EMAIL THE COMMITTEE
Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases
Standard Jury Instructions in Contract & Business Cases
STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS -
|THE STANDARD INSTRUCTIONS|
|Section 200||Preliminary Instructions|
|Section 300||Evidence Instructions|
|Section 400||Substantive Instructions|
|Section 600||Substantive Instructions - General|
|Section 700||Closing Instructions|
|Section 800||Supplemental Matters|
A. During Jury Selection
B. After Jury Selected and Sworn
NOTE ON USE
These substantive instructions should be followed by the applicable sections from Damages, Substantive Instructions — General, and Closing Instructions (Before Final Argument).
NOTES ON USE
NOTES ON USE
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.
NOTES ON USE
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).
A. Compensatory Damages
1. Personal Injury and Property Damages
2. Wrongful Death Damages
B. Punitive Damages
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
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
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