In re: Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases - Report No. 19-02

Supreme Court of Florida
____________

No. SC19-936
____________

IN RE: STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES — REPORT
NO. 19-02.

December 5, 2019

PER CURIAM.

The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases

(Committee) has submitted a report proposing amendments to instruction 401.20

(Issues on Plaintiff’s Claim – Premises Liability). We have jurisdiction. See art.

V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

The Committee proposes deleting existing Note on Use 2 for instruction

401.20a in its entirety, and replacing it with the following: “For transitory foreign

substances in a business establishment, see F.S. 768.0755 and cases interpreting

it.” No amendments were proposed by the Committee to instruction 401.20a itself.

The Committee explains that its proposal stems from the repeal of section

768.0710, Florida Statutes, which previously governed claims for premises liability
for transitory substances in business establishments, and the 2010 enactment of

section 768.0755, Florida Statutes, which now governs such claims.

Prior to filing its report with the Court, the Committee published its proposal

for comment. No comments were received by the Committee. After the

Committee filed its report, the Court republished the Committee’s proposal for

comment. No comments were received.

Having considered the Committee’s report, we hereby authorize the

amendment to Note on Use 2 for instruction 401.20a as proposed by the

Committee for publication and use. In authorizing the publication and use of this

amendment, we express no opinion on its correctness and remind all interested

parties that this authorization forecloses neither requesting additional or alternative

instructions nor contesting the legal correctness of the instruction. We further

caution all interested parties that any comments associated with the amendment

reflect only the opinion of the Committee and are not necessarily indicative of the

views of this Court as to its correctness or applicability. New language is indicated

by underlining and deleted language is indicated by struck-through type. The

amended instruction as set forth in the appendix shall be effective when this

opinion becomes final.

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, LAGOA, and MUÑIZ,
JJ., concur.

-2-
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND,
IF FILED, DETERMINED.

Original Proceeding – Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in
Civil Cases

Laura K. Whitmore, Chair, Tampa, Florida, and Jeffrey Alan Cohen, Vice Chair
and Subcommittee Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions
in Civil Cases, Miami, Florida; and Joshua E. Doyle, Executive Director, and
Heather Savage Telfer, Bar Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Petitioner

-3-
Appendix

401.20 ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM — PREMISES LIABILITY
The [next] issues on (claimant’s) claim, for you to decide are:

a. Landowner or possessor’s negligence (toward invitee and invited licensee):

whether (defendant) [negligently failed to maintain the premises in a
reasonably safe condition], [or] [negligently failed to correct a
dangerous condition about which (defendant) either knew or should
have known, by the use of reasonable care,] [or] *[negligently failed to
warn (claimant) of a dangerous condition about which (defendant) had,
or should have had, knowledge greater than that of (claimant)]; and, if
so, whether such negligence was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage] to (claimant, decedent or person for whose injury claim is made).

NOTES ON USE FOR 401.20a

1. If there is an issue of whether claimant had status as an invitee or
invited licensee, give instructions 401.16a and 401.17 as preliminary instructions
before giving instruction 401.20a. The final segment of instruction 401.20a,
marked with an asterisk (*), is inapplicable when plaintiff does not proceed on a
theory of defendant’s failure to warn.

2. The phrase “. . . about which (defendant) either knew or should have
known by use of reasonable care . . .” may be inappropriate in cases involving
“transitory foreign objects.” F.S. 768.0710; Markowitz v. Helen Homes of Kendall
Corp., 826 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 2002); Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So. 2d
315 (Fla. 2001); Melkonian v. Broward County Board of County Commissioners,
844 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).For transitory foreign substances in a business
establishment, see F.S. 768.0755 and cases interpreting it.

b. Landowner or possessor’s negligence (toward discovered trespasser or
foreseeable licensee):

whether (defendant) negligently failed to warn (claimant) of a dangerous
condition and risk which were known to (defendant) and of which
(claimant) neither knew nor should have known, by the use of
reasonable care; and, if so, whether such negligence was a legal cause of

-4-
[loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent or person for whose
injury claim is made).

