MARVIN SCHAFFER, JUDY SCHAFFER AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
FRANCISCO PULIDO AND ADA PULIDO AS NATURAL GUARDIANS OF FRANK PULIDO, A MINOR, 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.
The appellate court reversed an order granting a new trial in a personal injury case. The court found that the plaintiffs, who had requested the jury instructions and verdict form they later complained about, could not claim error on appeal. This decision reinforces the principle that parties cannot invite error and then seek relief based on it.
No, a party who invites error by submitting and requesting the use of specific jury instructions and verdict forms cannot later complain of those errors on a motion for a new trial or on appeal.
[1] A party who submits a jury instruction or verdict form and does not object to its use cannot later seek a new trial based on alleged error in that instruction or form.
[2] A party who proposes an instruction or verdict form that is given by the court cannot complain of invited error on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“This being so, the plaintiffs invited the error, if any, which occurred below and may not complain on a motion for new trial or on appeal concerning these alleged errors.”
Establishes the core legal principle that a party cannot complain about errors they invited.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs sued for personal injuries sustained by their minor son. The jury returned a special verdict finding no permanent injury. The plaintiffs mo…
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 No-Fault Threshold cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendants Marvin and Judy Schaf-fer and their insurer Allstate Insurance Company appeal from an order granting a new trial for the plaintiffs Francisco Pulido and Ada Pulido, as guardians for Frank Pulido, a minor, in a personal injury negligence action. In a special verdict, the jury found that the minor Frank Pulido had suffered no permanent injury in the accident sued upon. Upon motion filed by the plaintiffs, the trial court granted a new trial based on the following grounds:
“1. That jury instruction 5b on the no-fault threshold should not have been given.
2. That the verdict which had a question on the no-fault threshold should not have been utilized.”
Without dispute, the plaintiffs submitted both jury instruction 5b, which the trial court gave, and the verdict form that was used in this case. This being so, the plaintiffs invited the error, if any, which occurred below and may not complain on a motion for new trial or on appeal concerning these alleged errors. Not only did the plaintiffs not object to the subject instruction and verdict form which was used be low, the plaintiffs themselves urged the trial court to use both and thus invited the very error of which they complain in the motion for new trial. Plainly, a new trial cannot be granted under these circumstances. Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Jackson, 433 So. 2d 1319, 1321-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Burdi, 427 So. 2d 1048, 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for review dismissed, 431 So. 2d 988 (Fla.1983); Glabvo Dredging Contractors v. Brown, 374 So. 2d 607, 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Rose’s Stores, Inc. v. Mason, 338 So. 2d 1323, 1324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); see also Florida East Coast Railroad v. Rouse, 178 So. 2d 882, 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), quashed on other grounds, 194 So. 2d 260 (Fla.1967) (on rehearing).
The order granting a new trial is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter judgment on the jury verdict herein.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mark J. Letzter, M.D. v. Cephas, 792 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…physicians were joint tortfeasors. This is nothing more than the natural corollary to the rule that a litigant may not cry “foul” [*488] when a jury instruction which the litigant has requested is actually given by the court. See Schaffer v. Pulido, 492 So. 2d 1157, 1157-58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)(holding that invited error doctrine precluded plaintiff from complaining of both a jury instruction given at his request and the trial court’s use of a verdict form which he submitted). And, even on appeal, Cephas contend…
-
Harlan Bakeries, Inc. v. Snow, 884 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…al so as to undermine the public’s confidence in the judicial system. To compound matters, Snow specifically requested the curative instruction. Snow invited the very error of which she complains in the motion for new trial. See Schaffer v. Pulido, 492 So. 2d 1157, 1157-58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). “ ‘A party cannot successfully complain about an error for which he or she is responsible or of rulings that he or she has invited the trial court to make.’ ” Fuller v. Palm Auto Plaza, Inc., 683 So. 2d 654, 655 (Fla. 4t…
-
State v. Rejrat, 540 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…authority to grant a new trial or other appropriate post-trial relief. Under appropriate circumstances, inadequate instructions may authorize a new trial. City of Clearwater v. McClury, 157 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); but see Schaffer v. Pulido, 492 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (party who submitted jury instruction and verdict form could not request new trial on invited error). The possibility of an addittur also exists in this case. § 768.74, Fla.Stat. (1987). In ruling upon any such post-trial motions,…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Rouse, 194 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1966)
- Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Arlee Jackson and Mugge Rivers, 433 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Burdi, 427 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Rouse, 178 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Glabvo Dredging Contractors v. Brown, 374 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Rose's Stores v. Mason, 338 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)