839 So. 2d 482 - Smith v. Payne’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In returning your verdict in this case, you are to consider all of the fact and the instructions of law given to you, and then return your verdict by completing this form. When a verdict has been reached by nine of the twelve members of the jury, write out you answers to the following questions on this form and notify the bailiff that you have reached your verdict. 1. Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Beverly Busick was guilty of negligence (fault) which was the proximate contributing cause of the accident? 2. If your answer to Question 1 is "yes," please state the percentage of negligence (fault) for Beverly Busick as compared to all of the negligence (fault) which caused her own damages.______ percent 3. Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Susan St. John was guilty of any negligence (fault) which was a proximate contributing cause to Beverly Busick's damages? 4. If your answer to Question No. 3 is "yes," please state the percentage of negligence (fault) for Susan St. John as compared to all of the negligence (fault) which caused Beverly Busick's damages. ______ percent If you find that either of the drivers are not guilty of any negligence, enter a 0 in the blank for that person. THE TOTAL PERCENTAGES IN QUESTIONS NUMBERED 2 AND 4 MUST EQUAL 100 percent. 5. What is the total amount of any damages incurred by Beverly Busick as a result of the collision in question? $______”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 856 So. 2d 304 - Busick v. St. John

2. “[O]n appellate review, we do not isolate the individual instruction attacked, but rather we read all of the instructions as a whole. Defects in [a] specific instruction do not require reversal where all instructions taken as a whole fairly— although not perfectly—announce the applicable primary rules of law ... Where it may be fairly charged that one or more instructions may have been confusingly worded, we should not reverse if other instructions clear up the confusing points.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 856 So. 2d 304 - Busick v. St. John