NOTE ON USE FOR 401.20b

Give preliminary instructions 401.16b and 401.17 before giving instruction
401.20b if there is a jury question of whether defendant owned or had possession
of the land or premises, or whether he knew of the dangerous condition, or whether
he knew of claimant’s presence (if claimant was a trespasser) or should have
foreseen claimant’s presence (if claimant was a licensee).

c. Attractive nuisance:

whether (defendant) was negligent in maintaining or in failing to protect
(claimant child) from the (describe structure or other artificial condition) on
the land or premises in question; and, if so, whether that negligence was
a legal cause of the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent or
person for whose injury claim is made).

NOTE ON USE FOR 401.20c

This instruction and instruction 401.16c, taken together, state all elements of
the attractive nuisance doctrine. The committee considers subsections (d) and (e)
of RESTATEMENT (2d) OF TORTS §339 to be unnecessary to the instruction because
negligence is otherwise defined by instruction 401.4.

d. Landlord’s negligence (toward tenant):

(1). When leased premises are not residential:

whether (defendant landlord) negligently failed to disclose to
(claimant tenant) a dangerous condition on the leased premises
which was known to (defendant), which was not known to
(claimant) or discoverable by [him] [her] by the use of reasonable
care, and which (defendant) had reason to believe (claimant) could
not discover; and, if so, whether that negligence was a legal cause
of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent or person for
whose injury claim is made).

(2). When leased premises are residential (not common areas):

-5-
whether, [before allowing (claimant tenant) to take possession of
the dwelling, (defendant landlord) negligently failed to repair a
defect that was discoverable by a reasonable inspection] [or]
[after (claimant tenant) took possession of the dwelling, (defendant
landlord) negligently failed to repair a dangerous or defective
condition on the premises of which [he] [she] [it] had actual
notice]; and, if so, whether that negligence was a legal cause of
[loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent or person for
whose injury claim is made).

NOTES ON USE FOR 401.20d

1. This instruction, reflecting a greater duty by landlord to tenant on
leased residential premises, was derived from Mansur v. Eubanks, 401 So. 2d 1328
(Fla. 1981), overruling to that extent Brooks v. Peters, 25 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1946).
See also F.S. 83.51 (1981), which may impose on the landlord greater duties, in
respect to conditions arising after a tenant’s possession, than were addressed in
Mansur. If other or greater duties are imposed by the statute, this instruction should
be modified to express those duties in the terms of the case. This instruction
pertains to the landlord’s duties, not the tenant’s, but the committee calls attention
to statutes in F.S. Chapter 83 imposing certain duties on the tenant, which may
affect the landlord’s duties as expressed in this instruction.

2. Common areas. With respect to common areas, the landlord’s duty to
the tenant is stated in instruction 401.20d. The landlord’s duty to others in common
areas is the same as that owed by any landowner or possessor of land, e.g.,
instructions 401.16a, 401.16b.

3. Persons invited on leased residential premises by tenant. The land-
lord’s duty to persons invited on leased residential premises by the tenant is the
same as the landlord’s duty to the tenant. Mansur v. Eubanks, 401 So. 2d 1328
(Fla. 1981).

4. Waiver. The committee expresses no opinion about whether a tenant
may waive duties owed him by the landlord. Compare Mansur v. Eubanks, 401 So.
2d 1328 (Fla. 1981), with F.S. 83.51(1)(b), 83.51(4), and 83.47 (1981).

e. Municipality’s negligence in maintenance of sidewalks and streets:

whether the city negligently failed to maintain its [sidewalk] [or] [street]
in a reasonably safe condition or failed to correct or warn (claimant) of a

-6-
dangerous condition of which the city either knew or should have
known, by the use of reasonable care; and, if so, whether that negligence
was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent or
person for whose injury claim is made).

NOTE ON USE FOR 401.20e

City of Tampa v. Johnson, 114 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959); Schutzer v.
City of Miami, 105 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958).

-7-