In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES—REPORT NO. 13-01 (PRODUCTS LIABILITY)
160 So. 3d 869
| Fla. | 2015Background
- The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases proposed extensive amendments to Florida products liability jury instructions and sought court authorization for publication and use.
- In a prior opinion (SC09-1264 / Report No. 09-10), the Court gave preliminary approval to many proposals but withheld final authorization and referred specific items back to the Committee for revision and conformity with prior reorganizational opinions.
- The Committee republished revised proposals, received comments, but did not fully comply with the Court’s directions initially; the Court directed further compliance and resubmission of jury instructions, model charges, and verdict forms.
- After additional revisions and republication (including proposed changes to instructions on strict liability, negligence, failure to warn, burden of proof, defenses, and Model Instruction No. 7), the Committee filed an amended report seeking final authorization.
- The Court considered the amended report, comments, and responses, and authorized the Committee’s proposed instructions for publication and use, including amended language on strict liability (separate manufacturing/design definitions and retention of consumer‑expectations and risk/benefit tests) and notes reserving some items for future development.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Committee’s products‑liability instructions should be authorized for publication and use | The Committee argued the revised instructions (including new/amended charges, notes, and Model Instruction No. 7) reflect current Florida law and should be authorized | No direct adversarial party; Court scrutinized legal correctness and conformity with prior directions and Florida precedent | The Court authorized the Committee’s amended instructions for publication and use, while noting authorization is not an endorsement of correctness and some issues remain reserved or subject to future development |
| Proper definition and tests for design defect (consumer expectations vs. risk/benefit) | The Committee included both the consumer expectations and the risk/benefit tests in the design‑defect instruction | Concern (implicit) that inclusion of both tests may raise legal questions (e.g., two‑issue rule) and that risk/benefit might be an affirmative defense instead of defect standard | The Court authorized an instruction retaining both tests but the Committee and Court noted uncertainty and reserved positions pending further legal development; risk/benefit also appears in defense instruction as alternative framing |
| Treatment of failure‑to‑warn claims (strict liability v. negligence) | Committee proposed separate instructions for strict liability failure to warn and negligent failure to warn | Need to clarify differences when both theories are submitted to jury to avoid confusion | Authorized both instructions; Court emphasized possible supplemental language to distinguish strict liability (which can apply despite exercise of all possible care) from negligence claims |
| Use of inferences/presumptions (e.g., Cassisi malfunction inference; F.S. 768.1256 gov't‑rules presumption) | Committee declined to offer a standard universal instruction; recommended case‑by‑case treatment and left some items "reserved" or notes on use | Some commenters sought clearer, standardized language for these presumptions/inferences | Court accepted Committee’s approach: retained notes, marked some instructions as reserved, and left development to future case law/party proposals |
Key Cases Cited
- McConnell v. Union Carbide Corp., 937 So.2d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (recognizes consumer expectations approach and failure‑to‑warn strict liability decisions)
- Force v. Ford Motor Co., 879 So.2d 103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (illustrates use of the risk/benefit test in design‑defect context)
- Cassisi v. Maytag Co., 396 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (malfunction/strict‑liability inference when product malfunctions during normal operation)
- West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So.2d 80 (Fla. 1976) (strict liability applies to foreseeable bystanders; privity considerations)
- Union Carbide Corp. v. Aubin, 97 So.3d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (recognizes strict‑liability failure‑to‑warn claims)
- Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 520 So.2d 37 (Fla. 1988) (privity not required for strict liability/warranty claims)
- Samuel Friedland Family Enterprises v. Amoroso, 630 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 1994) (discusses responsibility of parties in chain of distribution to correct defects)
- Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1993) (apportionment of fault and non‑party fault principles)
- Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So.2d 185 (Fla. 1953) (uses "substantially" as causation standard)
- Gibson v. Avis Rent‑A‑Car System, Inc., 386 So.2d 520 (Fla. 1980) (intervening cause and foreseeability principles)