RANDOLPH CORNETTE, SR., AND VICKY CORNETTE, AS CO-PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF RANDOLPH CORNETTE, JR., DECEASED, APPELLANTS, CROSS APPELLEES,
v.
SPALDING & EVENFLO COMPANIES, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, AND TOYS-R-US, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEES, CROSS APPELLANTS
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.
In a wrongful death action arising from a defective crib, the court reversed a jury verdict for the defendants and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court erred in refusing to give a jury instruction explaining that the user's or purchaser's negligence is not a defense to strict liability claims.
The court held that the requested instruction accurately stated applicable Florida law on strict liability and was necessary to allow the jury to properly resolve the issues in the case. Therefore, the trial court's refusal to give the instruction constituted reversible error.
[1] A jury instruction that fails to adequately explain the law of strict liability, particularly regarding the user's or purchaser's negligence as a defense, constitutes rev…
[2] Refusal to give a requested jury instruction is reversible error when the instruction accurately states the applicable law, the facts support giving it, and it is necessa…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Further, any negligence of the user or purchaser of a product in the sense of a failure to discover a defect in a product, or to guard against the possibility of a defect's existence, is not a defense available to Spalding & Evenflo and Toys-R-Us to the claim that the crib was defective and unreasonably dangerous.”
The exact language of the requested jury instruction that should have been given to explain strict liability doctrine
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants brought a wrongful death action against Spalding & Evenflo Companies and Toys-R-Us, alleging strict liability for a defective and unreasona…
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 Unreasonably Dangerous Product cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Judge.
In this wrongful death action the jury returned a verdict for the defense and a motion for new trial was denied. We reverse for a new trial.
Appellants, plaintiffs below, alleged, inter alia, a cause of action sounding in strict liability. Their request for a specific instruction to the jury, which included the following language, was denied:
Further, any negligence of the user or purchaser of a product in the sense of a failure to discover a defect in a product, or to guard against the possibility of a defect’s existence, is not a defense available to Spalding & Evenflo and Toys-R-Us to the claim that the crib was defective and unreasonably dangerous.
West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., Inc., 336 So. 2d 80 (Fla.1976), teaches that such an instruction is both appropriate and essential to an explanation of the application of strict liability under Florida law. The instructions which were given do not include language sufficient to educate the jury on these important aspects of the law of strict liability. Refusal to give the requested instruction was therefore reversible error. See Orange County v. Piper, 523 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 531 So. 2d 1354 (Fla.1988) (failure to give requested jury instruction constitutes reversible error where complaining party establishes that requested instruction accurately states applicable law, facts in the case support giving instruction, and instruction was necessary to allow jury to properly resolve all issues in the case).
Our holding makes it unnecessary to discuss the other points raised.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to grant a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
FARMER, J., concurs.
POLEN, J., concurs specially with opinion.
POLEN, Judge,
concurring specially.
I agree with the majority opinion’s conclusion that it was reversible error not to give the requested jury instruction. In the event this case will be retried, I would also reverse as to appellant’s first point, that it was error not to allow appellant to introduce the photograph which purported to recreate the manner in which the infant died. To be sure, such a photograph could be seen as inflammatory as to the jurors’ emotions. Nonetheless, it would be relevant to appellant’s theory of the case; it would facilitate appellant’s medical experts to explain their conclusions as to the cause of death, so that on the whole, its prejudicial effect would not outweigh its probative value.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Auster v. Gertrude & Philip Strax Breast Cancer Detection Inst., Inc., 649 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…ge which is inherently confusing.2 We also agree with appellants that the trial court should have instructed the jury [*887] upon concurring cause and aggravation of a preexisting condition.3 This court in Comette v. Spalding & Evenflo Cos., Inc., 608 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), adopted the Fifth District Court’s test for determining when the failure to give a requested jury instruction results in reversible error. See Orange County v. Piper, 523 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 531 So. 2d 1354 (…
-
Foreline Sec. Corp. v. Marishia Scott, 871 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…sted jury instruction which accurately states the law, if: a) there is evidence supporting the instruction; and b) the instruction was necessary to allow the jury to properly resolve all issues in the case. E.g., Cornette v. Spalding & Evenflo Cos., 608 So. 2d 144, 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Orange County v. Piper, 523 So. 2d 196, 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Litigants have a “right to have the court instruct the jury on the law applicable to the evidence under the issues presented.” Ruiz v. Cold Storage & Insulati…
-
Wransky v. Clorinda V. Dalfo & Ahmanson & Co., 801 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…damages, i.e., an award which will not bankrupt the defendant. In Auster v. Gertrude & Philip Strax Breast Cancer Detection Institute, Inc., 649 So. 2d 883, 887 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), we held: This court in Cornette v. Spalding & Evenflo Cos., Inc., 608 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), adopted the Fifth District Court’s test for determining when the failure to give a requested jury instruction results in reversible error. See Orange County v. Piper, 523 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 531 So. 2d 1354 (…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., Inc., 336 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1976)
- Orange Cnty. v. Piper, 523 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)