BEATRICE SCHLEIN AND PHILIP SCHLEIN, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO., 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.
The Schleins appealed a judgment awarding them $6,250 for injuries sustained in a collision between Beatrice Schlein's car and a railroad train. The trial court reduced a jury verdict of $25,000 by 75% based on comparative negligence findings, but the appellate court found the jury instructions and special interrogatories were inconsistent and potentially confusing, requiring a new trial on damages.
The trial court's instructions were inconsistent and potentially confusing to the jury, making it impossible to determine how the jury reached its verdict. The case must be reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages alone, as appellate courts must ensure juries are not misled or confused by jury instructions.
[1] A jury verdict may be reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages alone when inconsistent jury instructions may have confused or misled the jury.
[2] When jury instructions regarding damages and the method of calculating negligence are inconsistent, the appellate court cannot determine how the jury reached its verdict.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Unquestionably, the trial court endeavored to fully and fairly instruct the jury, as required by settled law. Yet it is not controverted that the instructions were inconsistent.”
Establishes the core problem: despite good faith effort, the jury instructions contained conflicting directions regarding damage calculation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBeatrice Schlein was injured when her car collided with a train operated by Florida East Coast Railway Co. A jury verdict found Beatrice Schlein 75% n…
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 General Verdict Form cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs, Beatrice Schlein and her husband Philip Schlein, appeal from a final judgment in favor of plaintiffs pursuant to a jury verdict for injuries sustained by Beatrice Schlein when the car in which she was driving collided with defendant’s train.
The trial court propounded special interrogatories to the jury, whereupon the jury returned a verdict finding Beatrice Schlein 75% negligent and defendant 25% negligent. The total amount of her damages was found to be $25,000. The trial court reduced the damages by 75%, entering a final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for $6,250.
Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in reducing the plaintiffs’ verdict by the percentage of Beatrice Schlein’s negligence after the court had instructed the jury, pursuant to the applicable Florida Standard Jury Instructions,1 that the jury should award the total amount of damages sustained by plaintiffs, reduced by the same proportion that Beatrice Schlein’s negligence contributed to her loss, injury or damage.
After giving the above standard jury instructions, the trial court submitted a spe cial interrogatory form to the jury, requesting that it find the plaintiffs negligence, defendant’s negligence and the percentage of negligence of each party. With regard to damages, the special interrogatories questioned: “What is the total amount of damages, if any, you find that the plaintiff, Beatrice Schlein, has sustained as a legal result of the accident?”
Plaintiffs argue that the general verdict form under the Standard Jury Instructions mandates that the jury reduce the award and that when the trial court reduced the damage award, it amounted to a double reduction. Plaintiffs therefore urge that this court should reverse the trial court and direct it to enter judgment for $25,000, which amount plaintiffs say was initially reduced by the jury pursuant to the court’s instructions.
Defendant argues that the trial court carefully explained the special verdict form to the jury, that it was further explained by closing argument of counsel for the respective parties, and that the trial court therefore properly reduced the damages.
We do not agree with the arguments of either of the parties hereto. Unquestionably, the trial court endeavored to fully and fairly instruct the jury, as required by settled law. Yet it is not controverted that the instructions were inconsistent. In view of the inconsistent instructions, there is no way at this time to determine how the jury reached its verdict. Appellate courts must inquire whether the jury was misled or confused by jury instructions. Jones v. Bucyrus-Erie Company, 323 So. 2d 633 (Fla.App.3d DCA 1975). In our opinion, the standard jury instruction as to damages together with the special interrogatories submitted to the jury may have confused or misled the jury, causing them to arrive at a conclusion which they may not otherwise have reached. Allstate Insurance Company v. Vanater, 297 So. 2d 293 (Fla.1974). We therefore reverse and remand this cause for trial as to damages alone.
Reversed and remanded.
. Florida Standard Jury Instructions 3.8 & 6.1.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lawrence v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 346 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 1977)…in the two-party incident case and cause a double reduction in damages when the jury attempts to apply the directions of the standard jury instruction on comparative negligence to the special verdict form. See Schlein v. Florida East Coast Railway, 339 So. 2d 1142 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). We have been ever vigilant in our system of jurisprudence to insure the sanctity of jury deliberations. In complex cases where, in the discretion of the trial judge, a special verdict is essential to proper application of the rul…
-
Adkins v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 351 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…e jury reached its verdict or what it intended. When a reviewing court is of the opinion that conflicting instructions may have misled or confused the jury, the cause [*1091] must be remanded for new trial. Schlein v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 339 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). In the instant case, it is not disputed that the jury instructions regarding reduction of damages were directly contradictory. There is nothing in the record indicating which of the two instructions the jury followed. In light o…
-
Triple R Paving, Inc. v. Broward Cnty., 774 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…he verdict form rather than following the jury instruction.” Hence, reversal is required where the jury could have been misled or confused by a verdict form which is inconsistent with the jury instructions. See Schlein v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., 339 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The damages at issue are damages which are awarded, pursuant to Ei-chleay, to a government contractor who suffers “unabsorbed home office overhead when the government delays work on the contract indefinitely but requires the con…
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
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Vanater, 297 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1974)
- Anisa Jones v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 323 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)