
Ron Rowe and/or Sally Jones and/or Tom Torpor are whether any one or more
of those defendants were negligent in the operation of the vehicles they were
driving; and, if so, whether such negligence was a legal cause of loss, injury, or
damage to Mary Smith.
[401.21] If the greater weight of the evidence does not support the claim
of Mary Smith against a particular defendant, then your verdict should be for
that defendant.
[401.22] If, however, the greater weight of the evidence supports Mary
Smith’s claim against one or more of the defendants, then you shall consider
the defense raised by the defendants.
[401.22(a)] On that defense, the issue for you to decide is whether Mary
Smith was herself negligent in the operation of her vehicle and, if so, whether
that negligence was a contributing legal cause of injury or damage to Mary
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 462
Smith.
[401.23] If the greater weight of the evidence does not support the
defense of the defendants and the greater weight of the evidence supports
Mary Smith’s claim against one or more of the defendants, then your verdict
should be for Mary Smith against those particular defendants and you should
then decide and write on the verdict form what percentage of the total
negligence of those defendants you apportion to each defendant.
If, however, the greater weight of the evidence shows that both Mary
Smith and one or more of the defendants were negligent and that the
negligence of each contributed as a legal cause of loss, injury, or damage
sustained by Mary Smith, you should decide and write on the verdict form
what percentage of the total negligence of all parties to this action you
apportion to each of them.
[501.1(b)] If your verdict is for the defendants you will not consider the
matter of damages. But if the greater weight of the evidence supports Mary
Smith’s claim against one or more of the defendants, you should determine and
write on the verdict form, in dollars, the total amount of loss, injury, or
damage, which the greater weight of the evidence shows will fairly and
adequately compensate her for her loss, injury or damage, including any
damages that Mary Smith is reasonably certain to incur or experience in the
future. You shall consider the following elements:
[501.2(a)] Any bodily injury sustained, any resulting pain and suffering,
disability or physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish,
inconvenience or loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life experienced in the
past, or to be experienced in the future. There is no exact standard for
measuring such damage. The amount should be fair and just, in the light of
the evidence.
[501.2(b)] The reasonable expense of hospitalization and medical care
and treatment necessarily or reasonably obtained in the past, or to be so
obtained in the future.
[501.2(c)] Any earnings lost in the past, and any loss of ability to earn
money in the future.
[501.2(h)] Any damage to Mary Smith’s automobile. The measure of
such damage is the reasonable cost of repair, if it was practicable to repair the
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 463
automobile, with due allowance for any difference between its value
immediately before the collision and its value after repair. You shall also take
into consideration any loss Mary Smith sustained for towing or storage
charges and by being deprived of the use of her automobile during the period
reasonably required for its repair.
[501.4] In determining the total amount of damages, you should not
make any reduction because of the negligence, if any, of Mary Smith. The
court will enter a judgment based on your verdict and, if you find that Mary
Smith was negligent in any degree, the court, in entering judgment, will
reduce the total amount of damages by the percentage of negligence which
you apportion to Mary Smith.
[501.6] If the greater weight of the evidence shows that Mary Smith has
been permanently injured, you may consider her life expectancy. The
mortality tables received in evidence may be considered in determining how
long Mary Smith may be expected to live. Mortality tables are not binding on
you, but may be considered together with other evidence in the case bearing
on Mary Smith’s health, age and physical condition, before and after the
injury, in determining the probable length of her life.
[501.7] Any amount of damages which you allow for future medical
expenses or loss of ability to earn money in the future should be reduced to its
present money value, and only the present money value of these future
economic damages should be included in your verdict. The present money
value of future economic damages is the sum of money needed now which,
together with what that sum will earn in the future, will compensate Mary
Smith for these losses as they are actually experienced in future years.
[501.9] Even if you determine that more than one of the defendants were
negligent, you should determine Mary Smith’s damages in a single total
amount, and write that amount, in dollars, on the verdict form.
[601.1] In deciding this case, it is your duty as jurors to decide the
issues, and only those issues, that I submit for your determination and to
answer certain questions I ask you to answer on a special form, called a
verdict form. You must come to an agreement about what your answers will
be. Your agreed-upon answers to my questions are called your jury verdict.
In reaching your verdict, you must think about and weigh the testimony
and any documents, photographs, or other material that has been received in
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 464
evidence. You may also consider any facts that were admitted or agreed to by
the lawyers. Your job is to determine what the facts are. You may use reason
and common sense to reach conclusions. You may draw reasonable inferences
from the evidence. But you should not guess about things that were not
covered here. And, you must always apply the law as I have explained it to
you.
[601.2(a)] Let me speak briefly about witnesses. In evaluating the
believability of any witness and the weight you will give the testimony of any
witness, you may properly consider the demeanor of the witness while
testifying; the frankness or lack of frankness of the witness; the intelligence of
the witness; any interest the witness may have in the outcome of the case; the
means and opportunity the witness had to know the facts about which the
witness testified; the ability of the witness to remember the matters about
which the witness testified; and the reasonableness of the testimony of the
witness, considered in the light of all the evidence in the case and in the light
of your own experience and common sense.
[601.2(b)] Some of the testimony before you was in the form of opinions
about certain technical subjects.
You may accept such opinion testimony, reject it, or give it the weight
you think it deserves, considering the knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education of the witness, the reasons given by the witness for the opinion
expressed, and all the other evidence in the case.
[601.5] That is the law you must follow in deciding this case. The
attorneys for the parties will now present their final arguments. When they
are through, I will have a few final instructions about your deliberations.
Following closing arguments, the final instructions are given:
[700] Members of the jury, you have now heard all the evidence, my
instructions on the law that you must apply in reaching your verdict and the
closing arguments of the attorneys. You will shortly retire to the jury room to
decide this case. Before you do so, I have a few last instructions for you.
You will have in the jury room all of the evidence that was received
during the trial. In reaching your decision, do not do any research on your
own or as a group. Do not use dictionaries, the Internet, or other reference
materials. Do not investigate the case or conduct any experiments. Do not
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 465
contact anyone to assist you, such as a family accountant, doctor, or lawyer.
Do not visit or view the scene of any event involved in this case. If you happen
to pass by the scene, do not stop or investigate. All jurors must see or hear the
same evidence at the same time. Do not read, listen to, or watch any news
accounts of this trial.
Any notes you have taken during the trial may be taken to the jury
room for use during your discussions. Your notes are simply an aid to your
own memory, and neither your notes nor those of any other juror are binding
or conclusive. Your notes are not a substitute for your own memory or that of
other jurors. Instead, your verdict must result from the collective memory
and judgment of all jurors based on the evidence and testimony presented
during the trial.
At the conclusion of the trial, the bailiff will collect your notes, which
will be immediately destroyed. No one will ever read your notes.
In reaching your verdict, do not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, public
opinion or any other sentiment for or against any party to influence your
decision. Your verdict must be based on the evidence that has been received
and the law on which I have instructed you.
Reaching a verdict is exclusively your job. I cannot participate in that
decision in any way and you should not guess what I think your verdict should
be from something I may have said or done. You should not think that I
prefer one verdict over another. Therefore, in reaching your verdict, you
should not consider anything that I have said or done, except for my specific
instructions to you.
Pay careful attention to all the instructions that I gave you for that is the
law that you must follow. You will have a copy of my instructions with you
when you go to the jury room to deliberate. All the instructions are important
and you must consider all of them together. There are no other laws that
apply to this case and even if you do not agree with these laws, you must use
them in reaching your decision in this case.
When you go to the jury room, the first thing you should do is choose a
presiding juror. The presiding juror should see to it that your discussions are
orderly and that everyone has a fair chance to be heard.
It is your duty to talk with one another in the jury room and to consider
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 466
the views of all the jurors. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but
only after you have considered the evidence with the other members of the
jury. Feel free to change your mind if you are convinced that your position
should be different. You should all try to agree. But do not give up your
honest beliefs just because the others think differently. Keep an open mind so
that you and your fellow jurors can easily share ideas about the case.
I will give you a verdict form with questions you must answer. I have
already instructed you on the law that you are to use in answering these
questions. You must follow my instructions and the form carefully. You must
consider each question separately. Please answer the questions in the order
they appear. After you answer a question, the form tells you what to do next. I
will now read the form to you: (read form of verdict)
Your verdict must be unanimous, that is, your verdict must be agreed to
by each of you. When you are finished filling out the form, your presiding
juror must write the date and sign it at the bottom. Return the form to the
bailiff.
If any of you need to communicate with me for any reason, write me a
note and give it to the bailiff. In your note, do not disclose any vote or split or
the reason for the communication.
You may now retire to decide your verdict.
Special Verdict Form
VERDICT
We, the jury, return the following verdict:
1. Was there negligence on the part of any of the defendants, which
was a legal cause of damage to Plaintiff, Mary Smith?
RON ROWE YES NO
SALLY JONES YES NO
TOM TORPOR YES NO
If your answer to question 1 is NO as to all defendants, your verdict is
for the defendants, and you should not proceed further except to date and sign
this verdict form and return it to the courtroom. If your answer to question 1
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 467
is YES as to any of the defendants, please answer question 2.
2. Was there negligence on the part of Plaintiff, MARY SMITH,
which was a legal cause of her damage?
YES NO
Please answer question 3.
3. State the percentage of any negligence, which was a legal cause of
damage to Plaintiff, Mary Smith, that you apportion to:
Ron Rowe %
Sally Jones %
Tom Torpor %
Mary Smith %
Total must be 100%
Your answers to question 3 must total 100%, and should include a zero
for any person you found not negligent in answer to questions 1 and 2.
