two-issue rule in Florida

2024Corp., 383 So. 2d 618, 619 (Fla. 1980) (affirming that the two-issue rule provides “that where there is no proper objection to the use of a general verdict, reversal is improper where no error is found as to one of two issues submitted to the jury on the basis that the appellant is unable to establish that he has been prejudiced.”); Mason v. Fla. Sheriffs' Self-Insurance Fund, 699 So. 2d 268, 270 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (“Insurance contracts must be read in light of the skill and experience of ordinary people, and be given their everyday meaning as understood by the ‘man on the street.’”); Mejia v

2021Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997). 23 provides that “where there is no proper objection to the use of a general verdict, reversal is improper where no error is found as to one of two issues submitted to the jury on the basis that the appellant is unable to establish that he has been prejudiced.” 10 Whitman v. Castlewood Int’l Corp., 383 So. 2d 618, 619 (Fla. 1980) (noting that the Florida Supreme Court adopted the two-issue rule in Colonial Stores).

2021The Florida Supreme Court adopted the two-issue rule in Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Scarbrough, 355 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1977).

2021The two-issue rule “is based on the principle that reversal is improper when no error is found as to one of the issues that can independently support the jury’s verdict.” Id. at 261 (citing Colonial Stores, 355 So. 2d at 1186 ).

2004The Florida Supreme Court's holding in First Interstate Development Corp. v. Ablanedo, 511 So.2d 536, 538 (Fla.1987), supports this distinction: "the two-issue rule does not apply when two distinct claims for liability result in separate claims for damages in the same action." 2.B.

1993The two issue rule provides that "where there is no proper objection to the use of a general verdict, reversal is improper where no error is found as to one of two issues submitted to the jury on the basis that the appellant is unable to establish that he has been prejudiced," WHITMAN v. CASTLEWOOD INTERNATIONAL CORP., 383 So.2d 618, 619 (Fla. 1980), quoted in FIRST INTERSTATE DEVELOPMENT v. ABLANEDO, 511 So.2d 536, 538 (Fla. 1987); see also, MASER v. FIORETTI, 498 So.2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); JACKSONVILLE RACING ASSOCIATION v. HARRISON, 530 So.2d 1001, 1005 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).

2021In addressing the two-issue rule, the Florida Supreme Court in Barth v. Khubani, 748 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1999), stated: When a general verdict for the plaintiff is on review, the rule is applied by focusing on the causes of action, such that an appellate claim of error raised by the defendant as to one cause of action cannot be the basis for reversal where two or more theories of liability (or causes of action) were presented to the jury.

2021The two-issue rule “is based on the principle that reversal is improper when no error is found as to one of the issues that can independently support the jury’s verdict.” Id. at 261 (citing Colonial Stores, 355 So. 2d at 1186 ).

2001The court recognized that this court had refused to apply the two-issue rule under similar circumstances in LoBue v. Travelers Insurance Co., 388 So.2d 1349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

1989Co., 388 So.2d 1349 -51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), rev. denied, 397 So.2d 777 (Fla. 1981), that the two-issue rule should not be extended to require a claimant to specifically demonstrate, by special interrogatory verdict, the precise element a jury found lacking in a single cause of action.

2003The Fourth District rejected this argument: After Gonzalez [v. Leon, 511 So.2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)] and Barhoush [v. Louis, 452 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)], the Florida Supreme Court clarified that the two-issue rule applies only to actions brought on two theories of liability.

2001The panel in Barhoush acknowledged that the two issue rule did not directly control the result because the case being decided did not involve a "classic application" but it did, however, conclude that the rule had "analogous application" to the case. 452 So.2d at 1076-1077 .

2021For instance, in products liability, the claim can be brought on both negligence and breach of implied warranty, but the measure of damages for the resulting personal injury is the same.”). 19 See Grenitz v. Tomlian, 858 So. 2d 999, 1006 (Fla. 2003) (“[T]he two-issue rule does not apply where, as here, the two ‘defenses’ involved comprised separate elements of proof (breach of duty and proximate cause) necessary for the plaintiffs to prevail on a single cause of action (negligence).”). 42 negligence and the unseaworthiness claims—the only two claims submitted to the jury in the general verdict

2019In Tomlian v. Grenitz, 782 So.2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), approved in part, disapproved in part, Grenitz v. Tomlian, 858 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 2003), we made clear that -3- the two-issue rule did not apply to single theory claims, even if multiple elements of that claim were in dispute.

1996In Odom v. Carney, 625 So.2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), this court stated that “[u]n-der the two issue rule, when multiple issues are submitted for resolution to the jury in a general verdict form, and one of the issues is without error, then the court must presume that all issues were decided in favor of the prevailing party-” Id. at 851 .

