Lockaby Ex Rel. Estate of Lockaby v. JLG Industries, Inc. ( 2007 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 11, 2007
No. 06-10517
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 04-60040-CV-WPD
PATRICIA A. LOCKABY, as
Personal Representative of the
Estate of Perry E. Lockaby,
for the use and benefit of the
Estate of Perry E. Lockaby,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JLG INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(May 11, 2007)
Before BIRCH and FAY, Circuit Judges, and CUDAHY,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
__________________________________________________________________
*Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by
designation.
This is a wrongful death case arising from the tragic death of a man crushed
between a scissor lift and a backhoe. At the conclusion of a jury trial, verdicts were
returned in favor of the defendant/appellee. The jury found specifically that the
scissor lift was not a defective product and that the defendant had not been guilty of
negligence.
The only issue raised in this appeal challenges the jury instruction dealing with
the defense of misuse of the product. We review a challenged jury instruction ‘as part
of the entire charge, in view of the allegations of the complaint, the evidence
presented, and the arguments of counsel, to determine whether the jury was misled
and whether the jury understood the issues.’” National Distillers and Chemical Corp.
v. Brad's Machine Products, Inc., 666 F.2d 492, 497 (11th Cir.1982) (quoting First
Virginia Bankshares v. Benson, 559 F.2d 1307, 1316 (5th Cir.1977)); U.S. v.
Johnson, 139 F.3d 1359, 1366 (11th Cir.1998). We assume that jurors carefully
follow instructions for this assumption underpins our constitutional system of trial by
jury. See Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 324 (U.S. 1985). Although we consider
a district court’s jury instructions under a deferential standard of review, Eskra v.
Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 125 F.3d 1406, 1415 (11th Cir.1997), we will reverse
and order a new trial where the instructions do not accurately reflect the law, and the
2
instructions as a whole do not correctly instruct the jury. Carter v. DecisionOne Corp.
through C.T. Corp. Sys., 122 F.3d 997, 1005 (11th Cir.1997) (quoting Johnson v.
Bryant, 671 F.2d 1276, 1280 (11th Cir.1982)).
In this case the jury was instructed orally and given a written version of the
instructions for use during deliberations. Pursuant to these instructions the jury was
to first decide whether or not the plaintiff had proved the allegations of negligence.
In response to a special interrogatory, the jury said “no.” Next the jury was instructed
to consider the claim of product liability and whether or not the scissor lift was
defective. In response to another special interrogatory, the jury said “no.” Under the
jury instructions this ended the case and their deliberations. There was no need for
the jury to consider the issue of misuse and we find nothing about the instruction that
would have confused or misled the jury in its deliberations as to the issues of
negligence or product liability (defective product).
Finding no error we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3