In determining the amount of any damages, do not make any reduction
because of the negligence, if any, of Plaintiff, MARY SMITH. If you find
Plaintiff, MARY SMITH, was negligent in any degree, the court, in entering
judgment, will reduce MARY SMITH’S total amount of damages (100%) by
the percentage of negligence that you apportion to MARY SMITH.
Please answer questions 4 and 5.
4. What is the total amount of MARY
SMITH’S damages for lost earnings in the past,
loss of earning capacity in the future, medical
expenses incurred in the past, medical expenses
to be incurred in the future? $
5. What is the total amount of MARY
SMITH’S damages for pain and suffering, disability,
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 468
physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish,
inconvenience, aggravation of a disease or physical
defect, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life
sustained in the past and to be sustained in the future? $
TOTAL DAMAGES OF MARY SMITH
(add lines 4 and 5) $
SO SAY WE ALL, this day of , 2
FOREPERSON
(Revised February 1, 2018)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 469
MODEL INSTRUCTION NO. 7
Product liability case; negligence
and strict liability claims;
comparative negligence defense;
aggravation of pre-existing injury
Facts of the hypothetical case:
John Smith claims he was injured when a hay baler being driven by Dilbert
Driver struck him. The hay baler suddenly swerved across the road into the path of
Smith, who was driving in the opposite direction. At the time, Smith was looking at
a group of deer in a field near the road, and therefore took no evasive action to
avoid the collision. An examination of the hay baler revealed that part of the
steering mechanism was designed in such a way that it could not sustain the speed
of highway driving. The retailer seller, Sharp Sales Co., prior to selling it to Driver,
had not inspected it. The mechanism had broken, making it impossible for Driver
to steer the baler. There was evidence that a person could have observed the
weakened condition of the steering mechanism had he or she examined it. Smith
sued Driver, alleging that his operation of the hay baler had been negligent. Smith
also sued the manufacturer of the hay baler, Mishap Manufacturing Co., and the
retailer seller, Sharp Sales, alleging that the hay baler had been defectively
designed and that both defendants had been negligent in their inspections of the
hay baler. He sought recovery against both the manufacturer and the retailer on
claims of (1) negligence and (2) strict liability based on the consumer expectation
test. The defendants denied liability, and affirmatively alleged that Smith had been
comparatively negligent. There are also issues of a pre-existing injury.
The courts instruction:
The committee assumes that the court will give these instructions as part of
the instruction at the beginning of the case and that these instructions will be given
again before Final Argument. When given at the beginning of the case, 202.1 will
be used in lieu of 403.1 and these instructions will be followed by the applicable
portions of 202.2 through 202.5. See Model Instruction No. 1 for a full illustration
of an instruction given at the beginning of the case.
[403.1] 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
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 470
would tell you so. These instructions are the same as 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.
[403.2] The claims and defenses in this case are as follows. John Smith
claims that Dilbert Driver was negligent in operation of the hay baler he was
driving which caused him harm. John Smith also claims that Mishap
Manufacturing Company, the manufacturer of the hay baler, and Sharp Sales
Company, the seller of the hay baler, were negligent Mishap in designing
and inspecting the hay baler, and Sharp in the manner it inspected it before
sale which caused him to be injured by the hay baler. Finally, John Smith
also claims that the hay baler designed and manufactured by Mishap and sold
by Sharp was defective and that the defect in the hay baler caused him harm.
All three defendants deny these claims and also claim that John Smith
was himself negligent in the operation of his vehicle, which caused his harm.
The parties must prove their claims by the greater weight of the
evidence. I will now define some of the terms you will use in deciding this case.
[403.3] “Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and
convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.
[401.4 and 403.9] Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care, which
is the care that a reasonably careful person would use under like
circumstances. In the case of a designer, manufacturer, seller, importer,
distributor, or supplier of a product, it is the care that a reasonably careful
designer, manufacturer, seller, importer, distributor, or supplier would use
under like circumstances. Negligence is doing something that a reasonably
careful designer, manufacturer, seller, importer, distributor, or supplier
would not do under like circumstances or failing to do something that a
reasonably careful person, designer, manufacturer, seller, importer,
distributor, or supplier would do under like circumstances.
[403.7b] A product is defective because of a design defect if it is in a
condition unreasonably dangerous to the user 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
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 471
used as intended or when used in a manner reasonably foreseeable by the
manufacturer.
[401.12a and 403.12a] Negligence or a defect in a product is a legal
cause of loss, injury or damage if it directly and in natural and continuous
sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such loss, injury
or damage, so that it can reasonably be said that, but for the negligence or
defect, the loss, injury or damage would not have occurred.
[401.12b and 403.12b] In order to be regarded as a legal cause of loss,
injury or damage, negligence or a defect in a product need not be the only
cause. Negligence or a defect in a product may be a legal cause of loss, injury
or damage even though it operates in combination with the act of another or
some other cause if the negligence or defect contributes substantially to
producing such loss, injury or damage.
[401.18a] The issues you must decide on John Smith’s claim against
Dilbert Driver are whether Dilbert Driver was negligent in his operation of
the hay baler, and, if so, whether that negligence was a legal cause of the loss,
injury or damage to John Smith.
[403.15g] The issues you must decide on John Smith’s claim of
negligence on the part of Mishap Manufacturing Company, the manufacturer
of the hay baler, is whether Mishap Manufacturing Company was negligent in
the design of the hay baler or in its inspection of the hay baler after it was
built, and, if so, whether that negligence was a legal cause of the loss, injury or
damage to John Smith.
The issues you must decide on John Smith’s claim of negligence on the
part of Sharp Sales Company, the seller of the hay baler, are whether Sharp
Sales Company was negligent in failing to inspect the hay baler before selling
it to John Smith, and, if so, whether that negligence was a legal cause of the
loss, injury or damage to John Smith.
[403.15e] The issues you must decide on John Smith’s claims of defect in
the hay baler against Mishap Manufacturing Company, the manufacturer of
the hay baler, and Sharp Sales Company, the seller of the hay baler are
whether the hay baler failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer
would expect when used as intended or in a manner reasonably foreseeable by
the manufacturer and the hay baler reached Dilbert Driver without
substantial change affecting the condition and, if so, whether that failure was
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 472
a legal cause of the loss, injury or damage to John Smith.
[403.17] If the greater weight of the evidence does not support one or
more of John Smith’s claims then your verdict should be for Dilbert Driver,
Mishap Manufacturing Company, and Sharp Sales Company.
[403.18a] If, however, the greater weight of the evidence supports one or
more of John Smith’s claims against one or more of the defendants, then you
shall consider the defenses raised by those defendants.
On the first defense, the issue for you to decide is whether John Smith
was himself negligent in driving and, if so, whether that negligence was a
contributing legal cause of the injury or damage to John Smith.
[403.18d] On the second defense, in deciding whether the hay baler was
defective because of a design defect, you shall consider the state-of-the-art of
scientific and technical knowledge and other circumstances that existed at the
time of the hay baler’s manufacture, not at the time of the loss, injury or
damage.
[403.19] If the greater weight of the evidence does not support the
defenses of Dilbert Driver, Mishap Manufacturing Company, and Sharp Sales
Company, and the greater weight of the evidence supports one or more of
John Smith’s claims, then you should decide and write on the verdict form
what percentage of the total negligence or responsibility of all defendants was
caused by each defendant.
If, however, the greater weight of the evidence shows that both John
Smith and one or more of the defendants were negligent or responsible and
that the negligence or responsibility of each contributed as a legal cause of
loss, injury or damage sustained by John Smith, you should decide and write
on the verdict form what percentage of the total negligence or responsibility of
all parties to this action was caused by each of them.
[501.1b] If your verdict is for Dilbert Driver, Mishap Manufacturing
Company, and Sharp Sales Company, you will not consider the matter of
damages. But if the greater weight of the evidence supports one or more of
John Smith’s claims, you should determine and write on the verdict form, in
dollars, the total amount of loss, injury or damage which the greater weight of
the evidence shows will fairly and adequately compensate him for his loss,
injury or damage, including any damages that John Smith is reasonably
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 473
certain to incur or experience in the future. You shall consider the following
elements:
[501.2a] Any bodily injury sustained by John Smith and any resulting
pain and suffering, disability or physical impairment, disfigurement, mental
anguish, inconvenience or loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life
experienced in the past or to be experienced in the future. There is no exact
standard for measuring such damage. The amount should be fair and just in
the light of the evidence.
[501.2b] The reasonable expense of hospitalization and medical care and
treatment necessarily or reasonably obtained by John Smith in the past or to
be so obtained in the future.
[501.2c] Any earnings lost in the past and any loss of ability to earn
money in the future.
[501.2h] Any damage to John Smith’s automobile. The measure of such
damage is the reasonable cost of repair, if it was practicable to repair the
automobile, with due allowance for any difference between its value
immediately before the collision and its value after repair.
You shall also take into consideration any loss to John Smith for towing
or storage charges and by being deprived of the use of his automobile during
the period reasonably required for its repair.
[501.4] In determining the total amount of damages, you should not
make any reduction because of the negligence, if any, of John Smith. The
court will enter a judgment based on your verdict and, if you find that John
Smith was negligent in any degree, the court in entering judgment will reduce
the total amount of damages by the percentage of negligence which you find
was caused by John Smith.
The court will also take into account, in entering judgment against any
defendant whom you find to have been negligent or responsible, the
percentage of that defendant’s negligence or responsibility compared to the
total negligence or responsibility of all the parties to this action.
[501.5a] If you find that one or more of the defendants caused a bodily
injury, and that the injury resulted in an aggravation of an existing disease or
physical defect or activation of a latent disease or physical defect, you should
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 474
attempt to decide what portion of John Smith’s condition resulted from the
aggravation or activation. If you can make that determination, then you
should award only those damages resulting from the aggravation. However, if
you cannot make that determination, or if it cannot be said that the condition
would have existed apart from the injury, then you should award damages for
the entire condition suffered by John Smith.
