290 So.3d 840
Fla.2020Background
- The Florida Supreme Court considered Report No. 19-03 from the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases proposing amendments to multiple product‑liability jury instructions (403.7, 403.8, 403.15, 403.17, 403.18, 403.19 and Model Instruction No. 7) and authorized them for publication and use.
- The Committee published proposed changes and received a small number of comments; the Court published the proposals for comment and received none.
- Major substantive changes include: deleting the conjunctive "and" between the consumer‑expectations and risk/benefit formulations so a plaintiff may rely on the risk/benefit test without being required to also prove consumer expectations (per Aubin); and adding state‑of‑the‑art language to the design‑defect instruction to track section 768.1257, Fla. Stat.
- The apportionment/verdict language in 403.17 and 403.19 was revised to remove confusing phrasing that asked juries to determine the percentage of "total negligence" that was "caused" by each party, aligning apportionment language with legal‑causation and comparative‑fault instructions.
- The Committee removed certain defenses/instructions (risk/benefit defense removed from a Note on Use; government rules and state‑of‑the‑art defenses deleted from 403.18), renumbered sections, and added a learned‑intermediary instruction for failure‑to‑warn claims involving intermediaries.
- The Court authorized the amendments for immediate publication and use but expressed no opinion on their legal correctness and left open the ability to request alternative instructions or contest correctness in future cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consumer‑expectations and risk/benefit tests must be given conjunctively in design‑defect cases | Plaintiff may prove defect via the risk/benefit test alone; tests are alternative (Aubin) | Committee originally included both formulations; clarity needed | Delete the conjunctive "and" so a plaintiff can elect the risk/benefit test without proving consumer expectations; instruction revised accordingly |
| Whether to require/state the state‑of‑the‑art inquiry in design‑defect instruction | Include explicit state‑of‑the‑art language to mirror §768.1257 and instruct juries to consider science/technology at time of manufacture | No persuasive opposition in record; Committee recommends tracking statute | Add state‑of‑the‑art language to definition of design defect and Notes on Use reference to §768.1257 |
| Whether apportionment language should refer to parties "causing" negligence or fault | Plaintiffs/Committee: existing phrasing is confusing and may misstate comparative‑fault principles | Defendants: (no contesting argument reported) | Revise apportionment/burden instructions to avoid saying a party "caused" negligence; align with legal causation/comparative‑fault wording used elsewhere |
| Content and placement of affirmative defenses (risk/benefit, government‑rules, state‑of‑the‑art, learned intermediary) | Committee: clarify which tests are labels of defect vs. defenses; remove duplicative/confusing Notes; add learned‑intermediary defense for intermediary distribution | Some commentators previously advocated different placements; Committee defers on statute‑based presumptions | Remove risk/benefit from 403.18 Note on Use, delete government‑rules and state‑of‑the‑art subsections from 403.18 (renumbering others), and add explicit learned‑intermediary instruction for failure‑to‑warn claims; Notes caution courts on statutory presumption handling |
Key Cases Cited
- Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., 177 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 2015) (consumer‑expectations and risk/benefit are alternative tests for design defect)
- West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1976) (strict liability extends to foreseeable bystanders)
- Cassisi v. Maytag Co., 396 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (risk/benefit test does not apply to manufacturing defects)
- Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993) (apportionment of fault / non‑party fault principles)
- Force v. Ford Motor Co., 879 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (illustrative use of risk/benefit instruction in design‑defect context)
- Union Carbide Corp. v. Aubin, 97 So. 3d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (discusses strict‑liability principles including failure‑to‑warn)
- Universal Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Warfel, 82 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2012) (guidance on presumptions and evidentiary burdens relevant to government‑rules issues)
- Coba v. Tricam Indus., Inc., 164 So. 3d 637 (Fla. 2015) (noting potential for inconsistent verdicts when negligence and strict liability are both submitted)