JULIETA VANEGAS, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED MINOR, OBED ANTONIO VANEGAS, APPELLANT,
v.
A.J. CAPELETTI, INC., 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.
Julieta Vanegas, as personal representative of her deceased minor son's estate, appealed a jury verdict in favor of A.J. Capeletti, Inc. in a wrongful death action. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the legal effect of the defendant's violations of local ordinances and county code provisions.
Yes. The trial court erred in refusing to give the requested instruction because the instruction contained an accurate statement of law, the facts at trial supported giving the instruction, and the instruction was necessary for the jury to properly resolve the issues in the case. The refusal to instruct the jury was not harmless error.
[1] A trial court errs by refusing to give a requested jury instruction when the instruction accurately states the law, the facts support giving the instruction, and the inst…
[2] The failure to give a necessary jury instruction on the legal significance of statutory violations is not harmless error when other instructions and the verdict form do n…
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“the requested instruction(s) contained an accurate statement of the law, the facts in the case supported a giving of the instructions, and the instructions were necessary for the jury to properly resolve the issues in the case”
Establishes the legal standard for when a trial court must give a requested jury instruction
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis was a wrongful death action involving a deceased minor. At trial, evidence was presented regarding violations of a local ordinance and Miami-Dade…
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 Harmless Error Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEVIN, Judge.
Plaintiff appeals a final judgment in favor of defendant A.J. Capeletti, Inc. in a wrongful death action. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
We find error in the trial court’s refusal to give plaintiffs requested instruction as to the effect of defendant’s violations of a local ordinance and a Miami-Dade County Code provision. The record reveals that “the requested instruction(s) contained an accurate statement of the law, the facts in the case supported a giving of the instructions, and the instructions were necessary for the jury to properly resolve the issues in the case.” Gonzalez v. Rose, 752 So. 2d 39, 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). First, Capelleti does not dispute .that the instruction requested is an accurate statement of the law. Second, the evidence at trial supported giving the requested instruction. Finally, the instruction was necessary for the jury’s proper resolution of the effect of the defendant’s alleged statutory violations. Contrary to the defendant’s argument, the remaining instructions, the verdict form, and the argument by plaintiffs counsel in closing, does not render the failure to give the requested instruction harmless. Failure to give the requested instruction left the jury to determine several pivotal questions in the case without the benefit of the court’s instruction. Neither the given instructions nor the verdict form advised the jury of the legal significance of defendant’s statutory violations. Cruz. Thus, refusal to instruct the jury on this point cannot be considered harmless. See Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corp., 693 So. 2d 934, 937-38 (Fla.1996); Seaboard Coastline R.R. Co. v. Addison, 502 So. 2d 1241 (Fla.1987).
The disposition of the instruction issue makes it unnecessary to reach the remaining issue on appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beeman v. Cosmides, 825 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…this case supported giving the instruction, as it was necessary for the jury to properly resolve the issue in this case. See Gonzalez v. Rose, 752 So. 2d 39, 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); see also Vanegas ex rel. Estate of Vanegas v. A.J. Capeletti, Inc., 796 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). We find no merit to the other issues raised.4 Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and remanded. . The jury returned a finding of no negligence on the part of both the Cosmides and Mr. Gomez. Initially, Mr. Gomez was…
Authorities Cited
- Seaboard Coastline R.R. Co. v. Addison, 502 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1987)
- Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corp., 693 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1996)
- Gonzalez v. Rose, 752 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)