[501.6] If the greater weight of the evidence shows that John Smith has
been permanently injured, you may consider his life expectancy. The
mortality tables received in evidence may be considered in determining how
long John Smith may be expected to live. Mortality tables are not binding on
you but may be considered together with other evidence in the case bearing on
John Smith’s health, age and physical condition, before and after the injury,
in determining the probable length of his life.
[501.7] Any amount of damages which you allow for future medical
expenses or loss of ability to earn money in the future should be reduced to its
present money value and only the present money value of these future
economic damages should be included in your verdict.
The present money value of future economic damages is the sum of
money needed now which, together with what that sum will earn in the future,
will compensate John Smith for these losses as they are actually experienced
in future years.
[601.1] In deciding this case, it is your duty as jurors to answer certain
questions I ask you to answer on a special form, called a verdict form. You
must come to an agreement about what your answers will be. Your agreed-
upon answers to my questions are called your jury verdict.
The evidence in this case consists of the sworn testimony of the
witnesses, all exhibits received in evidence and all facts that were admitted or
agreed to by the parties.
In reaching your verdict, you must think about and weigh the testimony
and any documents, photographs, or other material that has been received in
evidence. You may also consider any facts that were admitted or agreed to by
the lawyers. Your job is to determine what the facts are. You may use reason
and common sense to reach conclusions. You may draw reasonable inferences
from the evidence. But you should not guess about things that were not
covered here. And, you must always apply the law as I have explained it to
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 475
you.
[601.2a] Let me speak briefly about witnesses. In evaluating the
believability of any witness and the weight you will give the testimony of any
witness, you may properly consider the demeanor of the witness while
testifying; the frankness or lack of frankness of the witness; the intelligence of
the witness; any interest the witness may have in the outcome of the case; the
means and opportunity the witness had to know the facts about which the
witness testified; the ability of the witness to remember the matters about
which the witness testified; and the reasonableness of the testimony of the
witness, considered in the light of all the evidence in the case and in the light
of your own experience and common sense.
[601.2b] Some of the testimony before you was in the form of opinions
about certain technical subjects. You may accept such opinion testimony,
reject it, or give it the weight you think it deserves, considering the knowledge,
skill, experience, training, or education of the witness, the reasons given by the
witness for the opinion expressed, and all the other evidence in the case.
[601.4] In your deliberations, you will consider and decide three distinct
claims. The first is the negligence claim against Dilbert Driver. The second is
the negligence claims against Mishap Manufacturing Company and Sharp
Sales Company. The third is the product defect claims against Mishap
Manufacturing Company and Sharp Sales Company. Although these claims
have been tried together, each is separate from the others, and each party is
entitled to have you separately consider each claim as it affects that party.
Therefore, in your deliberations, you should consider the evidence as it relates
to each claim separately, as you would had each claim been tried before you
separately.
[601.5] That is the law you must follow in deciding this case. The
attorneys for the parties will now present their final arguments. When they
are through, I will have a few final instructions about your deliberations.
Following Closing Arguments, the final instructions are given:
[700] Members of the jury, you have now heard all the evidence, my
instructions on the law that you must apply in reaching your verdict and the
closing arguments of the attorneys. You will shortly retire to the jury room to
decide this case. Before you do so, I have a few last instructions for you.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 476
During deliberations, jurors must communicate about the case only
with one another and only when all jurors are present in the jury room. You
will have in the jury room all of the evidence that was received during the
trial. In reaching your decision, do not do any research on your own or as a
group. Do not use dictionaries, the Internet, or any other reference materials.
Do not investigate the case or conduct any experiments. Do not visit or view
the scene of any event involved in this case or look at maps or pictures on the
Internet. If you happen to pass by the scene, do not stop or investigate. All
jurors must see or hear the same evidence at the same time. Do not read, listen
to, or watch any news accounts of this trial.
You are not to communicate with any person outside the jury about this
case. Until you have reached a verdict, you must not talk about this case in
person or through the telephone, writing, or electronic communication, such
as a blog, twitter, e-mail, text message, or any other means. Do not contact
anyone to assist you, such as a family accountant, doctor, or lawyer. These
communications rules apply until I discharge you at the end of the case.
If you become aware of any violation of these instructions or any other
instruction I have given in this case, you must tell me by giving a note to the
bailiff.
Any notes you have taken during the trial may be taken to the jury
room for use during your discussions. Your notes are simply an aid to your
own memory, and neither your notes nor those of any other juror are binding
or conclusive. Your notes are not a substitute for your own memory or that of
other jurors. Instead, your verdict must result from the collective memory
and judgment of all jurors based on the evidence and testimony presented
during the trial.
At the conclusion of the trial, the bailiff will collect all of your notes, and
immediately destroy them. No one will ever read your notes.
In reaching your verdict, do not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, public
opinion, or any other sentiment for or against any party to influence your
decision. Your verdict must be based on the evidence that has been received
and the law on which I have instructed you.
Reaching a verdict is exclusively your job. I cannot participate in that
decision in any way and you should not guess what I think your verdict should
be from something I may have said or done. You should not think that I
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 477
prefer one verdict over another. Therefore, in reaching your verdict, you
should not consider anything that I have said or done, except for my specific
instructions to you.
Pay careful attention to all the instructions that I gave you, for that is
the law that you must follow. You will have a copy of my instructions with you
when you go to the jury room to deliberate. All the instructions are important,
and you must consider all of them together. There are no other laws that
apply to this case, and even if you do not agree with these laws, you must use
them in reaching your decision in this case.
When you go to the jury room, the first thing you should do is choose a
presiding juror to act as a foreperson during your deliberations. The
foreperson should see to it that your discussions are orderly and that everyone
has a fair chance to be heard.
It is your duty to talk with one another in the jury room and to consider
the views of all the jurors. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but
only after you have considered the evidence with the other members of the
jury. Feel free to change your mind if you are convinced that your position
should be different. You should all try to agree. But do not give up your
honest beliefs just because the others think differently. Keep an open mind so
that you and your fellow jurors can easily share ideas about the case.
[I will give you a verdict form with questions you must answer. I have
already instructed you on the law that you are to use in answering these
questions. You must follow my instructions and the form carefully. You must
consider each question separately. Please answer the questions in the order
they appear. After you answer a question, the form tells you what to do next. I
will now read the verdict form to you: (read form of verdict)]
[You will be given (state number) forms of verdict, which I shall now
read to you: (read form of verdict(s))]
[If you find for (claimant(s)), your verdict will be in the following form:
(read form of verdict)]
[If you find for (defendant(s)), your verdict will be in the following form:
(read form of verdict)]
Your verdict must be unanimous, that is, your verdict must be agreed to
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 478
by each of you. When you have finished filling out the form, your foreperson
must write the date and sign it at the bottom and return the verdict to the
bailiff.
If any of you need to communicate with me for any reason, write me a
note and give it to the bailiff. In your note, do not disclose any vote or split or
the reason for the communication.
You may now retire to decide your verdict.
Special Verdict Form
VERDICT
We, the jury, return the following verdict:
1. Was there negligence on the part of defendant Dilbert Driver
which was a legal cause of damage to plaintiff, John Smith?
YES NO
2a. Was there negligence on the part of defendant Mishap
Manufacturing Co. which was a legal cause of damage to plaintiff, John
Smith?
YES NO
2b. Did defendant Mishap Manufacturing Co. place the hay baler on
the market with a defect which was a legal cause of damage to plaintiff, John
Smith?
YES NO
3a. Was there negligence on the part of defendant Sharp Sales Co.
which was a legal cause of damage to plaintiff, John Smith?
YES NO
3b. Did defendant Sharp Sales Co. place the hay baler on the market
with a defect which was a legal cause of damage to plaintiff, John Smith?
YES NO
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 479
If your answers to questions 1-3 are all NO, your verdict is for the
defendants, and you should not proceed further except to date and sign this
verdict form and return it to the courtroom. If you answered YES to any of
Questions 1-3, please answer question 4.
4. Was there negligence on the part of plaintiff, John Smith, which
was a legal cause of his damage?
YES NO
Please answer question 5.
5. State the percentage of any responsibility for plaintiff, John
Smith’s, damages that you charge to:
Defendant Dilbert Driver (fill in only
if you answered YES to question 1) %
Defendant Mishap Manufacturing Co.
(fill in only if you answered YES to
question 2a and/or question 2b) %
Defendant Sharp Sales Co. (fill in
only if you answered YES to question
3a and/or question 3b) %
Plaintiff, John Smith (fill in only
if you answered YES to question 4) %
Total must be 100%
Please answer question 6.
6. What is the total amount (100%) of any damages sustained by
plaintiff, John Smith, and caused by the incident in question?
Total damages of plaintiff, John Smith $
In determining the total amount of damages, do not make any reduction
because of the negligence, if any, of plaintiff, John Smith. If you find plaintiff,
John Smith, negligent in any degree, the court, in entering judgment, will
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 480
reduce Smith’s total amount of damages (100%) by the percentage of
negligence which you find is chargeable to John Smith.
SO SAY WE ALL, this day of , 20 .
FOREPERSON
NOTES ON USE
1. This fact pattern assumes that the trial judge has ruled that the
consumer expectations test should be given. For more explanation of whether the
consumer expectations test and/or the risk/benefit test applies, see the Notes on
Use to Instructions 403.7 and 403.15.
2. For a model itemized verdict form, as contemplated by section
768.77, Florida Statutes, refer to Model Verdict Forms 2(a) and 2(b).
