RAUL MARRERO, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ENRIQUETA MARRERO; RAUL MARRERO, AS FATHER AND NEXT BEST FRIEND OF ALEJANDRO MARRERO, A MINOR CHILD; AND RAUL MARRERO, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
GLENN L. SALKIND, M.D. AND PAUL A. GLUCK, M.D., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A Florida appellate court reversed a medical malpractice jury verdict and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial judge erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of concurrent causes, which permits liability when negligence combines with a natural force to cause harm.
The trial judge erred in refusing to give a concurrent causes instruction, and a wrongdoer remains liable for harm when the result is caused by a combination of negligent conduct and a natural force or condition. The failure to give such an instruction constitutes reversible error.
[1] A defendant remains liable for harm caused by a combination of their negligent act and a natural force.
[2] The failure to provide a jury instruction on concurrent causes constitutes reversible error when supported by the evidence.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is undisputed that this charge correctly reflects the equally unassailable principle that a wrongdoer remains liable for a consequent harm when the result is caused by a congruence of his own negligent act with a natural force or condition, often called an "Act of God,"”
Establishes the core principle of concurrent causes liability—that defendants may be held liable when their negligence combines with a natural force to cause injury
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff's wife was a high-risk obstetric patient who died from an amniotic fluid embolism during labor that the defendants had induced using pit…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Act Of God cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
The plaintiff, as personal representative of the estate of his wife, appeals a final judgment pursuant to a jury verdict finding defendants not guilty of medical malpractice or wrongful death. We reverse.
The plaintiffs wife was a patient of the defendant obstetricians. In three prior pregnancies, she had had one uncomplicated delivery, one stillbirth, and one breech birth; she was therefore identified as a “high risk patient” and her fourth pregnancy was carefully monitored. When the fetus was mature, the doctors induced labor utilizing the drug, pitocin. The patient experienced distress during delivery and died of a massive amniotic fluid embolism. Shortly thereafter, the baby was delivered alive by Caesarean section.
The only issue with which we are concerned is whether the trial judge erroneously refused to instruct the jury regarding the doctrine of concurrent causes.1 Supported by testimony in the record, plaintiff contends that his wife’s death was caused by the negligence of the doctors, in combination with a natural cause, the amniotic embolism. Following the recent enunciation of the principles of concurrent cause found in Goodman v. Becker, 430 So. 2d 560 (Fla.3d DCA) (1983), we must agree with the plaintiff that the charge should have been given. As stated therein:
It is undisputed that this charge correctly reflects the equally unassailable principle that a wrongdoer remains liable for a consequent harm when the result is caused by a congruence of his own negligent act with a natural force or condition, often called an “Act of God,” .... Moreover, there is no doubt that the failure to give an applicable concurring causes instruction constitutes reversible error, (citations omitted)
Goodman v. Becker, supra, at 561.
On the authority of Goodman v. Becker, supra, and the cases cited therein, we reverse and remand for a new trial. Because of this disposition, we need not consider the other arguments raised by the appellants, but must consider the appellee’s cross-appeal.
During the trial, the judge ruled that the medical mediation findings would not be allowed into evidence. Because these findings were filed prior to February 28, 1980, it was error to exclude them. Ruben v. Kelley, 402 So. 2d 1165 (Fla.1981); Aldana v. Holub, 381 So. 2d 231 (Fla.1980).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
. Standard Jury Instruction 5.1(b).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tilley v. Broward Hosp. Dist., 458 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…as much expert testimony on the possibly negligent conduct of the hospital in attending to Mrs. Tilley and the child (the concurring “negligent cause” element). Therefore the instruction was applicable and should have been given. Marrero v. Salkind, 433 So. 2d 1224, 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), pet. for rev. den. sub nom. Salkind v. Marrero, 444 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1984); Goodman v. Becker, 430 So. 2d 560, 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The hospital argues, however, that notwithstanding the omission of the applicable instru…
-
Jade Lakay Hart v. Louis Stern, M.D. & Wymore Ob/Gyn Specialists, P.A., 824 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…ts in combination with a plaintiff's physical condition to produce an injury, the concurring cause instruction of 5.1(b) is mandated.”) (citing Esancy v. Hodges, 727 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)); Cruz, 778 So. 2d at 460 (citing Marrero v. Salkind, 433 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), petition for review denied, 444 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1984); Goodman v. Becker, 430 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)). . Zigman; Auster v. Gertrude & Philip Strax Breast Cancer Detection Inst., Inc., 649 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); M…
-
Amparo Borges v. Jerome F. Jacobs, D.P.M. & Jerome F. Jacobs, D.P.M., P.A., 483 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…al status.... ” Goodman v. Becker, 430 So. 2d 560, 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (footnote omitted). Accord Tilley v. Broward Hospital District, 458 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Higgins v. Johnson, 434 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Marrero v. Salkind, 433 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 444 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1984). And finally, no inference that the two post-treatment hospitalizations for surgery were unnecessary can be drawn from evidence that they were unsuccessful in combating the infection. Proof…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Aldana v. Holub, 381 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1980)
- Goodman v. Melvin Becker, D.D.S., 430 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Bradley Ruben, D.O. v. Kelley, 402 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 1981)