A trial court can commit reversal error in several ways when it comes to jury instructions. First, a party might claim error in the trial court’s refusal to give a particular instruction to the jury. Second, a party might claim error in the instructions actually given to the jury. Third, a party might claim error in the verdict form used by the jury to state its decision. This article briefly discusses Florida law applicable to each of these issues.
As noted above, sometimes a party complains that the trial court failure to give the jury a specific instruction was error.
“A party is entitled to have the jury instructed upon its theory of the case when there is evidence to support the theory.” Riley v. Willis, 585 So. 2d 1024, 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
“Jury instructions must be supported by facts in evidence and an instruction not founded upon evidence adduced at trial constitutes error.” Riley, 585 So. 2d at 1027. “Whether that error requires reversal depends on whether the improper instruction in some manner affected the jury’s deliberations by misleading or confusing it.” Id.
“Florida law is clear that decisions regarding jury instructions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and should not be overturned on appeal absent a showing of prejudicial error.” Barkett v. Gomez, 908 So. 2d 1084, 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (quotation omitted). “The failure to give a requested jury instruction constitutes prejudicial error when there is a reasonable possibility that the jury could have been misled by the failure to give the instruction.” Int’l Sec. Mgmt. Grp., Inc. v. Rolland, 271 So. 3d 33, 44–45 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (quotation omitted). See also, Howell v. Winkle, 866 So. 2d 192, 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“The trial court’s decision regarding jury instructions is judged using an abuse of discretion standard of review and reversible error occurs if the jury was misled by the failure to give the requested instruction.”).
“[T]hree elements that must be met in order to establish that failure to give a requested jury instruction constitutes reversible error: 1. The requested instruction accurately states the applicable law, 2. The facts in the case support giving the instruction, and 3. The instruction was necessary to allow the jury to properly resolve all issues in the case.” Riley, 585 So. 2d at 1028 (quotation omitted). See also, Int’l Sec. Mgmt. Grp., Inc., 271 So. 3d at 44–45 (“In order to demonstrate reversible error based on a the trial court’s failure to give a requested jury instruction, a party must establish that: (i) the requested instruction contained an accurate statement of the law, (ii) the facts of the case supported a giving of the instruction, and (iii) the instruction was necessary for the jury to resolve the issues of the case.”).
For example, in Riley v. Willis, 585 So. 2d 1024, 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), the Court found that “the instruction at issue in the case at bar quite likely confused and misled the jury by creating the erroneous impression that Riley was obligated to somehow avoid Juanita when she reached out into the road and became an ‘obstacle’ simultaneously with Riley’s passing.” The Court held that “[t]he giving of the improper instruction requires reversal.” Id.
Also in Riley, 585 So. 2d 1024, the Court found “it is clear that the requested instruction properly set forth the existing law in Hernando County.” Id. at 1028. “Facts were in evidence tending to show that Juanita had custody or care of the dog at the time of the accident, thus supporting inclusion of the instruction in the jury’s deliberations.” Id. “Moreover, the instruction was necessary to allow the jury to properly resolve the question of Juanita’s comparative negligence.” Id. Therefore, the Court held, “[t]he failure to give the requested instruction was reversible error.” Id.
In Barkett v. Gomez, 908 So. 2d 1084, 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), the Court found the “[f]ailure to give the requested instruction therefore, constitutes prejudicial error as it denied the defendant of his right to a fair trial and due process of the law.” Therefore, the Court reversed “the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ motion for new trial and remand for a new trial.” Id.
As noted above, sometimes a party complains that the trial court committed error in the jury instructions actually given.
“A trial court is accorded broad discretion in the formulation of appropriate jury instructions and its decision should not be reversed unless the error complained of resulted in a miscarriage of justice or the jury instructions were reasonably calculated to confuse or mislead the jury.” R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Neff, 325 So. 3d 872, 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (quotation omitted).
“[T]he test for reversible error arising from an erroneous jury instruction is not whether the instruction misled, but only whether it reasonably might have misled the jury.” R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 325 So. 3d at 884 (quotation omitted) (emphasis added). See also, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Forbes, 783 So. 2d 1215, 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quotation omitted) (“The proper analysis in determining whether an erroneous instruction requires reversal is ‘whether the jury might reasonably have been misled.’”); Morton Roofing, Inc. v. Prather, 864 So. 2d 64, 68 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (quotation omitted) (“The trial court’s decision to give a particular instruction will not be reversed ‘unless the error complained of resulted in a miscarriage of justice or the instruction was reasonably calculated to confuse or mislead the jury.’”).
For example, in Signo v. Phillip Morris, 487 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), the Court reversed and remanded a verdict after finding that a jury instruction was erroneously given. The case involved a pedestrian struck by an automobile. Id. The improper jury instruction provided that no pedestrian shall leave a curb or proceed into the path of a vehicle. Id. The Court concluded that this instruction confused and misled the jury in light of the fact that the evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that the pedestrian was stopped in the center of the road but was not observed by the driver until the driver was about six feet from the pedestrian. Id.
In Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Forbes, 783 So. 2d 1215, 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), the Court found “that the trial court committed reversible error by instructing the jury that a violation of the section 526.141 is negligence per se.” As such, the Court reversed “the final judgment and remand[ed] for a new trial. Id.
In Sanchez v. Tower Hill Signature Ins., 181 So. 3d 1211, 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015), the Court found “[t]he trial court’s instruction wrongly suggested to the jury that Tower Hill’s obligation was limited to paying for only those damages that had manifested themselves on or about the date Sanchez made his claim.” “For this reason, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted the jury instruction using the additional language not found in Sanchez’ insurance policy.” Id.
Finally, in Vainberg v. Avatar Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 321 So. 3d 231, 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), the Court concluded “that appellants’ requested Drew instruction was an accurate statement of the law, was supported by the facts of the case, and was necessary for the jury to resolve the issues before it.” “It was particularly important for the court to inform the jury of the terms of the Drew contract where Insurer erroneously attempted to impose post-loss policy provisions which are not terms of the Drew contract.” Id.
As noted above, sometimes a party complains that the trial court committed error in the verdict form given to the jury to state their decision.
“The content of a verdict form is within the trial court’s discretion; however, ‘ordinarily the verdict form should parallel the court’s instruction on the law and not give undue prominence to any single issue in the case.’” Warth v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 695 So. 2d 906, 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (quoting Botte v. Pomeroy, 497 So. 2d 1275, 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)).
Often, a verdict form will have a series of questions for the jury to answer. In such cases, “[t]he use of a special interrogatory verdict form is within the sound discretion of the trial court and its decision should not be disturbed on appeal absent prejudicial error.” Int’l All. of Theatrical Stage Emples., Loc. 500 v. Int’l All. of Theatrical Stage Emples. & Moving Picture Mach. Operators Holding Co., 902 So. 2d 959, 964–65 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). “Generally, verdict forms should ‘parallel the court’s instruction on the law and not give undue prominence to any single issue in the case.’ Id. at 965 (quotation omitted). “Trial courts must ensure the verdict form addresses all claims and cross-claims equally and does not give undue weight to any one claim or defense.” Id.
For example, in Botte v. Pomeroy, 497 So. 2d 1275, 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), the Court found error with an interrogatory verdict form which “made the Good Samaritan defense the first issue for the jury’s consideration.” The Court held this gave “undue prominence” to that particular defense. Id. The error required reversal of the jury verdict. Id.
In Warth v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 695 So. 2d 906, 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), the verdict form was found to be “confusing and misleading” because it listed the “cracking of walls” as a policy exclusion even though that condition could have been caused by “insurable sinkhole activity.” For that reason, the verdict form was contrary to the insurance policy and jury instructions. Id. “The inconsistencies between the instruction and verdict form are confusing and misleading and mandate a new trial.” Id.
Finally, in Sanchez v. Tower Hill Signature Ins., 181 So. 3d 1211 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015), the Court reversed a jury verdict where a specific interrogatory on the verdict form included a temporal condition (i.e. “at the time of the sinkhole loss”), was not found anywhere in the insurance policy at issue. In doing so, the verdict form contained a “limitation” to liability that the insurance policy did not contain.
As with nearly all errors committed by a trial court, the error must be met with a contemporaneous objection in order to preserve the issue for appeal.
For example, in Plana v. Sainz, 990 So. 2d 554, 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), the Court held “[b]ecause counsel for the plaintiffs agreed to the wording of the verdict form, instructing the jury to go no further if it concluded that Mr. Sainz’s negligence was not the legal cause of Elena’s injury, the plaintiffs are precluded from asserting that the zero damage award entered by the jury was error.”
Similarly, in Magical Cruise Co. v. Martins, 330 So. 3d 993, 1005 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021), the Court affirmed a jury verdict “because Martins did not timely object to any errors in the jury instructions or the verdict form related to attorneys’ fees and therefore waived the issue on appeal.”
See also, Beverly Health & Rehab. Servs., Inc. v. Freeman, 709 So. 2d 549, 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that the plaintiff “waived the issue of nominal damages by agreeing to the verdict form that instructed the jury to skip the damages issue if its answer to the causation question was ‘no’”); Papcun v. Piggy Bag Disc. Souvenirs, Food & Gas Corp., 472 So. 2d 880, 881 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (“[F]ailure to object to a verdict form regarding defects not of a constitutional or fundamental character constitutes a waiver of such defects”).
Author Gulisano Posted on Categories AppealsAddress
1701 N. Federal Highway, Suite 4
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Fax
954-947-3910
Email
Click the icon above to call Gulisano Law now for a free consultation.
Gulisano Law, PLLC. Copyright © 2024.
All Rights Reserved.
