Opinion
No. 90,966.
October 16, 1997.
Original Proceeding — Standard Jury Instructions — Civil Cases.
Marjorie Gadarian Graham, Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions (Civil), Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, for Petitioner.
The Florida Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases (the Committee) recommends that The Florida Bar be authorized to publish as revisions and additions to Florida Standard Jury Instructions (Civil) the following: (1) a revision to the title of instruction 3.8; (2) the addition of a footnote to instruction 3.8; (3) the addition of a new instruction 3.8g entitled "Statute of Limitations, Medical Malpractice" to be used in medical negligence cases where the statute of limitations is asserted as a defense; and (4) a model verdict form for use in medical negligence cases where the statute of limitations is asserted as a defense.
The proposed revised and new instructions and verdict form were published in The Florida Bar News on February 15, 1997, and received four comments. Further, the Committee specifically sought input from the Florida Defense Lawyers' Association and from the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers. The final draft of the instructions and verdict form were not changed following consideration of comments. The instructions and verdict form received Committee approval after consideration at meetings which occurred between February 1990 and March 1997. All who responded to the publication were advised that their comments had been considered by the Committee and that the Committee intended to submit the instructions and verdict form to the Court as drafted. Thereafter, all responses and comments were submitted to and considered by the Court.
We commend the Committee for its diligence and thoroughness, and we authorize the publication and use of these instructions and verdict form. In doing so, we express no opinion on the correctness of these instructions or the verdict form and remind all interested parties that this approval forecloses neither requesting additional or alternative instructions or verdict forms nor contesting the legal correctness of the instructions or verdict form. The revised and new instructions and verdict form are appended to this opinion; new language is indicated by underscoring, and deletions are indicated by struck-through type. The revised and new instructions and verdict form will be effective on the date this opinion is filed.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE INSTRUCTIONS. DEFENSE ISSUES OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK If, however, the greater weight of the evidence does support the claim of then you shall consider the defense[s] raised by On the [first] defense, the issues for your determination are: 3.8g STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (claimant) that [he] [she] [(person for whose injury the claim is made) If the greater weight of the evidence supports the defense of 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 the defense of on this issue [you shall consider the following additional defenses] [your verdict should be for in the full amount of [his] [her] damages.] Note on Use on 3.8g 95.11 766.106 766.104 Comment on 3.8g See Tanner v. Hartog 618 So.2d 177 95.11 For use in conjunction with 3.8g when there is an issue regarding the statute of limitations in a medical negligence case VERDICT 1. Was there negligence on the part of which was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to If your answer to question 1 is NO, your verdict is for 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 1 is YES, please answer question 2. know, or by the use of reasonable care should [he] [she] have known, on or before , that 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 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. which was a legal cause of [his] [her] [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]? that you charge to: _________________% _________________% TOTAL MUST BE 100% Please answer question 5. 5. What is the total amount (100%) of any damages sustained by and caused by the incident in question? Total damages of
The order in which the defenses are listed below is not necessarily the order in which the instructions should be given.
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. 2nd DCA 1992).
1. The court may change the order in which the questions appear on the verdict.
2. For a model itemized verdict form, as contemplated by § 768.77, Florida Statutes, refer to Model Verdict Form 8.1 or 8.2.