(Adopted March 26, 2015)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 481
APPENDIX B
VERDICT FORMS
The following Model Verdict forms are included as examples of how issues
can be submitted to the jury. They may be changed on a case-by-case basis
depending on the rulings and facts in a particular case.
Historically, a general verdict on compensatory damages was considered
appropriate, and that is the only form of verdict provided in the Florida Rules of
Civil Procedure. See Fla.R.Civ.P. Form 1.986(a). However, with the advent of
special verdicts and bifurcation of issues, it is now common for cases to be
submitted to the jury with a special verdict. The committee has therefore drafted
the following special verdict forms. None of the following are complete verdicts
and in some instances more than one of these forms might apply.
Form of verdict itemizing damages introductory comment
1. Model form of verdict for general negligence with apportionment of fault
2. Damages Introductory Comment
2a. Model form of verdict for personal injury damages
2b. Model form of verdict for wrongful death damages
3a. Model form of verdict for bifurcated punitive damage cases
3b. Model form of verdict for non-bifurcated punitive damage cases
4. Model form of verdict for statute of limitations defense in a medical
negligence case
5a. Model form of verdict for emergency medical treatment; no issue as to the
applicability of F.S. 768.13(2)(b)
5b. Model form of verdict for emergency medical treatment; issue as to the
applicability of F.S. 768.13(2)(b); no issue as to comparative negligence
5c. Model form of verdict for emergency medical treatment; issues as to both
applicability of F.S. 768.13(2)(b) and comparative negligence
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 482
6. Model form of verdict for personal injury protection insurance benefits (PIP)
(medical benefits only)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 483
FORM 1. MODEL FORM OF VERDICT FOR GENERAL NEGLIGENCE
WITH APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT
VERDICT
We, the jury, return the following verdict:
1. Was there negligence on the part of (defendant) which was a legal
cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant) (decedent)?
YES NO
If your answer to question 1 is NO, your verdict is for defendant, and
you should not proceed further except to date and sign this verdict form and
return it to the courtroom. If your answer to question 1 is YES, please answer
question 2.
2. Was there negligence on the part of (claimant) (decedent) which
was a legal cause of [his] [her] [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]?
YES NO
Please answer question 3.
3. Was there [negligence] [(specify other type of conduct)] on the part
of (identify additional person or entity) which was a contributing legal cause of
[loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant) (decedent)?
YES NO
This question should be repeated, and the question numbers adjusted
accordingly, for each additional person or entity as to which the evidence is
sufficient to permit the jury to apportion fault.
Please answer question 4.
4. State the percentage of any negligence [or fault], which was a legal
cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant) (decedent) that you
apportion to:
(defendant) __________%
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 484
(identify additional
person or entity) __________%
(claimant) __________%
Total must be 100%
(Note: For any response of “NO” to question 1, 2, or 3, place a zero as to
that person [or entity] in answering question 4.)
If the evidence is sufficient to permit the jury to apportion fault to more than
one additional person or entity, a separate line should be added for each
such additional person or entity.
In determining the amount of damages, do not make any reduction
because of the negligence, if any, of (claimant) (decedent) or the [negligence]
[(specify other type of conduct)], if any, of (identify additional person(s) or
entit(y)(ies)). If you find that (claimant) (decedent) or (identify additional
person(s) or entit(y)(ies)) [was] [were] negligent [or at fault], the court in
entering judgment will make an appropriate reduction in the damages
awarded.
Please answer question 5.
Select the appropriate damage questions from forms 2(a) or (b).
SO SAY WE ALL, this ______ day of _______________, 2______.
FOREPERSON
NOTE ON USE FOR FORM 1
The verdict form should list all persons or entities among whom the jury
may apportion fault. This will permit the trial court to allocate damages, determine
setoffs, if appropriate, and facilitate appellate review.
(Revised February 1, 2018)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 485
2. DAMAGES
INTRODUCTORY COMMENT
In 1986, the legislature adopted F.S. 768.77 which required separate deter-
minations by the trier of fact of economic damages, noneconomic damages, and
punitive damages, and further required designation of those damages which
occurred prior to the verdict, as well as those amounts intended to compensate for
losses to be incurred in the future. A further requirement existed for future
damages to be itemized both before and after reduction to present value and for a
determination of the period of years over which future damages are intended to
provide compensation. F.S. 768.78, adopted at the same time, provided for
alternative methods of payment of damage awards when “the trier of fact” makes
an award to compensate for future economic damages in excess of $250,000.
Effective October 1, 1999, the legislature substantially amended those pro-
visions. F.S. 768.77 was amended to delete the requirements that required
designation of past or future damages, itemization of future damages both before
and after reduction to present value, and a determination of the period of years over
which future damages are intended to provide compensation. Under the 1999
amendment to F.S. 768.77(1), damages for all non-medical negligence cases only
have to be segregated into economic losses, noneconomic losses, and punitive
damages. F.S. 768.77(2), however, requires further itemization for medical
negligence cases. At the same time, F.S. 768.78 was amended to substitute the
words “the Court determines” in place of the words “trier of fact,” but additional
questions on the verdict form may be required to provide the court with the
findings of fact necessary for the statute to be utilized.
The legislature also enacted a provision in 1999 stating that if the statutes are
determined to be encroaching upon the authority of the Florida Supreme Court, the
legislature requested a rule change under the provisions of Art. V, §2, of the
Florida Constitution consistent with the statutes. No court opinion has expressly
determined whether F.S. 768.77 or 768.78 is constitutional under the provisions of
Art. II, §3, of the Florida Constitution.
The committee drafted Model Verdict Forms 2(a) and 2(b) to comply with
the minimum requirements of the 1999 amendments to F.S. 768.77(1). In some
cases additional questions may be required to preserve issues for appeal or for
other reasons. The committee takes no position on how a court would, if requested,
comply with F.S. 768.78 in cases where a jury determines that the future economic
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 486
damages exceed $250,000.
Depending on the evidence presented, certain elements of damages may be
considered economic, noneconomic, or a mixture of both, thus requiring
appropriate modification of the verdict form.
For verdict requirements in medical negligence claims, see F.S. 768.77(2)
and 768.78(2)(a).
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 487
FORM 2(a). MODEL FORM OF VERDICT FOR PERSONAL
INJURY DAMAGES
These or similar damage questions should appear in the verdict form after
findings on liability issues.
[In determining the amount of damages, do not make any reduction
because of the negligence, if any, of (name). If you find that (name) was to any
extent negligent, the court in entering judgment will make an appropriate
reduction in the damages awarded.]
Please answer question(s) * .
* . What is the total amount of (claimant’s)
damages for lost earnings in the past, loss of earning
capacity in the future, medical expenses incurred in
the past, medical expenses to be incurred in the future,
and (list any other economic damages)? $
* . What is the total amount of (claimant’s)
damages for pain and suffering, disability, physical
impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish,
inconvenience, aggravation of a disease or physical
defect (list any other noneconomic damages) and
loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life sustained
in the past and to be sustained in the future? $
TOTAL DAMAGES OF (claimant)
(add lines 1 and 2) $
* . What is the total amount of damage
sustained by (spouse) in loss of [his wife’s]
[her husband’s]:
[a.] comfort, society, and attention? $
[b.] services? $
TOTAL DAMAGES OF (spouse)
(add lines *a and *b) $
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 488
*Insert appropriate numbers.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 489
FORM 2(b). MODEL FORM OF VERDICT FOR WRONGFUL DEATH
DAMAGES
These or similar damage questions should appear in the verdict form after
findings on liability issues.
[In determining the amount of damages, do not make any reduction
because of the negligence, if any, of (name). If you find that (name) was to any
extent negligent, the court in entering judgment will make an appropriate
reduction in the damages awarded.]
Please answer questions * .
DAMAGES OF THE ESTATE
* . What is the total amount of any damages
lost by the estate for [any earnings of the decedent lost
from the date of injury to the death not including any
amount of support lost by a survivor in that period] [,]
[the amount of any medical or funeral expenses resulting
from (decedent’s) injury and death charged to the estate
or paid by someone other than a survivor] [,] [and]
[loss of net accumulations] [,] [(list other damages
sustained by estate)]? $
DAMAGES OF (surviving spouse)
*a. What is the amount of any damages
sustained by (surviving spouse) for the [loss of
the (decedent’s) support] [and] [services] [, and]
[medical or funeral expenses] resulting from
(decedent’s) injury and death paid by (surviving
spouse)]? $
*b. What is the total amount of damages
sustained by (surviving spouse) for the loss of
[his wife’s] [her husband’s] companionship and
protection and for [his] [her] pain and suffering
as a result of (decedent’s) injury and death? $
TOTAL DAMAGES OF (surviving spouse)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 490
(add lines *a and *b) $
*Insert appropriate numbers.
DAMAGES OF (surviving child)
*a. What is the total amount of damages
sustained by (surviving child) for the [loss of the
(decedent’s) support] [and] [services] [, and] [medical
or funeral expenses resulting from (decedent’s) death
paid by (surviving child)]? $
*b. What is the total amount of damages
sustained by (surviving child) for the loss of parental
companionship, instruction and guidance and
(surviving child’s) pain and suffering as a result of
(decedent’s) injury and death? $
TOTAL DAMAGES OF (surviving child)
(add lines *a and *b) $
DAMAGES OF (surviving mother)
* . What is the total amount of damages
sustained by (surviving mother) for her [pain and
suffering as a result of the injury and death of
(minor child)] [and] [medical or funeral expenses
resulting from (decedent’s) injury and death paid
by (surviving mother)]?
