Instruction 422 [Providing Alcoholic Beverages to Obviously Intoxicated Minors [Bus. & Prof. Code, § 25602.1]]
The plaintiff claims the defendant is responsible for her harm because the defendant sold or gave alcoholic beverages to a minor who was already obviously intoxicated.
To establish this claim, the plaintiff must prove all of the following:
1. That the defendant was [required to be] licensed to sell alcoholic beverages; or that the defendant was authorized by the federal government to sell alcoholic beverages on a military base or other federal enclave;
2. That the defendant sold or gave alcoholic beverages to a minor; or that the defendant caused alcoholic beverages to be sold or given away to the minor;
3. That the minor was less than 21 years old at the time;
4. That when the defendant provided the alcoholic beverages, the minor displayed symptoms that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that she was obviously intoxicated;
5. That the minor harmed the plaintiff; and
6. That the defendant’s selling or giving alcoholic beverages to the minor was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.
In deciding whether the minor was obviously intoxicated, you may consider whether she displayed one or more of the following symptoms to the defendant before the alcoholic beverages were provided: impaired judgment; alcoholic breath; incoherent or slurred speech; poor muscular coordination; staggering or unsteady walk or loss of balance; loud, boisterous, or argumentative conduct; flushed face; or other symptoms of intoxication. The mere fact that the minor had been drinking is not enough.
Instruction 423 [Public Entity Liability for Failure to Perform Mandatory Duty]:
The plaintiff claims that she was harmed because the defendant violated a statute, regulation, or ordinance. To establish this claim, the plaintiff must prove all of the following:
1. That the defendant violated the statute, regulation, or ordinance;
2. That the plaintiff was harmed; and
3. That the defendant’s failure to perform its duty was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.
The defendant, however, is not responsible for the plaintiff’s harm if the defendant proves that it made reasonable efforts to perform its duties under the statute, regulation, or ordinance.
Instruction 424 [Negligence Not Contested—Essential Factual Elements]:
The plaintiff claims that she was harmed by the defendant’s negligence. The defendant agrees that he was negligent, but denies that the negligence caused the plaintiff harm or the full extent of the harm claimed by the plaintiff.
To establish her claim against the defendant, the plaintiff must prove both of the following:
1. That the plaintiff was harmed; and
2. That the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.
Instruction 425 [“Gross Negligence” Explained]:
Gross negligence is the lack of any care or an extreme departure from what a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation to prevent harm to oneself or to others. A person can be grossly negligent by acting or by failing to act.
Instruction 426 [Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention of Employee]:
The plaintiff claims that she was harmed by an employee and that employer defendant is responsible for that harm because employer defendant negligently hired, supervised or retained the employee. To establish this claim, the plaintiff must prove all of the following:
1. That the employer defendant hired the employee;
2. That the employee was or became unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired;
3. That employer defendant knew or should have known that the employee was or become unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence created a particular risk to others;
4. That the employee’s unfitness or incompetence harmed the plaintiff; and
5. That the employer defendant’s negligence in hiring, supervising or retaining the employee was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.
Instruction 427 [Furnishing Alcoholic Beverages to Minors [Civ. Code, § 1714[d]]]:
The plaintiff claims the defendant is responsible for her harm because the defendant furnished alcoholic beverages to her at the defendant’s home.
To establish this claim, the plaintiff must prove all of the following:
1. That the defendant was an adult;
2. That the defendant knowingly furnished alcoholic beverages to the plaintiff at the defendant’s home;
3. That the defendant knew or should have known that the plaintiff was less than 21 years old at the time;
4. That the plaintiff was harmed the minor; and
5. That the defendant’s furnishing alcoholic beverages to the plaintiff was a substantial factor in causing her harm.
Instruction 428 [Parental Liability [Nonstatutory]]:
The plaintiff claims that she was harmed because of the defendant’s negligent supervision of a minor. To establish this claim, the plaintiff must prove all of the following:
1. That the defendant observed the minor’s dangerous behavior that led to the plaintiff’s injury or was aware of the minor’s habits or tendencies that created an unreasonable risk of harm to other persons;
2. That the defendant had the opportunity and ability to control the conduct of the minor;
3. That the defendant was negligent because he failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the minor’s conduct or take reasonable precautions to prevent harm to others;
4. That the plaintiff was harmed; and
5. That the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.
Instruction 429 [Negligent Sexual Transmission of Disease]:
The plaintiff claims that the defendant sexually transmitted a sexually transmitted disease to her. The defendant may be negligent for this transmission if the plaintiff proves that the defendant knew, or had reason to know, that he was infected.
Instruction 430 [Causation: Substantial Factor]:
A substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the harm. It must be more than a remote or trivial factor. It does not have to be the only cause of the harm. Conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct.
Instruction 431 [Causation: Multiple Causes]:
A person’s negligence may combine with another factor to cause harm. If you find that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm, then the defendant is responsible for the harm. The defendant cannot avoid responsibility just because some other person, condition, or event was also a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.
Instruction 432 [Affirmative Defense—Causation: Third-Party Conduct as Superseding Cause]:
The defendant claims that he is not responsible for the plaintiff’s harm because of the later misconduct of a third party. To avoid legal responsibility for the harm, the defendant must prove all of the following:
1. That the third party’s conduct occurred after the conduct of the defendant;
2. That a reasonable person would consider the third party’s conduct as a highly unusual or an extraordinary response to the situation;
3. That the defendant did not know and had no reason to expect that the third party would act in a negligent or wrongful manner; and
4. That the kind of harm resulting from the third party’s conduct was different from the kind of harm that could have been reasonably expected from the defendant’s conduct.
Instruction 433 [Affirmative Defense—Causation: Intentional Tort/Criminal Act as Superseding Cause]:
The defendant claims that he is not responsible for the plaintiff’s harm because of the later criminal or intentional conduct of a third party. The defendant is not responsible for the plaintiff’s harm if the defendant proves the following:
1. That the third party committed an intentional or criminal act;
2. That the third party’s intentional or criminal conduct happened after the conduct of the defendant; and
3. That the defendant did not know and could not have reasonably foreseen that another person would be likely to take advantage of the situation created by the defendant’s conduct to commit this type of act.
Instruction 434 [Alternative Causation]:
You may decide that more than one of the defendants was negligent, but that the negligence of only one of them could have actually caused the plaintiff’s harm. If you cannot decide which defendant caused the plaintiff’s harm, you must decide that each defendant is responsible for the harm.
However, if a defendant proves that he did not cause the plaintiff’s harm, then you must conclude that defendant is not responsible.
Instruction 435 [Causation for Asbestos-Related Cancer Claims]:
A substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the harm. It does not have to be the only cause of the harm.
The plaintiff may prove that exposure to asbestos from the defendant’s product, activities, property, or operations was a substantial factor causing her illness by showing, through expert testimony, that there is a reasonable medical probability that the exposure was a substantial factor contributing to her risk of developing cancer.
[Judicial Council Of California Civil Jury Instructions]
