SARA ZANETTI, APPELLANT,
v.
SARAH WEISSLER, 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.
Sara Zanetti appeals a jury verdict against her in a negligence case, challenging the trial court's jury instruction on proximate cause and its refusal to give an additional charge when the jury asked a clarifying question. The court affirms, holding that the proximate cause instruction adequately covered the law and the court properly responded to the jury's question by re-reading the existing charge.
The trial court did not err. The proximate cause instruction adequately covered the law on the point, and the court was not required to reiterate principles of law in the language proposed by the plaintiff when those principles had already been covered. When the jury's question indicated confusion about the proximate cause language, the court properly responded by re-reading the existing charge rather than providing a new instruction.
“the record shows that the principles of law embraced in the charges requested and refused had been adequately covered in the instructions given the jury and that there was no reversible error committed by the court in refusing to reiterate those principles in the language proposed by the defendant.”
Establishes the standard that a court need not restate legal principles in a party's preferred language if those principles were already adequately covered in the instructions given.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSara Zanetti was the plaintiff in a negligence action against Sarah Weissler. Zanetti suffered an adverse jury verdict and appealed the final judgment…
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.
Sarah Zanetti was the plaintiff in the trial court. She suffered an adverse verdict at the hands of the jury and appeals from the final judgment thereon.
Two points are presented. The first point challenges the correctness of a charge requested by the defendant and given by the court. The charge explained proximate cause from the standpoint of the defendant; that is, it said that the plaintiff could not recover if the jury found that the damage complained of was not the proximate result of the defendant’s negligence. Appellant objected to the charge, but she did not offer a charge on the subject. Her chief complaint seems to be that the charge was not in the language she preferred. We think that this position cannot be maintained in view of the holding of the Supreme Court in Myrick v. Griffin, 146 Fla. 148, 200 So. 383 (1941). At page 384 the Supreme Court said:
“ * * * the record shows that the principles of law embraced in the charges requested and refused had been adequately covered in the instructions given the jury and that there was no reversible error committed by the court in refusing to reiterate those principles in the language proposed by the defendant.”
In addition, we find that a review of the entire instruction given to the jury reveals that the subject was not given undue importance and that the entire instruction must be said to have adequately covered the law on the point of the case. Adams v. Royal Exchange Assur., Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 591; Martin v. Johns, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 398; Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Lawler, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 852.
Appellant’s second point urges error because the trial court refused her tender of an additional charge when the jury returned with a question. The question presented by the jury, which was written out and handed to the judge, indicated that some member of the jury had a doubt as to the words used in the charge on proximate cause. This question was fully answered by the court by again reading to the jury the charge in question, which was the same charge discussed in point one.
In Warmuth v. Greenberg, Fla.1951, 49 So.2d 793, the Court, at page 793, stated:
“Clearly under the statute [section 54.22, Florida Statutes] the court was empowered to give the jury again the ‘law applicable to the case’ when they returned to the courtroom without having agreed. We do not construe the statute to mean that he must repeat the entire charge if the jury request only some part of it dealing with a particular issue or phase of the con*385troversy or, of course, with the duties they are obliged to perform. We think the court was correct in confining his further charge to the issue that seemed to be troubling the jury.”
We hold that this procedure was proper and that the jury’s question did not indicate a need for additional charges on the subject. Therefore, appellant’s offer to restate the same charge in different terms was properly rejected. Myrick v. Griffin, supra.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LA Villarena, Inc. v. Acosta, 597 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…llarena’s main contention is not that the charge as a whole is improper, but rather that the charge was not stated in neutral terms. The record is silent as to what instruction, if any, La Villarena suggested. But this court, in Zanetti v. Weissler, 179 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), cert. denied, 188 So. 2d 314 (Fla.1966), has stated that a charge is not incorrect simply because it is not given in language that the appealing party would have preferred. La Villarena’s final point on appeal is that the trial…
-
Carver v. Jenkins, 209 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…add a few words of his own in attempting simplification. The court’s charges on negligence and contributory negligence were proper, and the rereading of these charges in no way prejudiced the defendant-appellant. Zanetti v. Weissler, Fla.App. 1965, 179 So. 2d 383. We have carefully considered the additional comments by the court, and we find that they were an entirely proper attempt to clarify the situation for the jury in the event that they should find both parties negligent. Appellant has failed to demons…
-
Dorris W. McBEE and Ralph A. McBee v. Cain, 240 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)…ctrine of last clear chance. We are also of the opinion that the procedure followed by the court in reinstructing the jury on a specific point at the jury’s request following a period of deliberation was not error. Zanetti v. Weissler, Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 383. CROSS, C. J., concurs. WALDEN, J., dissents, with opinion.…
Previewing 3 of 5 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. Lawler, 151 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Myrick v. Nettie L. Griffin, 146 Fla. 148 (Fla. 1941)
- Adams v. Royal Exch. Assur., 62 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1952)
- John W. Martin for Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Gus Johns, 78 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1955)