Instruction 400 [Negligence—Essential Factual Elements]:
The plaintiff claims that she was harmed by the defendant’s negligence. To establish this claim, the plaintiff must prove all of the following:
1. That the defendant was negligent;
2. That the plaintiff was harmed; and
3. That the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.
Instruction 401 [Basic Standard of Care]:
Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care to prevent harm to oneself or to others.
A person can be negligent by acting or by failing to act. A person is negligent if that person does something that a reasonably careful person would not do in the same situation or fails to do something that a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation.
You must decide how a reasonably careful person would have acted in the defendant’s situation.
Instruction 402 [Standard of Care for Minors]:
The plaintiff/the defendant is a child who was _ years old at the time of the incident. Children are not held to the same standards of behavior as adults. A child is required to use the amount of care that a reasonably careful child of the same age, intelligence, knowledge, and experience would use in that same situation.
Instruction 403 [Standard of Care for Physically Disabled Person]:
A person with a physical disability is required to use the amount of care that a reasonably careful person who has the same physical disability would use in the same situation.
Instruction 404 [Intoxication]:
A person is not necessarily negligent just because that person used alcohol or drugs. However, people who drink alcohol or take drugs must act just as carefully as those who do not.
Instruction 405 [Comparative Fault of Plaintiff]:
The defendant claims that the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to her harm. To succeed on this claim, the defendant must prove both of the following:
1. That the plaintiff was negligent; and
2. That the plaintiff’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing her harm.
If the defendant proves the above, the plaintiff’s damages are reduced by your determination of the percentage of the plaintiff’s responsibility. I will calculate the actual reduction.
Instruction 406 [Apportionment of Responsibility]:
The defendant claims that the negligence/fault of a nonparty contributed to the plaintiff’s harm. To succeed on this claim, the defendant must prove both of the following:
1. That the nonparty was negligent/at fault; and
2. That the negligence/fault of the nonparty was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.
If you find that the negligence/fault of more than one person including the defendant and the plaintiff and the nonparty was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm, you must then decide how much responsibility each has by assigning percentages of responsibility to each person listed on the verdict form. The percentages must total 100 percent.
You will make a separate finding of the plaintiff’s total damages, if any. In determining an amount of damages, you should not consider any person’s assigned percentage of responsibility.
[“Person” can mean an individual or a business entity.]
Instruction 407 [Comparative Fault of Decedent]:
The defendant claims that the decedent’s own negligence contributed to her death. To succeed on this claim, the defendant must prove both of the following:
1. That the decedent was negligent; and
2. That the decedent’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing her death.
If the defendant proves the above, the plaintiff’s damages are reduced by your determination of the percentage of the decedent’s responsibility. I will calculate the actual reduction.
Instruction 411 [Reliance on Good Conduct of Others]:
Every person has a right to expect that every other person will use reasonable care [and will not violate the law], unless that person knows, or should know, that the other person will not use reasonable care [or will violate the law].
Instruction 412 [Duty of Care Owed Children]:
An adult must anticipate the ordinary behavior of children. An adult must be more careful when dealing with children than with other adults.
Instruction 413 [Custom or Practice]:
You may consider customs or practices in the community in deciding whether the plaintiff/the defendant acted reasonably. Customs and practices do not necessarily determine what a reasonable person would have done in the plaintiff/the defendant’s situation. They are only factors for you to consider.
Following a custom or practice does not excuse conduct that is unreasonable. You should consider whether the custom or practice itself is reasonable.
Instruction 414 [Amount of Caution Required in Dangerous Situations]:
People must be extremely careful when they deal with dangerous items or participate in dangerous activities. The dangerous item or activity is dangerous in and of itself. The risk of harm is so great that the failure to use extreme caution is negligence.
Instruction 415 [Employee Required to Work in Dangerous Situations]:
An employee required to work under dangerous conditions must use the amount of care for her own safety that a reasonably careful employee would use under the same conditions.
In deciding whether the plaintiff was negligent, you should consider how much attention her work demanded. You should also consider whether the plaintiff’s job required her to take risks that a reasonably careful person would not normally take under ordinary circumstances.
Instruction 416 [Amount of Caution Required in Transmitting Electric Power]:
People and companies must be very careful in constructing, insulating, inspecting, maintaining, and repairing power lines and transmission equipment at all places where it is reasonably probable that they will cause harm to persons or property.
Instruction 417 [Res ipsa loquitur]:
The plaintiff may prove that the defendant’s negligence caused her harm if she proves all of the following:
1. That the plaintiff’s harm ordinarily would not have happened unless someone was negligent;
2. That the harm was caused by something that only the defendant controlled; and
3. That the plaintiff’s voluntary actions did not cause or contribute to the event[s] that harmed her.
If you decide that the plaintiff did not prove one or more of these three things, you must decide whether the defendant was negligent in light of the other instructions I have read.
If you decide that the plaintiff proved all of these three things, you may, but are not required to, find that the defendant was negligent or that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm, or both.
The defendant contends that she was not negligent or that her negligence, if any, did not cause the plaintiff’s harm. If after weighing all of the evidence, you believe that it is more probable than not that the defendant was negligent and that his negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm, you must decide in favor of the plaintiff. Otherwise, you must decide in favor of the defendant.
Instruction 418 [Presumption of Negligence per se]:
If the plaintiff/the defendant proves:
1. That the plaintiff/the defendant violated this law and
2. That the violation was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm,
then you must find that the plaintiff/the defendant was negligent, unless you also find that the violation was excused.
If you find that the plaintiff/the defendant did not violate this law or that the violation was not a substantial factor in bringing about the harm or if you find the violation was excused, then you must still decide whether the plaintiff/the defendant was negligent in light of the other instructions.
Instruction 419 [Presumption of Negligence per se [Causation Only at Issue]]:
A violation of this law has been established and is not an issue for you to decide. However, you must decide whether the violation was excused. If it was not excused, then you must decide whether the violation was a substantial factor in harming the plaintiff. If you decide that the violation was a substantial factor, then you must find that the plaintiff/the defendant was negligent.
Instruction 420 [Negligence per se: Rebuttal of the Presumption of Negligence—Violation Excused]:
A violation of a law is excused if the plaintiff/the defendant proves that one of the following is true:
(a) The violation was reasonable because of the plaintiff/the defendant’s incapacity;
(b) Despite using reasonable care, the plaintiff/the defendant was not able to obey the law;
(c) The plaintiff/the defendant faced an emergency that was not caused by her/his own misconduct;
(d) Obeying the law would have involved a greater risk of harm to the plaintiff/the defendant’s or to others; [or]
(e) [Other reason excusing or justifying noncompliance.
Instruction 421 [Negligence per se: Rebuttal of the Presumption of Negligence [Violation of Minor Excused]]:
The plaintiff/the defendant claims that even if she/he violated the law, she/he is not negligent because she/he was _ years old at the time of the incident. If you find that the plaintiff/the defendant was as careful as a reasonably careful child of the same age, intelligence, knowledge, and experience would have been in the same situation, then the plaintiff/the defendant was not negligent.
[Judicial Council Of California Civil Jury Instructions]