TOTAL DAMAGES OF (surviving mother) $
DAMAGES OF (surviving father)
* . What is the total amount of damages
sustained by (surviving father) for his [pain and
suffering as a result of the injury and death of
(minor child)] [and] [medical or funeral expenses
resulting from (decedent’s) injury and death paid
by (surviving father)]?
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 491
TOTAL DAMAGES OF (surviving father) $
*Insert appropriate numbers
NOTE ON USE FOR FORM 2(b)
The selection of applicable portions of this form depends upon
determination of the survivors under the Wrongful Death Act, F.S. 768.16768.26.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 492
FORM 3(a). MODEL FORM OF VERDICT FOR BIFURCATED PUNITIVE
DAMAGE CASES
Verdict form 3(a) should be used in the first stage of the bifurcated trial
prescribed by W.R. Grace & Co. v. Waters, 638 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1994). Verdict
form 3(b) is used only if the jury determined in the first stage that punitive
damages are warranted, and after the jury has received any additional evidence
relevant to the amount of punitive damages in the second stage and has received
the appropriate second stage instructions.
(1). Punitive Damage Liability Stage One Determination:
Under the circumstances of this case, state whether you find by clear
and convincing evidence that punitive damages are warranted against:
(defendant) Yes No
(defendant) Yes No
Note: List only the defendant(s) whose conduct the court has determined
may warrant punitive damages. It may be necessary to modify this verdict
form where punitive damages based on either direct or vicarious liability
are at issue under PD 1a(3) or (4).
(2). Amount of Punitive Damages Stage Two Determination:
a. Causes of action arising prior to October 1, 1999:
What is the total amount of punitive damages, if any, which you find, by
the greater weight of the evidence, should be assessed against defendant[s]?
(defendant) $
(defendant) $
If you elect not to assess punitive damages against a defendant, you
should enter a zero (0) as the amount of damages.
Note: List only the defendant(s) against whom the jury has determined, in
the first stage of the bifurcated punitive damages trial, that punitive
damages are warranted.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 493
b. Causes of action arising on or after October 1, 1999:
What is the total amount of punitive damages, if any, which you find, by
the greater weight of the evidence, should be assessed against defendant[s]?
(defendant) $
(defendant) $
Note: List only the defendant(s) against whom the jury has determined, in
the first stage of the bifurcated punitive damages trial, that punitive
damages are warranted.
If you elect not to assess punitive damages against a defendant, you
should enter a zero (0) as the amount of damages, and sign and date the
verdict form.
[If you have elected not to assess punitive damages against (defendant)
then you should skip the remaining questions and sign and date the verdict
form. If, however, you have elected to assess punitive damages against
(defendant), the law requires you to answer the following questions:]
[If you have elected not to assess punitive damages against any
defendant then you should skip the remaining questions and sign and date the
verdict form. If, however, you have elected to assess punitive damages against
some but not all of the defendants, you should enter (0) as the amount of
damages for any defendant for whom you have elected not to assess punitive
damages. You also must answer the following questions:]
[At the time of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant), did
[(defendant)] [the managing agent, director, officer, or other person
responsible for making policy decisions on behalf of the (defendant)] have a
specific intent to harm (claimant) and did the conduct of [defendant] [the
managing agent, director, officer, or other person responsible for making
policy decisions on behalf of the defendant] in fact harm (claimant)]?
(defendant) Yes No
[(the managing agent, director, officer, or other person responsible for
making policy decisions on behalf of the defendant)]?
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 494
Yes No
[Was the wrongful conduct of [(defendant)] [the managing agent,
director, officer or other person responsible for making policy decisions on
behalf of the defendant] motivated solely by unreasonable financial gain and
was the unreasonably dangerous nature of the conduct, together with the high
likelihood of injury resulting from the conduct, actually known by
[(defendant)] [the managing agent, director, officer or other person responsible
for making policy decisions on behalf of the defendant]?
(defendant) Yes No
[(the managing agent, director, officer, or other person responsible for
making policy decisions on behalf of the defendant)]?
Yes No
NOTE ON USE FOR FORM 3(a)
In punitive damages cases, the jury is required to apply a clear and
convincing standard to determine liability and a greater weight of the evidence
standard to determine the amount of damages. In order to minimize jury confusion,
the relevant burden of proof is specified for these questions. The committee does
not recommend that the burden of proof be stated on the verdict form in other types
of cases not involving this unique situation.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 495
FORM 3(b). MODEL FORM OF VERDICT FOR NON-BIFURCATED
PUNITIVE DAMAGE CASES
(1). Causes of action arising prior to October 1, 1999:
Under the circumstances of this case, state whether you find by clear
and convincing evidence that punitive damages are warranted against:
(defendant) Yes No
(defendant) Yes No
Note: List only the defendant(s) whose conduct the court has determined
may warrant punitive damages. It may be necessary to modify this verdict
form where punitive damages based on either direct or vicarious liability
are at issue.
As to each defendant for whom you answered “yes,” what is the total
amount of punitive damages, if any, which you find, by the greater weight of
the evidence, should be assessed against that defendant?
(defendant) $
(defendant) $
If you elect not to assess punitive damages against a defendant, you
should enter a zero (0) as the amount of damages.
(2). Causes of action arising on or after October 1, 1999:
Under the circumstances of this case, state whether you find by clear
and convincing evidence that punitive damages are warranted against:
(defendant) Yes No
(defendant) Yes No
Note: List only the defendant(s) whose conduct the court has determined
may warrant punitive damages. It may be necessary to modify this verdict
form where punitive damages based on either direct or vicarious liability
are at issue.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 496
If you elect not to assess punitive damages against the defendant, you
should enter a zero (0) as the amount of damages. If you elect not to assess
damages against the defendant, then you should skip the remaining questions
and sign and date the verdict form.
[If you have elected not to assess punitive damages against (defendant)
then you should skip the remaining questions and sign and date the verdict
form. If, however, you have elected to assess punitive damages against
(defendant), the law requires you to answer the following questions:]
[If you have elected not to assess punitive damages against any
defendant then you should skip the remaining questions and sign and date the
verdict form. If, however, you have elected to assess punitive damages against
some but not all of the defendants, you should enter (0) as the amount of
damages for any defendant for whom you have elected not to assess punitive
damages. You also must answer the following questions:]
At the time of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant), did
[(defendant)] [the managing agent, director, officer, or other person
responsible for making policy decisions on behalf of the defendant] have
a specific intent to harm (claimant) and did the conduct of [(defendant)]
[the managing agent, director, officer, or other person responsible for
making policy decisions on behalf of the defendant] in fact harm
(claimant)?
(defendant) Yes No
[(the managing agent, director, officer, or other person responsible for
making policy decisions on behalf of the defendant)]
Yes No
[Was the wrongful conduct of [(defendant)] [the managing agent,
director, officer, or other person responsible for making policy decisions on
behalf of the defendant] motivated solely by unreasonable financial gain and
was the unreasonably dangerous nature of the conduct, together with the high
likelihood of injury resulting from the conduct, actually known by
[(defendant)] [the managing agent, director, officer, or other person
responsible for making policy decisions on behalf of the defendant]?
(defendant) Yes No
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 497
[(the managing agent, director, officer, or other person responsible for
making policy decisions on behalf of the defendant)]
Yes No
NOTE ON USE FOR FORM 3(b)
In punitive damages cases, the jury is required to apply a clear and
convincing standard to determine liability and a greater weight of the evidence
standard to determine the amount of damages. In order to minimize jury confusion,
the relevant burden of proof is specified for these questions. The committee does
not recommend that the burden of proof be stated on the verdict form in other types
of cases not involving this unique situation.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 498
FORM 4. MODEL FORM OF VERDICT FOR STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS DEFENSE IN A MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE
VERDICT
We, the Jury, return the following verdict:
1. Was there negligence on the part of (defendant) which was a legal
cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant)?
YES NO
If your answer to question 1 is NO, your verdict is for (defendant) and
you should not proceed further except to date and sign this verdict form and
return it to the courtroom. If your answer to question 1 is YES, please answer
question 2.
2. Did (claimant) know, or by the use of reasonable care should [he]
[she] have known, on or before (date), that (claimant or person for whose injury
or death claim is made) had sustained injury or damage and that there was a
reasonable possibility that the injury or damage was caused by medical
negligence?
YES NO
If your answer to question 2 is YES, then your verdict is for (defendant)
and you should not proceed further except to date and sign the verdict form
and return it to the courtroom. If your answer to question 2 is NO, please
answer question 3.
3. Was there negligence on the part of (claimant) which was a legal
cause of [his] [her] [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]?
YES NO
If your answer to question 3 is YES, please answer question 4. If your
answer to question 3 is NO, skip question 4 and proceed to question 5.
4. State the percentage of any negligence which was a legal cause of
[loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant) that you charge to:
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 499
(defendant) __________%
(claimant) __________%
Total must be 100%
In determining the amount of damages, do not make any reduction
because of the negligence, if any, of (claimant) (decedent) or the [negligence]
[(specify other type of conduct)], if any, of (identify additional person(s) or
entit(y)(ies)). If you find that (claimant) (decedent) or (identify additional
person(s) or entit(y)(ies)) [was] [were] negligent [or at fault], the court in
entering judgment will make an appropriate reduction in the damages
awarded.
Please answer question 5.
Select the appropriate damage questions from Forms 2(a) and (b).
SO SAY WE ALL, this day of , 2
FOREPERSON
(Revised November 22, 2017)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 500
FORM 5(a). MODEL FORM OF VERDICT FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL
TREATMENT; NO ISSUE AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF
F.S.
768.13(2)(b)
VERDICT
We, the jury, return the following verdict:
1. Was there reckless disregard on the part of (defendant hospital,
hospital employee, physician) which was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage] to (claimant) (decedent)?
YES NO
If your answer to question 1 is NO, your verdict is for defendant, and
you should not proceed further except to date and sign this verdict form and
return it to the courtroom. If your answer to question 1 is YES, please answer
question 2.
Refer to Forms 2(a) and (b) for itemized damage interrogatories.
SO SAY WE ALL, this day of , 2
FOREPERSON
NOTE ON USE FOR FORM 5(a)
Pending further developments in the law, the committee reserves the
issue of whether comparative negligence is a defense when the reckless
disregard standard is in effect. However, if the court decides that comparative
negligence is a defense, and that there is sufficient evidence to support such a
defense, this verdict form should be modified accordingly.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 501
FORM 5(b). MODEL FORM OF VERDICT FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL
TREATMENT; ISSUE AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF
F.S.
768.13(2)(b);
NO ISSUE AS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE
VERDICT
We, the jury, return the following verdict:
1. Was there negligence on the part of (defendant hospital, hospital
employee, physician) which was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to
(claimant) (decedent)?
YES NO
If your answer to question 1 is NO, your verdict is for defendant, and
you should not proceed further except to date and sign this verdict form and
return it to the courtroom. If your answer to question 1 is YES, please answer
question 2.
2. Did (defendant hospital, hospital employee, physician) render [care]
[treatment] to (claimant) (decedent) under emergency circumstances?
YES NO
If your answer to question 2 is YES, please answer question 3. If your
answer to question 2 is NO, skip question 3 and answer question 4.
3. Was there reckless disregard on the part of (defendant hospital,
hospital employee, physician) which was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage] to (claimant) (decedent)?
YES NO
Please answer question 4.
4. What is the total amount (100%) of any damages sustained by
(claimant) (decedent) and caused by the incident in question?
Total damages of (claimant) (decedent) $
Refer to Forms 2(a) and (b) for itemized damage interrogatories.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 502
SO SAY WE ALL, this day of , 2
FOREPERSON
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 503
FORM 5(c). MODEL FORM OF VERDICT FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL
TREATMENT; ISSUES AS TO BOTH APPLICABILITY OF F.S.
768.13(2)(b) AND COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE
VERDICT
We, the jury, return the following verdict:
1. Was there negligence on the part of (defendant hospital, hospital
employee, physician) which was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to
(claimant) (decedent)?
YES NO
If your answer to question 1 is NO, your verdict is for defendant, and
you should not proceed further except to date and sign this verdict form and
return it to the courtroom. If your answer to question 1 is YES, please answer
question 2.
2. Did (defendant hospital, hospital employee, physician) render [care]
[treatment] to (claimant) (decedent) under emergency circumstances?
YES NO
If your answer to question 2 is YES, please answer question 3. If your
answer to question 2 is NO, skip question 3 and answer question 4.
3. Was there reckless disregard on the part of (defendant hospital,
hospital employee, physician) which was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage] to (claimant) (decedent)?
YES NO
Please answer question 4.
4. Was there negligence on the part of (claimant) (decedent) which
was a legal cause of [his] [her] [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]?
YES NO
If your answer to question 4 is YES, please answer question 5. If your
answer to question 4 is NO, skip question 5 and answer question 6.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 504
5. State the percentage of any negligence, which was a legal cause of
[loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant) (decedent), that you apportion to:
(defendant hospital, hospital
employee, physician) __________%
(claimant) (decedent) __________%
Total must be 100%
Please answer question 6.
6. What is the total amount (100%) of any damages sustained by
(claimant) (decedent) and caused by the incident in question?
Total damages of (claimant) (decedent) $
Refer to Forms 2(a) and (b) for itemized damage interrogatories.
In determining the total amount of damages, do not make any reduction
because of the negligence, if any, of (claimant) (decedent). If you have found
(claimant) (decedent) negligent in any degree, the court in entering judgment
will reduce (claimant’s) (decedent’s) total amount of damages (100%) by the
percentage of negligence which you apportion by (claimant) (decedent).
SO SAY WE ALL, this day of , 2
FOREPERSON
NOTE ON USE FOR FORM 5(c)
Pending further developments in the law, the committee reserves the issue of
whether comparative negligence is a defense when the reckless disregard standard
is in effect. However, when issues as to both the applicability of the statute and
comparative negligence are present, and the court decides that comparative
negligence is a defense to a claim based upon the statute, this verdict form should
be modified accordingly.
(Revised February 1, 2018)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 505
FORM 6. MODEL FORM OF VERDICT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
PROTECTION INSURANCE BENEFITS (PIP) (MEDICAL BENEFITS
ONLY)
VERDICT
1. Are any of the services related to the accident of (date)?
YES NO
If your answer is NO, your verdict is for the Defendant and you should
go no further but to sign and date the verdict form. If your answer is YES,
you should answer question 2.
2. Are any of the services medically necessary?
YES NO
If your answer is NO, your verdict is for the Defendant and you should
go no further but to sign and date the verdict form. If your answer is YES,
you should answer question 3.
3. [Is the charge for the service reasonable?] [Are the charges for
the services reasonable?] If you find the charge or charges reasonable, you
should proceed to number 4. However, if you find the charge or charges
unreasonable, you must determine a reasonable amount for the charge or
charges, then proceed to question 4.
4. What is the total amount you find reasonable? $
SO SAY WE ALL, this day of , 2
FOREPERSON
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 506
APPENDIX C
PUNITIVE DAMAGE INSTRUCTIONS FOR CAUSES OF ACTION
ARISING PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1, 1999
PD 1. Punitive damages Bifurcated Procedure:
a. Introduction:
There is an additional claim in this case that you must decide. If you
find for (claimant) and against (defendant(s)), you must decide whether, in
addition to compensatory damages, punitive damages are warranted as
punishment to [one or more of] (defendant(s)) and as a deterrent to others.
The trial of the punitive damages issue is divided into two parts. In this
first part, you will decide whether the conduct of (defendant or individual
whose conduct may warrant punitive damages) is such that punitive damages are
warranted. If you decide that punitive damages are warranted, we will
proceed to the second part of that issue during which the parties may present
additional evidence and argument on the issue of punitive damages. I will then
give you additional instructions, after which you will decide whether, in your
discretion, punitive damages will be assessed and, if so, the amount.
Punitive damages are warranted if you find by clear and convincing
evidence that:
(1). the conduct causing [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant) was
so gross and flagrant as to show a reckless disregard of human life or of the
safety of persons exposed to the effects of such conduct; or
(2). the conduct showed such an entire lack of care that (defendant)
must have been consciously indifferent to the consequences; or
(3). the conduct showed such an entire lack of care that (defendant)
must have wantonly or recklessly disregarded the safety and welfare of the
public; or
(4). the conduct showed such reckless indifference to the rights of
others as to be equivalent to an intentional violation of those rights.
[You may determine that punitive damages are warranted against one
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 507
defendant and not the other[s] or against more than one defendant.]
“Clear and convincing evidence” differs from the “greater weight of the
evidence” in that it is more compelling and persuasive. As I have already
instructed you, “greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive
and convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case. In contrast,
“clear and convincing evidence” is evidence that is precise, explicit, lacking in
confusion, and of such weight that it produces a firm belief or conviction,
without hesitation, about the matter in issue.
b(1). Punitive damages against individual defendant:
If you find for (claimant) and against (defendant), and you also find that
clear and convincing evidence shows that the conduct of (defendant) was a
substantial cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant) and that such
conduct warrants punitive damages under the standards I have given you,
then in your discretion you may determine punitive damages are warranted
against (defendant).
b(2). Direct liability for acts of managing agent, primary owner, or certain
others:
If you find for (claimant) and against (defendant), and you also find that
clear and convincing evidence shows that the conduct of (managing agent,
primary owner, or other person whose conduct may warrant punitive damages
without proof of a superior’s fault) was a substantial cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage] to (claimant) and that such conduct warrants punitive damages
under the standards I have given you, then in your discretion you may
determine that punitive damages are warranted against (defendant).
b(3). Vicarious liability for acts of employee:
If you find for (claimant) and against (employee/agent) and (defendant
employer), and you also find that clear and convincing evidence shows that the
conduct of (employee/agent) was a substantial cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage] to (claimant) and that such conduct warrants punitive damages
under the standards I have given you, then in your discretion you may
determine punitive damages are warranted against (employee/agent). If you
further find that the clear and convincing evidence shows also that (defendant
employer) was negligent and that such negligence contributed to (claimant’s)
[loss] [injury] [or] [damage], you may determine that punitive damages are
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 508
warranted against (defendant employer). If clear and convincing evidence does
not show such negligence by (defendant employer) independent of the conduct
of (employee/agent), punitive damages are not warranted against (defendant
employer).*
*Refer to Note on Use 1.
b(4). Vicarious liability for acts of employee where the employee is not a party or
is not being sued for punitive damages:
If you find for (claimant) and against (defendant employer/principal), and
you find also that (name employee/agent) acted in such a manner as to warrant
punitive damages, then if the clear and convincing evidence shows also that
(defendant employer) was negligent and that such negligence contributed to
(claimant’s) [loss] [injury] [or] [damage], you may determine that punitive
damages are warranted against (defendant employer). If clear and convincing
evidence does not show such negligence by (defendant employer) independent
of the conduct of (name employee/agent), punitive damages are not warranted
against (defendant employer).*
*Refer to Note on Use 1.
c. Second stage of bifurcated punitive damage procedure:
(1). Opening instruction, second stage:
Members of the jury, I am now going to tell you about the rules of law
that apply to determining whether punitive damages should be assessed and,
if so, in what amount. When I finish with these instructions, the parties will
present additional evidence. You should consider this additional evidence
along with the evidence already presented, and you should decide any
disputed factual issues by the greater weight of the evidence. “Greater weight
of the evidence” means the more persuasive and convincing force and effect of
the entire evidence in the case.
