MARTIN NAVARETTE, APPELLANT,
v.
LISA KERN, APPELLEE
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 this personal injury case arising from a rear-end automobile collision, the trial court erred by refusing to give a jury instruction on concurring cause where the plaintiff's pre-existing condition combined with the defendant's negligence to produce the injury. The appellate court affirmed the grant of a new trial, holding that the concurring cause instruction was required and that the damage instruction alone was insufficient.
The trial court erred by refusing to give the concurring cause instruction. The instruction on concurring cause is required where the defendant's negligence acts in combination with the plaintiff's physical conditions to produce the resulting injury. The damage instruction on aggravation of an existing condition, standing alone, is patently insufficient protection against jury confusion.
[1] A jury instruction on concurring cause is required when a defendant's negligence combines with a plaintiff's pre-existing physical condition to cause an injury.
[2] A jury instruction on the aggravation of an existing condition is insufficient on its own when the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's pre-existing condition are b…
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“Florida Standard Jury Instruction 5.1(b) on concurring cause is 'required where the defendant's negligence acts in combination with the plaintiff's physical conditions to produce the resulting injury.'”
Establishes the legal requirement for the concurring cause instruction in cases involving pre-existing conditions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartin Navarette's vehicle struck Lisa Kern's vehicle from behind. Navarette conceded liability. Kern claimed the accident aggravated a pre-existing a…
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 Concurring Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, J.
Lisa Kern filed a personal injury suit against Martin Navarette arising out of a rear-end automobile collision. Navarette conceded the issue of liability. Kern tried the case on the theory that the accident aggravated a pre-existing condition; she underwent spinal surgery. Her expert testified the accident aggravated a “preexisting abnormal disc.” The defense expert testified that the accident caused not a permanent injury, but only a cervical sprain. The defense argued in closing that degenerative changes in Kerris neck, rather than Navarette’s negligence, caused Kerris injuries.
The trial court refused Kerris request to charge the jury with Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Civil) 5.1(b) on concurring cause. The court gave Standard Instruction 6.2(b), the damage instruction on aggravation of an existing disease or physical defect. The jury awarded $11,238 in past medical expenses and lost wages, but found that Kern did not sustain a permanent injury as a result of the accident.
The court granted Kerris motion for new trial, ruling that it was error not to have given Standard Instruction 5.1(b) on concurring cause. Navarette appeals. We affirm.
This court has held that Florida Standard Jury Instruction 5.1(b) on concurring cause is “required where the defendant’s negligence acts in combination with the plaintiffs physical conditions to produce the resulting injury.” Marinelli v. Grace, 608 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); see Dutcher v. Allstate Ins. Co., 655 So. 2d 1217, 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); see also Hart v. Stern, 824 So. 2d 927, 930 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Thomason v. Gordon, 782 So. 2d 896, 898-99 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Esancy v. Hodges, 727 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). In Marinetti, we rejected the argument that giving instruction 6.2(b) on the aggravation of an existing condition made up for the failure to give the concurring cause instruction in a case such as this; we wrote that the “instruction on assessing damages, standing alone, is patently insufficient protection against the risk of confusion arising by a failure to give the concurring cause instruction.” 608 So. 2d at 834. Without the concurring cause instruction, “the jury could have been under the erroneous impression that the required permanent injury had to result solely from the accident.” Dutcher, 655 So. 2d at 1219.
We find no error in the trial judge’s ruling on the defense expert.
Affirmed.
STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marinelli v. Grace, 608 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Jade Lakay Hart v. Louis Stern, M.D. & Wymore Ob/Gyn Specialists, P.A., 824 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Esancy v. Hodges, 727 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Thomason v. Irmalenna Gordon, 782 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Dutcher v. Allstate Ins. Co., 655 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)