1996In Odom v. Carney, 625 So.2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), this court stated that “[u]n-der the two issue rule, when multiple issues are submitted for resolution to the jury in a general verdict form, and one of the issues is without error, then the court must presume that all issues were decided in favor of the prevailing party-” Id. at 851 .

2012The committee notes,-however, that -the two issue rule-may be-implicated if both tests ■ of-dosign defect-are used. — Zimmer Inc. v. Birnbaum, 758 So.2d 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

2004As this court explained in Zimmer, Inc. v. Birnbaum, 758 So.2d 714, 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), the two-issue rule provides: "where there is no proper objection to the use of a general verdict, reversal is improper where no error is found as to one of two issues submitted to the jury on the basis that the appellant is unable to establish that he has been prejudiced." The two-issue rule is inapplicable here because the rule applies — in the case of a losing defendant — only to actions brought on two theories of liability, as to which just a single basis for damages applies, not to claims in which

2021See Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. Perez-Melendez, 855 So. 2d 624, 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (applying the two-issue rule after noting that “[e]ncased within the same count of the complaint are four separate theories of liability”); Variety Child.’s Hosp., Inc. v. Perkins, 382 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (holding that because the general verdict form does not reveal whether the jury found against the hospital because of the actions of the residents, the nurses, or both, this Court was “compelled conclusively to presume that the verdict was grounded, at least in part, on the nurses’ negligence, as to

1987See also Variety Children's Hospital v. Perkins, 382 So.2d 331 (where jury's general verdict against defendant-hospital could have been based on finding that hospital was vicariously liable for the sufficiently-proved negligence of its nurses, the two-issue rule prevented the hospital from showing that it was harmed by trial court's error in refusing to give "borrowed servant" instruction that would have allowed the jury to find that surgeon, not hospital, was liable for the negligence of the hospital's resident physicians).

2019In Tomlian v. Grenitz, 782 So.2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), approved in part, disapproved in part, Grenitz v. Tomlian, 858 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 2003), we made clear that -3- the two-issue rule did not apply to single theory claims, even if multiple elements of that claim were in dispute.

2003The district court also rejected the argument that the error was not preserved because of the two-issue rule, which provides that "where two issues are submitted to a jury, only one of which is infected with error, the appellate court will assume the jury found for the prevailing party on the issue which was error-free, unless it can be determined from the form of verdict that the error was prejudicial." Tomlian, 782 So.2d at 906 (citing Whitman v. Castlewood Int'l Corp., 383 So.2d 618 (Fla.1980)).

2001Brown v. Sims, 538 So.2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

1994We agree with the statement of the court in Brown v. Sims, 538 So.2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), quashed in part, 574 So.2d 131 (Fla. 1991), that where there is an erroneous ruling on the admission of evidence, a judgment is sustainable under the two-issue rule only if the issue which the appellee relies upon as an alternative ground for affirmance is not also affected by the prejudicial evidentiary ruling.

2021See Chua v. Hilbert, 846 So. 2d 1179, 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

2021Contrary to Royal Caribbean’s argument, therefore, the Court in Barth was referring to the allegations that give rise to substantively separate legal obligations or defenses, not merely the headings of various counts in a complaint. 44 Similarly, in Chua, the Fourth District applied the two-issue rule to uphold a general verdict for the plaintiff in a medical malpractice case. 846 So. 2d at 1182 .

2021See Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. Perez-Melendez, 855 So. 2d 624, 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (applying the two-issue rule after noting that “[e]ncased within the same count of the complaint are four separate theories of liability”); Variety Child.’s Hosp., Inc. v. Perkins, 382 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (holding that because the general verdict form does not reveal whether the jury found against the hospital because of the actions of the residents, the nurses, or both, this Court was “compelled conclusively to presume that the verdict was grounded, at least in part, on the nurses’ negligence, as to

2021See, e.g., Whitman, 383 So. 2d at 619 (applying two-issue rule to general verdict for plaintiff where the different theories of liability were failure to provide safe premises for invitee and negligence of agent in committing act); Henderson, 895 So. 2d at 1208 (applying two-issue rule to general verdict for plaintiff where the different theories of liability were failure to maintain property and failure to warn); Perez-Melendez, 855 So. 2d at 627 (applying two-issue rule to general verdict for plaintiff where the different theories of liability were failure to maintain property, failure to co

2021See, e.g., Whitman, 383 So. 2d at 619 (applying two-issue rule to general verdict for plaintiff where the different theories of liability were failure to provide safe premises for invitee and negligence of agent in committing act); Henderson, 895 So. 2d at 1208 (applying two-issue rule to general verdict for plaintiff where the different theories of liability were failure to maintain property and failure to warn); Perez-Melendez, 855 So. 2d at 627 (applying two-issue rule to general verdict for plaintiff where the different theories of liability were failure to maintain property, failure to co

