Florida Power & Light Co. v. McCollum, 140 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1962). · Go Syfert
Search
Florida Power & Light Co. v. McCollum, 140 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1962). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
42 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. v. BERNICE MCCALL (fladistctapp, 2017-12-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1962 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1962 1994 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. v. BERNICE MCCALL
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Goldschmidt v. Holman, 571 So. 2d 422, 425 (Fla. 1990) (quoting Fla. Power & Light Co. v. McCollum, 140 So. 2d 569, 569 (Fla. 1962)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Tullo
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Id. (quoting Fla. Power & Light v. McCollum, 140 So.2d 569, 569 (Fla.1962)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees v. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees & Moving Picture Machine Operators Holding Co.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
“A ‘miscarriage of justice’ arises where instructions are ‘reasonably calculated to confuse or mislead’ the jury.” Id. at 425 (quoting Fla. Power & Light Co. v. McCollum, 140 So.2d 569, 569 (Fla. 1962)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ryder TRS, Inc. v. Hirsch
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Florida Power & Light Co. v. McCollum, 140 So.2d 569, 569 (Fla.1962).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lewis v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Florida Power & Light Co. v. McCollum, 140 So.2d 569, 569 (Fla.1962).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Goldschmidt v. Holman
Fla. · 1990 · confidence medium
Florida Power & Light Co. v. McCollum, 140 So.2d 569, 569 (Fla. 1962).
discussed Cited "see" R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Linda Prentice, as Personal etc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fla. Power & Light Co. v. McCollum, 140 So. 2d 569, 569 (Fla. 1962) (concluding that the proper “inquiry is whether the jury might reasonably have been misled” and concluding that such constitutes a miscarriage of 3 Despite statements to the contrary in the dissent, our decision in Whitmire does not conflict with our earlier decision in R.J.
cited Cited "see" Triple R Paving, Inc. v. Broward County
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gross v. Lyons, 721 So.2d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(citing Florida Power & Light Co. v. McCollum, 140 So.2d 569 (Fla.1962)), dec. approved, 763 So.2d 276 (Fla.2000).
cited Cited "see" Gross v. Lyons
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Florida Power & Light Co. v. McCollum, 140 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1962); see also Goldschmidt v. Holman, 571 So.2d 422, 425 (Fla.1990).
cited Cited "see" Poole v. Lowell Dunn Co.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Florida Power & Light Company v. McCollum, 140 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1962).
discussed Cited "see" Smith v. Canevary
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Florida Power & Light Co. v. McCollum, 140 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1962); ITT-Nesbitt, Inc. v. Valle's Steak House of Fort Lauderdale, Inc., 395 So.2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. dismissed, 408 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 1981); American Nat'l Bank of Jacksonville v. Norris, 368 So.2d 897 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 342 (Fla. 1979).
cited Cited "see" Snedegar v. Arnone
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Florida Power & Light Co. v. McCollum, 140 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1962).
cited Cited "see" St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Welsh
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Florida Power and Light Company v. McCollum, 140 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1962).
cited Cited "see" Aragon v. Florida Equipment Co. of Miami
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Florida Power & Light Company v. McCollum, 140 So.2d 569 (Fla.1962); and see generally the principles of law in Sirmons v. Pittman, 138 So.2d 765, 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962).
cited Cited "see" Republic Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Valdes
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See Florida Power & Light Company v. McCollum, 140 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1962).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Duignan
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Fla. Power & Light Co. v. McCollum, 140 So. 2d 569, 569 (Fla. 1962) (concluding that the proper "inquiry is whether the jury might reasonably have been misled" and concluding that such constitutes a miscarriage of justice under the civil harmless error statute in effect at the time); Gerard v. Kenegson, 151 So. 2d 26, 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963) ("In view of the fact that instruction . . . was erroneous[,] and since the instruction can be reasonably calculated to confuse and mislead the jury, the giving of the instruction was error."); Veliz v. Am.
cited Cited "see, e.g." METRO. DADE COUNTY v. Yearby
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Florida Power & Light Co. v. McCollum, 140 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1962); Smith v. Canevary, 553 So.2d 1312, 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); § 90.106, Fla. Stat. (1989).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Butler v. State
Fla. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Florida Power and Light Co. v. McCollum, 140 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1962); Shannon v. State, 463 So.2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Veliz v. American Hospital, Inc., 414 So.2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 424 So.2d 760 (1982).
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Petitioner,
v.
Sandra Ann McCOLLUM, As Widow of Eddie Mack McCollum, Respondent.
31262.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jan 31, 1962.
140 So. 2d 569
Drew.
Cited by 38 opinions  |  Published

Brigham, Wright, Goodwin & Dence, E.F.P. Brigham and George W. Wright, Jr., Miami, for petitioner.

Kelner & Lewis and Fred Patrox, Miami, for respondent.

DREW, Justice.

The petition for writ of certiorari in this cause is addressed to a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reversing a judgment in an action for wrongful death. The court, in reaching its conclusion as to reversible error in instructions to the jury, found that "It is possible that the jury was not misled but we cannot say that they were not." (Emphasis supplied.)[1] Because of the language noted, the decision is alleged to be in direct conflict with holdings upon the same point of law in First National Bank in Orlando v. Roberts:[2] "To warrant the appellate court to reverse a judgment for an erroneous instruction, the court must be satisfied that the jury was misled," (Emphasis supplied) citing Hooker v. Johnson.[3] Jurisdiction in this Court rests upon this prima facie conflict.

Any contradiction between the cases is, we think largely one of words, resulting from language taken out of context. A full consideration of the authorities reflects no intent to adopt an entirely subjective test as to whether a particular jury was actually misled, but instead the inquiry is whether the jury might reasonably have been misled. The requirement, in statutory language, is that an error must have "resulted in a miscarriage of justice."[4] Such a miscarriage results when instructions are not only erroneous but also, as found in the instant case, reasonably calculated to confuse or mislead.[5]

[*570] We find no real inconsistency between this principle, expressly recognized in the opinion of the district court herein, and the statement first above quoted from the opinion. To any extent, however, that the opinion may imply that an erroneous instruction ipso facto invalidates the verdict, the language stands corrected to conform with the established rule of the cases. In all other particulars, the disposition of the cause is approved.

Writ discharged.

ROBERTS, C.J., and HOBSON, THORNAL and O'CONNELL, JJ., concur.

1 McCollum v. Florida Power & Light Co., 125 So.2d 754 (Fla.App. 1961).
3 10 Fla. 198 (1860).
4 Section 54.23, Florida Statutes 1961, F.S.A.:

"54.23 Harmless error; effect. — No judgment shall be set aside or reversed, or new trial granted by any court of the State of Florida in any cause, civil or criminal, on the ground of misdirection of the jury or the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, unless in the opinion of the court to which application is made, after an examination of the entire case it shall appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. This section shall be liberally construed."

5 Cases collected in 1 Fla.Pl. & Prac. 610, Appeals, Sec. 173.