(2). Punitive damages determination of amount:
You are to decide the amount of punitive damages, if any, to be assessed
as punishment and as a deterrent to others. This amount would be in addition
to the compensatory damages you have previously awarded. In making this
determination, you should consider the following:
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 509
(A). the nature, extent and degree of misconduct and the related
circumstances; [and]
[(B). [the] [each] defendant’s financial resources; and]*
*Refer to Note on Use 3.
[(C). (identify any other circumstance that the jury may consider in
determining the amount of punitive damages.)]*
*Refer to Note on Use 4.
[However, you may not award an amount that would financially destroy
(defendant).]*
*Refer to Note on Use 5.
You may in your discretion decline to assess punitive damages. [You
may assess punitive damages against one defendant and not the other[s] or
against more than one defendant. Punitive damages may be assessed against
different defendants in different amounts.]
(3). Closing instruction, second stage:
Members of the jury, you have now heard and received all of the
evidence on the issue of punitive damages. Your verdict on the issues raised by
the punitive damages claim of (claimant) against (defendant(s)) must be based
on the evidence that has been received during the trial of the first phase of this
case and on the evidence that has been received in these proceedings and the
law on which I have instructed you. In reaching your verdict, you are not to
be swayed from the performance of your duty by prejudice or sympathy for
or against any party.
Your verdict must be unanimous, that is, your verdict must be agreed to
by each of you.
You will be given a form of verdict, which I shall now read to you:
When you have agreed on your verdict, the foreman or forewoman,
acting for the jury, should date and sign the verdict. You may now retire to
consider your verdict.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 510
PD 2. Punitive damages Non-Bifurcated Procedure:
a. Introduction:
There is an additional claim in this case that you must decide. If you
find for (claimant) and against (defendant(s)), you must decide whether, in
addition to compensatory damages, punitive damages are warranted as
punishment to [one or more of] (defendant(s)) and as a deterrent to others.
Punitive damages are warranted if you find by clear and convincing
evidence that:
(1). the conduct causing [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant) was
so gross and flagrant as to show a reckless disregard of human life or of the
safety of persons exposed to the effects of such conduct; or
(2). the conduct showed such an entire lack of care that (defendant)
must have been consciously indifferent to the consequences; or
(3). the conduct showed such an entire lack of care that (defendant)
must have wantonly or recklessly disregarded the safety and welfare of the
public; or
(4). the conduct showed such reckless indifference to the rights of
others as to be equivalent to an intentional violation of those rights.
[You may determine that punitive damages are warranted against one
defendant and not the other[s] or against more than one defendant.]
“Clear and convincing evidence” differs from the “greater weight of the
evidence” in that it is more compelling and persuasive. As I have already
instructed you, “greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive
and convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case. In contrast,
“clear and convincing evidence” is evidence that is precise, explicit, lacking in
confusion, and of such weight that it produces a firm belief or conviction,
without hesitation, about the matter in issue.
b(1). Punitive damages against individual defendant:
If you find for (claimant) and against (defendant), and you also find that
clear and convincing evidence shows that the conduct of (defendant) was a
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 511
substantial cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant) and that such
conduct warrants punitive damages under the standards I have given you,
then in your discretion you may determine punitive damages are warranted
against (defendant).
b(2). Direct liability for acts of managing agent, primary owner, or certain
others:
If you find for (claimant) and against (defendant), and you find also find
that clear and convincing evidence shows that the conduct of (name managing
agent, primary owner, or other person whose conduct may warrant punitive
damages without proof of a superior’s fault) was a substantial cause of [loss]
[injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant) and that such conduct warrants punitive
damages under the standards I have given you, then in your discretion you
may determine that punitive damages are warranted against (defendant).
b(3). Vicarious liability for acts of employee:
If you find for (claimant) and against (employee/agent) and (defendant
employer), and you also find that that clear and convincing evidence shows
that the conduct of (employee/agent) was a substantial cause of [loss] [injury]
[or] [damage] to (claimant) and that such conduct warrants punitive damages
under the standards I have given you, then in your discretion you may
determine punitive damages are warranted against (employee/agent). If you
further find that the clear and convincing evidence shows also that (defendant
employer) was negligent and that such negligence contributed to (claimant’s)
[loss] [injury] [or] [damage], you may determine that punitive damages are
warranted against (defendant employer). If clear and convincing evidence does
not show such negligence by (defendant employer) independent of the conduct
of (name employee/agent), punitive damages are not warranted against
(defendant employer).*
*Refer to Note on Use 1.
b(4). Vicarious liability for acts of employee where the employee is not a party or
is not being sued for punitive damages:
If you find for (claimant) and against (defendant employer/principal), and
you find also that (name employee/agent) acted in such a manner as to warrant
punitive damages, then if the clear and convincing evidence shows also that
(defendant employer) was negligent and that such negligence contributed to
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 512
(claimant’s) [loss] [injury] [or] [damage], you may determine that punitive
damages are warranted against (defendant employer). If clear and convincing
evidence does not show such negligence by (defendant employer) independent
of the conduct of (name employee/agent), punitive damages are not warranted
against (defendant employer).*
*Refer to Note on Use 1.
c. Punitive damages determination of amount:
If you decide that punitive damages are warranted against [one or more
of] (defendant(s)) you must decide the amount of punitive damages, if any, to
be assessed as punishment and as a deterrent to others. This amount would be
in addition to the compensatory damages you have previously awarded. In
making this determination, you should consider the following:
(1). the nature, extent and degree of misconduct and the related
circumstances; [and]
[(2). [the] [each] defendant’s financial resources; and]*
*Refer to Note on Use 3.
[(3). (identify any other circumstance that the jury may consider in
determining the amount of punitive damages.)]*
*Refer to Note on Use 4.
[However, you may not award an amount that would financially destroy
(defendant).]*
*Refer to Note on Use 5.
You may in your discretion decline to assess punitive damages. [You
may assess punitive damages against one defendant and not the other[s] or
against more than one defendant. Punitive damages may be assessed against
different defendants in different amounts.]
NOTES ON USE FOR PD 1 AND 2
1. Instruction PD 1a or PD 2a should be given in all cases. Instruction
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 513
PD 1b(1) or PD 2b(1) should be given when the claim is based on the conduct of
an individual defendant.
Instruction PD 1b(2) or PD 2b(2) should be given when the claim is based
on the conduct of a managing agent or principal. Bankers Multiple Line Insurance
Co. v. Farish, 464 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1985). That person should be named in
instruction PD 1b(2) or PD 2b(2). Pending further development in the law, the
committee takes no position regarding whether the independent negligence must be
on the part of a managing agent or principal or whether it can be based on the
independent negligence of another employee. See Schropp v. Crown Eurocars,
Inc., 654 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1995) and Partington v. Metallic Engineering, 792 So.
2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). In appropriate cases a corporate policy can provide
the basis for punitive damages against a corporation even though the particular
officers or agents of the corporation responsible for the policy are not discovered
or identified. See, e.g., Schropp at 1162 (Wells, J. concurring). In those cases, the
instruction will need to be modified accordingly.
Instruction PD 1b(3) or PD 2b(3) should be given when there is a demand
for punitive damages against an employer/principal based on the conduct of an
employee and punitive damages are also being sought against both the employee
and employer. These instructions require additional proof of “some independent
fault” by the employer/principal. See Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393
So. 2d 545, 54849 (Fla. 1981). While these instructions use the term
“negligence,” some courts appear to use that term and the “some fault” language
from Mercury Motors interchangeably. See, e.g., Schropp at 1159; Estate of
Despain v. Avante Group. Inc., 900 So. 2d 637, 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Barnett
Bank of Marion County v. Shirley, 655 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Taylor v.
Gunter Trucking Co., 520 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Pending further
development in the law, the committee takes no position on whether these terms
are interchangeable. There may be situations other than employer-employee
relationships where vicarious liability for punitive damages may be imposed. See,
e.g., Knepper v. Genstar Corp., 537 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (joint
venture); Soden v. Starkman, 218 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (partnership).
Instruction PD 1b(4) or PD 2b(4) should be given when there is a demand
for punitive damages against the employer/principal for the acts of an employee,
but the employee is not a defendant or is not being sued for punitive damages.
In cases involving both direct and vicarious liability claims, instruction PD
1b(2) or PD 2b(2) and PD 1b(3)b(4) or PD 2b(3)b(4) should be given with
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 514
appropriate transitional language with respect to the claims based on vicarious
liability.
These instructions are designed for use in most common law tort cases.
However, certain types of intentional torts may require a punitive damage
instruction appropriate to the particular tort. See, e.g., First Interstate Development
Corp. v. Ablanedo, 511 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1987); Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v.
McCarson, 467 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1985). The same may be true where punitive
damages are authorized by statute. See, e.g., Home Insurance Co. v. Owens, 573 So.
2d 343, 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
3. Subparagraph (2) in instruction PD 1c or PD 2c should only be used
when evidence of a defendant’s financial worth is introduced.
4. Subparagraph (3) should be used only after the court has determined
that the evidence includes some additional circumstance that may affect the amount
of punitive damages. See, e.g., Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Ballard, 749 So.
2d 483 (Fla. 1999) (listing various such factors). See generally BMW of North
America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996). One
such circumstance is the assessment of punitive damages against the defendant in
prior cases. See W.R. Grace & Co. v. Waters, 638 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1994).