2021See, e.g., Whitman, 383 So. 2d at 619 (applying two-issue rule to general verdict for plaintiff where the different theories of liability were failure to provide safe premises for invitee and negligence of agent in committing act); Henderson, 895 So. 2d at 1208 (applying two-issue rule to general verdict for plaintiff where the different theories of liability were failure to maintain property and failure to warn); Perez-Melendez, 855 So. 2d at 627 (applying two-issue rule to general verdict for plaintiff where the different theories of liability were failure to maintain property, failure to co

2024Corp., 383 So. 2d 618, 619 (Fla. 1980) (affirming that the two-issue rule provides “that where there is no proper objection to the use of a general verdict, reversal is improper where no error is found as to one of two issues submitted to the jury on the basis that the appellant is unable to establish that he has been prejudiced.”); Mason v. Fla. Sheriffs' Self-Insurance Fund, 699 So. 2d 268, 270 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (“Insurance contracts must be read in light of the skill and experience of ordinary people, and be given their everyday meaning as understood by the ‘man on the street.’”); Mejia v

2021Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997). 23 provides that “where there is no proper objection to the use of a general verdict, reversal is improper where no error is found as to one of two issues submitted to the jury on the basis that the appellant is unable to establish that he has been prejudiced.” 10 Whitman v. Castlewood Int’l Corp., 383 So. 2d 618, 619 (Fla. 1980) (noting that the Florida Supreme Court adopted the two-issue rule in Colonial Stores).

2021After determining that the evidence was improperly admitted, the appellate court declined to apply the two-issue rule because the evidence 47 was “highly prejudicial to [the] plaintiff’s entire case.” Id. at 102 (citing Kane Furniture Corp. v. Miranda, 506 So. 2d 1061, 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)).

2021The two-issue rule is applicable if the jury could have ruled on a theory of liability that is not affected by an issue raised on 10 In its reply brief, Royal Caribbean correctly stated that the jury verdict was a “general verdict form.” See Turner v. Fitzsimmons, 673 So. 2d 542 , 534 n.1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“A special verdict, as distinguished from a general verdict, is one in which the jury in a civil case resolves the disputed facts in separate findings based on the evidence presented to it, referring the decision on the facts found as a matter of law to the court.”). 24 appeal.

2021The two-issue rule is applicable if the jury could have ruled on a theory of liability that is not affected by an issue raised on 10 In its reply brief, Royal Caribbean correctly stated that the jury verdict was a “general verdict form.” See Turner v. Fitzsimmons, 673 So. 2d 542 , 534 n.1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“A special verdict, as distinguished from a general verdict, is one in which the jury in a civil case resolves the disputed facts in separate findings based on the evidence presented to it, referring the decision on the facts found as a matter of law to the court.”). 24 appeal.

2021See, e.g., Whitman, 383 So. 2d at 619 (applying two-issue rule to general verdict for plaintiff where the different theories of liability were failure to provide safe premises for invitee and negligence of agent in committing act); Henderson, 895 So. 2d at 1208 (applying two-issue rule to general verdict for plaintiff where the different theories of liability were failure to maintain property and failure to warn); Perez-Melendez, 855 So. 2d at 627 (applying two-issue rule to general verdict for plaintiff where the different theories of liability were failure to maintain property, failure to co

2021See, e.g., Whitman, 383 So. 2d at 619 (applying two-issue rule to general verdict for plaintiff where the different theories of liability were failure to provide safe premises for invitee and negligence of agent in committing act); Henderson, 895 So. 2d at 1208 (applying two-issue rule to general verdict for plaintiff where the different theories of liability were failure to maintain property and failure to warn); Perez-Melendez, 855 So. 2d at 627 (applying two-issue rule to general verdict for plaintiff where the different theories of liability were failure to maintain property, failure to co

2019Whitman v. Castlewood Int’l Corp., 383 So. 2d 618, 619 (Fla. 1980) (“[W]here there is no proper objection to the use of a general verdict, reversal is improper where no error is found as to one of two issues submitted to the jury on the basis that the appellant is unable to establish that he has been prejudiced”); see also Liggett Group, Inc. v. Davis, 973 So. 2d 467, 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (declining to apply the two-issue rule where “a general verdict form was submitted, without objection”). 9 for a new trial on the negligence and conspiracy claims, and on compensatory damages, comparative

2010See Sears Roebuck v. Jackson, 433 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); (2) Review of the point is barred by the two-issue rule because of an unobjected to general verdict and ample evidence of alternative theories of liability.