FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
SANDRA ANN MCCOLLUM, AS WIDOW OF EDDIE MACK MCCOLLUM, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between District Court of Appeal decisions regarding the standard for reversing a judgment based on erroneous jury instructions. The Court clarified that reversals require a showing that the jury might reasonably have been misled, not merely that it was possible they were misled, and that an erroneous instruction alone does not automatically invalidate a verdict.
An erroneous jury instruction warrants reversal only if it was reasonably calculated to confuse or mislead the jury, not merely if it was possible the jury was misled. An erroneous instruction does not ipso facto invalidate a verdict; rather, there must be a showing that the error resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The apparent conflict between the cases was largely one of language taken out of context.
“To warrant the appellate court to reverse a judgment for an erroneous instruction, the court must be satisfied that the jury was misled”
Establishes the proper standard for reversing on jury instruction grounds, requiring actual or reasonable likelihood of misleading, not mere possibility
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSandra Ann McCollum, widow of Eddie Mack McCollum, brought a wrongful death action against Florida Power & Light Company. The trial court gave jury in…
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 Miscarriage Of Justice Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
The petition for writ of certiorari in this cause is addressed to a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reversing a judgment in an action for wrongful death. The court, in reaching its conclusion as to reversible error in instructions to the jury, found that “It is possible that the jury was not misled but we cannot say that they were not.” (Emphasis supplied.) 1 Because of the language noted, the decision is alleged to be in direct conflict with holdings upon the same point of law in First National Bank in Orlando v. Roberts:2 “To warrant the appellate court to reverse a judgment for an erroneous instruction, the court must be satisfied that the jury was misled,” (Emphasis supplied) citing Hooker v. Johnson.3 Jurisdiction in this Court rests upon this prima facie conflict.
Any contradiction between the cases is, we think largely one of words, resulting from language taken out of context. A full consideration of the authorities reflects no intent to adopt an entirely subjective test as to whether a particular jury was actually misled, but instead the inquiry is whether the jury might reasonably have been misled. The requirement, in statutory language, is that an error must have “resulted in a miscarriage of justice.”4 Such a miscarriage results when instructions are not only erroneous but also, as found in the instant case, reasonably calculated to confuse or mislead.5
*570We find no real inconsistency between this principle, expressly recognized in the opinion of the district court herein, and the statement first above quoted from the opinion. To any extent, however, that the opinion may imply that an erroneous instruction ipso facto invalidates the verdict, the language stands corrected to conform with the established rule of the cases. In all other particulars, the disposition of the cause is approved.
Writ discharged.
ROBERTS, C. J., and HOBSON, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (38 total)
-
Mark N. Goldschmidt, M.D. v. Jerri Taletha Holman, 571 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1990)…e “the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” § 59.041, Fla.Stat. (1989). A “miscarriage of justice” arises where instructions are “reasonably calculated to confuse or mislead” the jury. Florida Power & Light Co. v. McCollum, 140 So. 2d 569, 569 (Fla.1962). Under the circumstances presented in this case, we find there was no “reasonable possibility that the jury could have been misled by the failure to give the instruction.” Ruiz v. Cold Storage & Insulation Contractors, Inc., 306 So.…
-
Castlewood Int'l Corp. v. LaFLEUR, 322 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1975)…. It is virtually impossible for an appellate court to know whether a jury was misled or confused by an admixture of erroneous and proper jury charges. Cf., McCullum v. Florida Power & Light Co., 125 So. 2d 754, 755 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1961), aff'd, 140 So. 2d 569 (Fla.1962).…
-
Butler v. State, 493 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1986)…nfusing jury instruction that did not pertain to any evidence presented at trial did not constitute harmless error because there exists a reasonable possibility that it contributed to the conviction. See also Florida Power and Light Co. v. McCollum, 140 So. 2d 569 (Fla.1962); Shannon v. State, 463 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Veliz v. American Hospital, Inc., 414 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 424 So. 2d 760 (1982). Any assertion that the errant jury instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable…
Previewing 3 of 38 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hooker v. Johnson, 10 Fla. 198 (Fla. 1860)
- First Nat'l Bank in Orlando v. Roberts, 92 Fla. 18 (Fla. 1926)
- McCOLLUM v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 125 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)