MICHAEL A. KUEBLER, AND PATRICIA KUEBLER, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, 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.
Appellants appeal a jury verdict in their favor against Florida Power and Light Company arising from a collision with a downed power line. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, rejecting arguments that the trial court erred in refusing to reinstruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur and that the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting reinstructions to the specific topic requested by the jury (the definition of negligence) rather than repeating the entire charge including res ipsa loquitur. The evidence was genuinely disputed regarding the cause of the fallen power line, and reasonable people could differ on the outcome, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial.
[1] A trial court has discretion to limit jury reinstructions to only those matters specifically requested by the jury.
[2] A trial court need not repeat the entire jury charge when responding to a jury's request for reinstruction.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“A trial court is granted substantial latitude on this matter. So long as the repeated instructions are complete on the issue in question, the scope of reinstruction is a matter of discretion for the trial court.”
Establishes the standard that trial courts need only respond to specific jury requests for reinstructions and have discretion over the scope of their response.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants' vehicle collided with a downed power line that was hanging over a highway. The trial court instructed the jury on negligence and res ipsa …
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 Manifest Weight Of The Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
FENNELLY, JOHN E., Associate Judge.
Appellants, plaintiffs below, appeal an adverse jury verdict in favor of the appel-lee and others. Although there were other defendants in the trial court, appeals were either not prosecuted against them or in the case of one defendant, an appeal was dismissed as untimely filed. The appellants contend that: 1. the trial court erred in refusing to reinstruct the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and 2. the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
The appellants’ claim arose out of a collision between their vehicle and a downed power line hanging over the highway.
The trial court, in accordance with the Florida Standard Jury Instructions, defined negligence for the jurors. The court also delivered the standard instruction on res ipsa loquitur. Shortly after retirement, the jury requested a reinstruction on the definition of negligence. After hearing argument of counsel, the court gave the jury the definition of negligence including a special instruction concerning negligence of electrical utilities.
The trial court, over appellant’s objection, did not reinstruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur. Florida law has long recognized that the trial court need only respond to specific requests for reinstruction and need not repeat the entire charge. See generally, Hedges v. State, 172 So. 2d 824 (Fla.1965).
A trial court is granted substantial latitude on this matter. So long as the repeated instructions are complete on the issue in question, the scope of reinstruction is a matter of discretion for the trial court. Griffin v. State, 414 So. 2d 1025 (Fla.1982).
Because the jury’s request for reinstruction was limited to a definition of negligence, and this request came almost immediately after the jury retired, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in limiting its reinstruction. Finding no abuse of discretion, we conclude no error has been demonstrated on this issue.
Appellant next argues that the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and therefore a new trial is warranted. A motion for new trial is also a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Kuebler, therefore, bears the burden of demonstrating an abuse of that discretion. Scandinavian World Cruises, Ltd. v. Cronin, 509 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
This discretionary power arises necessarily from the superior vantage point of the trial court. If reasonable people could differ concerning the propriety of that decision, no abuse of discretion is demonstrated. Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145 (Fla.1980).
After a careful review of the record and evidence, we conclude that the evidence was in dispute as to the cause of the fallen power line, and the appellant has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of a new trial.
Based on the foregoing, the judgment and verdict are affirmed.
ANSTEAD and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Baptist Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1980)
- Whitney v. Colonial INN, 172 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1965)
- Griffin v. State, 414 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 1982)
- Scandinavian World Cruises (bahamas) v. Cronin, 509 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)