5. This instruction is to be given when requested by the defendant. See
Wransky v. Dalfo, 801 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). It appears that this
instruction can only be used when evidence of the defendant’s net worth has been
introduced. See Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1977); Rinaldi v. Aaron,
314 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1975). This instruction is not intended to supplant the court’s
function in determining whether a verdict is constitutional. See BMW of North
America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996);
Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1, 111 S.Ct. 1032, 113
L.Ed.2d 1 (1991). The committee notes that many reported decisions have used
alternative terms such as “bankrupt” or “economically castigate” to describe this
limitation, instead of or in addition to the term “financially destroy.” See, e.g.,
Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978); Lehman v. Spencer Ladd’s,
Inc., 182 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 1966). The committee has selected the term “financially
destroy” for its simplicity, but does not intend to foreclose the use of other legally
valid terms where appropriate under the facts of the particular case.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 515
APPENDIX D
How to Write and Use Jury Instruction in Civil Cases
By Ralph Artigliere and William Michael Artigliere
Available with the hardbound edition of Florida Standard Jury Instructions
in Civil Cases through LexisNexis:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/store/catalog/booktemplate/productdetail.jsp?pag
eName=relatedProducts&skuId=SKU13275&catId=366&prodId=13275
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 516
APPENDIX E
402.16 EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT CLAIMS
INSTRUCTIONS FOR CAUSES OF ACTION ARISING PRIOR TO
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
INTRODUCTORY COMMENT
Instruction 402.16 addresses the provisions of F.S. 768.13(2)(b). It applies
only to cases described in that statute or to cases in which there is a jury issue as to
the applicability of the statute. Instruction 402.16 does not apply to cases involving
patients capable of receiving treatment as non-emergency patients, even if treated
in an emergency room.
Instruction 402.16a applies to cases in which there is a jury issue as to
whether the statute applies. Instruction 402.16b applies to cases in which either the
parties agree that the statute applies or the court has ruled that the statute applies as
a matter of law.
The applicable part of instruction 402.16 should be preceded
by instructions 402.1, 402.2, 402.3, and 403.6. Instruction 402.4 should not be
given in the ordinary sequence as it is, to the extent applicable, incorporated
in instruction 402.16. If there are any preliminary vicarious liability
issues, instructions 402.9 and 402.10 should also be given.
No reported decision construes the legislative intent behind this section.
Based upon the definition of “reckless disregard” in F.S. 768.13(2)(b)3., the
committee has concluded that the intent was to limit liability in civil actions for
damages arising out of fact situations to which the statute applies to cases where
something more than simple” negligence is established. Therefore, the standard
instructions dealing with “simple” negligence are not appropriate for civil damage
actions to which the statute applies.
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 517
402.16a EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENTJury Issue As To
Application of F.S. 768.13(2)(b)
(1). Preliminary issue on application of statute:
The first issue for you to decide on (claimant’s) claim
against (defendant) is whether (claimant) was being [cared for] [treated] under
emergency circumstances.
[Care] [treatment] is rendered under emergency circumstances when a
[hospital] [physician] renders medical [care] [treatment] required by a
sudden, unexpected situation or event that resulted in a serious medical
condition demanding immediate medical attention, for which (claimant or
decedent) initially entered the hospital through its [emergency room] [trauma
center], before (claimant or decedent) was medically stabilized and capable of
receiving [care] [treatment] as a nonemergency patient.
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support that (claimant’s or
decedent’s) [care] [treatment] was being rendered under emergency
circumstances then you shall proceed to decide whether (defendant) was
negligent in [his] [her] [its] [care] [treatment] of (claimant or decedent).
However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports that (claimant’s
or decedent’s) [care] [treatment] was being rendered under emergency
circumstances, then you shall proceed to decide whether (defendant) acted in
reckless disregard of the consequences in [his] [her] [its] [care] [treatment]
of (claimant or decedent).
(2). Issues regarding negligence:
[If you find that (claimant’s or decedent’s) [care] [treatment] was not
being rendered under emergency circumstances,] the [next] issue for you to
decide is whether (defendant) was negligent in (describe conduct in question);
and, if so, whether that negligence was a legal cause of the [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage] to (claimant, decedent or person for whose injury claim is made).
“Negligence” is the failure to use reasonable care. Reasonable care on
the part of a [hospital] [physician] is that level of care, skill and treatment
which, in light of all relevant surrounding circumstances, is recognized as
acceptable and appropriate by similar and reasonably careful [hospitals]
[physicians]. Negligence on the part of a [hospital] [physician] is doing
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 518
something that a reasonably careful [hospital] [physician] would not do under
like circumstances or failing to do something that a reasonably careful
[hospital] [physician] would do under like circumstances.
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support this claim, then
your verdict [on this claim] should be for (defendant).
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence does
support (claimant’s) claim on these issues, then your verdict [on this claim]
should be for (claimant) and against (defendant).]
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence does
support (claimant’s) claim, then you should consider the defense(s) raised
by (defendant).]
(3). Issues regarding reckless disregard:
[If you find that (claimant’s or decedent’s) [care] [treatment] was being
rendered under emergency circumstances,] the [next] issue for you to decide is
whether (defendant) acted with reckless disregard of the consequences
in (describe conduct in question); and, if so, whether that reckless disregard
was a legal cause of the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent, or
person for whose injury claim is made).]
A [hospital] [physician] acts with “reckless disregard” for the
consequences of [its] [his] [her] actions if [it] [he] [she] knew or should have
known at the time [it] [he] [she] rendered emergency services that [its] [his]
[her] conduct would likely result in injury or death, considering [the
seriousness of the situation] [the lack of a prior patient-physician relationship]
[time constraints due to other emergencies requiring [care] [treatment] at the
same time] [the lack of time or ability to obtain appropriate medical
consultation] [and] [the inability to obtain an appropriate medical history of
the patient].
If emergency circumstances have not been established by the greater
weight of the evidence but the greater weight of the evidence
supports (claimant’s) claim of negligence, then [your verdict [on this claim]
should be for (claimant) and against (defendant)] [you should consider the
defense(s) raised by (defendant)].
(Proceed to instructions 402.14 and 402.15)
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 519
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence does not
support (claimant’s) claim of negligence, then your verdict [on this claim]
should be for (defendant).]
On the other hand, if emergency circumstances have been established
by the greater weight of the evidence and the greater weight of the evidence
also supports (claimant’s) claim of reckless disregard of the consequences, then
[your verdict [on this claim] should be for (claimant) and against (defendant)]
[you should consider the defense(s) raised by (defendant)].
(Proceed to instructions 402.14 and 402.15)
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence does not
support (claimant’s) claim of reckless disregard of the consequences, then your
verdict [on this claim] should be for (defendant) and against (claimant).]
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 520
402.16b EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT
(Describe conduct in question) occurred in the course of [rendering] [or]
[failing to render] emergency [care] [treatment] to (claimant or decedent). The
issue for you to decide is whether (defendant) acted with reckless disregard of
the consequences in (describe conduct in question); and, if so, whether that
reckless disregard was a legal cause of the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]
to (claimant, decedent or person for whose injury claim is made).
A [hospital] [physician] acts with “reckless disregard” for the
consequences of [its] [his] [her] actions if [it] [he] [she] knew or should have
known at the time [it] [he] [she] rendered emergency services that [its] [his]
[her] conduct would likely result in injury or death, considering [the
seriousness of the situation] [the lack of a prior patient-physician relationship]
[time constraints due to other emergencies requiring [care] [treatment] at the
same time] [the lack of time or ability to obtain appropriate medical
consultation] [and] [the inability to obtain an appropriate medical history of
the patient].
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support (claimant’s) claim,
then your verdict [on this claim] should be for (defendant).
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence does
support (claimant’s) claim on these issues, then your verdict [on this claim]
should be for (claimant) and against (defendant).]
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence does
support (claimant’s) claim on these issues, then you should consider the
defense(s) raised by (defendant).]
(Proceed to instructions 402.14 and 402.15)
NOTES ON USE FOR 402.16
1. Instruction 402.16a should be given when there is a jury issue as to
whether the care or treatment was being rendered under emergency circumstances.
An appropriate special verdict will be necessary to distinguish between a finding
that the care or treatment was not being rendered under emergency circumstances,
in which case the standard of care is negligence, and a finding that the care or
treatment was being rendered under emergency circumstances, in which case the
standard of care is reckless disregard of the circumstances. The verdict should
February 1, 2018 Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases 521
contain instructions to guide the jury depending on their finding as to whether the
care and treatment was or was not rendered under emergency circumstances. The
burden of proof provisions of instruction 402.16a should also be modified to
incorporate the instructions in the special verdict. See Appendix A, Model Jury
Instructions.
2. Instruction 402.16b should be given when the parties agree that the
statute applies or when the court has ruled it applies as a matter of law.
3. Negligence of a patient, which contributes to or causes the medical
condition for which treatment is sought, is not available as a defense (as
comparative negligence) to subsequent medical negligence which causes a distinct
injury. See, e.g., Norman v. Mandarin Emergency Care Ctr., Inc., 490 So. 2d 76
(Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Matthews v. Williford, 318 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975);
but see Vandergrift v. Fort Pierce Mem. Hos., Inc., 354 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA
1978). Rare circumstances may arise, involving a patient’s negligence after
emergency care or treatment has begun, in which comparative negligence is a
legitimate issue. See generally Whitehead v. Linkous, 404 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1981).
4. Pending further developments in the law, the committee reserves the
issue of whether comparative negligence is a defense when the reckless disregard
standard is in effect. If the court decides that comparative negligence is a defense,
then an instruction on simple negligence should be given.
5. “Reckless disregard,” as defined and used in the context
of F.S. 768.13(2)(b), does not appear to have the same meaning as reckless
disregard when used in the context of standards for punitive damages. See Fla. Std.
Jury Instr. (Civ.) 501.12 and 501.13.
(Revised April 21, 2016)