ZIMMER, INC., AN INDIANA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JEFFREY D. BIRNBAUM, AND WENDY BIRNBAUM, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES

Fla. 4th DCA | 2000-03-29
No. 4D98-4071
WARNER, C.J., SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.
758 So. 2d 714 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2000) Positive Treatment
Cited by 17 cases

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.

Synopsis

Zimmer, Inc. appeals a products liability judgment for defective spinal rods surgically implanted in Jeffrey Birnbaum. Although Zimmer argues the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the "ordinary consumer" standard, the appellate court affirms under the two-issue rule, finding that because the jury could have decided the case on an alternative risk-benefit theory that Zimmer concedes was proper, no reversible error occurred.


Holding

Although Zimmer compellingly argues that the surgeon should have been identified as the "ordinary consumer," the court cannot reverse because the jury was given two alternative standards for determining defectiveness—the ordinary consumer test and the risk-benefit test—and Zimmer concedes the risk-benefit test was appropriate. The jury could have properly decided the case on the risk-benefit analysis alone, making any error regarding the ordinary consumer test harmless.


Headnotes

[1] The two-issue rule precludes reversal when a jury returns a general verdict for the plaintiff and the defendant fails to demonstrate prejudice from error on only one of t…

[2] A general verdict for a plaintiff will not be reversed on appeal if no error is found as to at least one of the theories of liability presented to the jury, provided the…

Previewing 2 of 5 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

Key Quotes

“Zimmer compellingly argues that the trial court erred in failing to identify the surgeon who installed the rods as the "ordinary consumer" for the purpose of the jury charge found at PL5, Florida Standard Jury Instructions, Products Liability.”

States the core argument Zimmer raised on appeal regarding the proper definition of ordinary consumer in the medical device context.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Jeffrey Birnbaum underwent spinal surgery in which steel rods manufactured by Zimmer, Inc. were surgically inserted to correct a spinal condition. The…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Zimmer, Inc. appeals a final judgment entered against it in a products liability suit filed by appellees, Jeffrey and Wendy Birnbaum. The defective products were steel rods surgically inserted into Jeffrey’s back to correct a spinal condition. Under the facts of this case, Zimmer compellingly argues that the trial court erred in failing to identify the surgeon who installed the rods as the “ordinary consumer”1 for the purpose of the jury charge found at PL5, Florida Standard Jury Instructions, Products Liability.

However, the two issue rule precludes us from reaching that issue. The jury charge gave the jury two standards for determining whether the product was unreasonably dangerous — the ordinary consumer test and the risk benefit test. Zim-mer concedes that the risk benefit test was appropriate to use in this case. The verdict form did not require the jury to identify its basis for deciding that the product was defective. Zimmer did not object at trial to the use of the verdict form. The jury might properly have decided that the rods were defective based on a risk benefit analysis. Even if we found error in the definition of the ordinary consumer test or in its submission to the jury, under the two issue rule, Zimmer is unable to demonstrate prejudice to justify a reversal. See Barth v. Khubani, 748 So. 2d 260 (Fla.1999).

As the supreme court explained in Barth:

The “two issue rule” provides:
[Wjhere'there is ho proper objection ' to the use of a general verdict, reversal is improper where no error is found ás to one of two issues submitted to the jury on the basis that the appellant is unable to establish that he has been prejudiced.

Whitman v. Castlewood Int’l Corp., 383 So. 2d 618, 619 (Fla.1980). The rule is based on the principle that reversal is improper where no error is found as to one of the issues that can independently support the jury’s verdict. See Colonial Stores, Inc. ., v. Scarbrough, 355 So. 2d 1181, 1186 (Fla.1977). In Colonial Stores, this Court cautioned that although it may seem that injustice might result from application of the “two issue rule,” the rule is an economical tool that limits appellate review to issues that actually affect the case and that litigants may avoid application of the rule by simply requesting a special verdict that would illuminate the jury’s decision making process and the affect [sic] of any alleged error: “It should be remembered ... that the remedy is always in the hands of counsel.” Id.

When a general verdict for the plaintiff is on review, the rule is applied by focusing on the causes of action, such that an appellate claim of error raised by the defendant as to one cause of action cannot be the basis for reversal where two or more theories of liability (or causes of action) were presented to the jury.

Barth, 748 So. 2d at 261 (footnote omitted).

We distinguish this case from Allstate Insurance Co. v. Vanater, 297 So. 2d 293 (Fla.1974), cited by Zimmer. In that case the confusion in the jury instructions was the giving of two different standards of proof for the jury to apply — “clear and convincing evidence” and proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 294. This case involves alternative theories of liability, two methods of deciding a factual issue which is precisely the type of situation to which the two issue rule applies.

We have carefully reviewed the record on the remaining issues and recognize that the issues of causation of damages and the identity of Zimmer as the supplier of the rods were in great dispute. We find no legal basis to set aside the jury’s determinations.

AFFIRMED.

WARNER, C.J., SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur. . That portion of the instruction reads:

A product is unreasonably dangerous because of its design if the product fails to' perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used as intended or in a manner reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer. Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Civ.) PL5. (Italics supplied).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Weinstein Design Grp., Inc. v. Fielder, 884 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
    …ed verdict as to the Florida Design article and the brochures. The two-issue rule was adopted by the Florida Supreme Court in Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Scarbrough, 355 So. 2d 1181, 1186 (Fla.1977). As this court explained in Zimmer, Inc. v. Birnbaum, 758 So. 2d 714, 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), the two-issue rule provides: “where there is no proper objection to the use of a general verdict, reversal is improper where no error is found as to one of two issues submitted to the jury on the basis that the appellant is…
  • Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. Zaira Perez-Melendez, 855 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
    …more theories of liability (or causes of action) were presented to the jury. 748 So. 2d at 261. The burden of establishing error as to each theory of liability or defense is on the non-moving party. Barth. For example, in Zimmer, Inc. v. Birnbaum, 758 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 786 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.2000), the court applied the two-issue rule in a products liability case because the jury instructions included two standards for determining whether the product was unreasonably dangerous — the or…
  • Force v. Ford Motor Co. & Mazda Motor Corp., 879 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
    …se and remand for a new trial. REVERSED and REMANDED. PLEUS and SILVERNAIL, JJ., Associate Judge, concur. . The instruction was based on the Restate-merit (Third) of Torts. . Two other cases of limited applicability are Zimmer, Inc. v. Birnbaum, 758 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 786 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.2000), which concerned the two-issue rule, and Sanchez v. Hussey Seating Co., 698 So. 2d 1326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), which concerned a manufacturer’s liability to by-standers. In both cases the consu…

Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw