Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Civ.) 403.18

If, however, the greater weight of the evidence supports [(claimant’s) claim] [one or more of (claimant’s) claims], then you shall consider the defense[s] raised by (defendant).

On the [first]* defense, the issue[s] for you to decide [is] [are]:

*The order in which the defenses are listed below is not necessarily the order in which the instruction should be given.

a. Comparative Negligence:

whether (claimant or person for whose injury or death claim is made) was [himself] [herself] negligent *in (describe alleged negligence) and, if so, whether that negligence was a contributing legal cause of the injury or damage to (claimant).

*If the jury has not been previously instructed on the definition of negligence, instruction 401.4 should be inserted here.

b. Apportionment of fault:

whether (identify additional person(s) or entit(y)(ies)) [was] [were] also [negligent] [at fault] [responsible] in (describe alleged negligence, fault, or responsibility); and, if so, whether that [negligence] [fault] [responsibility] was a contributing legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent, or person for whose injury claim is made).

c. Learned intermediary defense to failure to warn claims for products supplied through an intermediary:

whether (the defendant) provided reasonable instructions or warnings to (intermediary) and reasonably relied upon [it] [him] [her] to provide reasonable instructions or warnings to the user of (the product).

In determining whether (defendant) reasonably relied on (intermediary) to provide reasonable instructions or warnings to users of (the product), you may consider the nature and significance of the risk involved in using the product, the likelihood that (intermediary) would convey the instructions or warnings to the user of (the product), and the feasibility and effectiveness of (defendant) directly warning the user.