California Jury Instruction - 1.1 Comparative Negligence Defense

• Category: Federal - Jury Instructions
• State: Multi-State
• Control #: US-11C-0-1-1
• Format: Word; Rich Text

Description

This form contains sample jury instructions, to be used across the United States. These questions are to be used only as a model, and should be altered to more perfectly fit your own cause of action needs. California Jury Instruction — 1.1 Comparative Negligence Defense is a legal instruction used in civil cases in California courts to guide jurors in determining the allocation of fault and liability in a negligence claim. This specific jury instruction addresses the defense of comparative negligence, which allows for the apportionment of damages between the plaintiff and defendant based on their respective degrees of fault. The Comparative Negligence Defense under California law acknowledges that both the plaintiff and defendant may have contributed to the injuries or damages suffered. By providing this instruction, the court aims to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of liability, taking into account the actions or negligence of both parties involved. Keywords: California Jury Instruction, Comparative Negligence Defense, civil cases, allocation of fault, liability, negligence claim, apportionment of damages, plaintiff, defendant, degrees of fault, injuries, damages, contributed, fair and equitable distribution, actions, negligence. There are two types of California Jury Instruction — 1.1 Comparative Negligence Defense: 1. Pure Comparative Negligence: In this type of comparative negligence defense, California operates under a pure comparative negligence system. It means that even if the plaintiff is found to be partially at fault, they can still recover damages, albeit reduced by their assigned percentage of fault. For example, if the plaintiff is determined to be 20% at fault, their awarded damages will be reduced by 20%. 2. Modified Comparative Negligence: Under this type, California follows a modified comparative negligence system. It has two variations: a. 50% Bar Rule: In this version, the plaintiff is barred from recovering damages if their assigned percentage of fault is equal to or exceeds 50%. If the plaintiff's assigned fault is below 50%, they can still recover damages reduced by their percentage of fault. b. 51% Bar Rule: In this variation, the plaintiff is barred from recovery if their assigned fault is equal to or exceeds 51%. Conversely, the plaintiff can seek damages if their assigned fault is below 51%, but their recovery will be reduced by their percentage of fault. Keywords: Pure Comparative Negligence, Modified Comparative Negligence, California law, system, recover damages, reduced, percentage of fault, barred, 50% Bar Rule, 51% Bar Rule, assigned percentage, recovery, variations. These different types of California Jury Instruction — 1.1 Comparative Negligence Defense aim to ensure a fair and just outcome in civil cases by allowing the allocation of fault and damages based on the parties' level of negligence. It encourages jurors to consider the actions of both the plaintiff and defendant when determining liability, ultimately promoting fairness in the legal system. Keywords: fair and just outcome, civil cases, allocation of fault, damages, level of negligence, plaintiff, defendant, liability, fairness, legal system.

California Jury Instruction — 1.1 Comparative Negligence Defense is a legal instruction used in civil cases in California courts to guide jurors in determining the allocation of fault and liability in a negligence claim. This specific jury instruction addresses the defense of comparative negligence, which allows for the apportionment of damages between the plaintiff and defendant based on their respective degrees of fault. The Comparative Negligence Defense under California law acknowledges that both the plaintiff and defendant may have contributed to the injuries or damages suffered. By providing this instruction, the court aims to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of liability, taking into account the actions or negligence of both parties involved. Keywords: California Jury Instruction, Comparative Negligence Defense, civil cases, allocation of fault, liability, negligence claim, apportionment of damages, plaintiff, defendant, degrees of fault, injuries, damages, contributed, fair and equitable distribution, actions, negligence. There are two types of California Jury Instruction — 1.1 Comparative Negligence Defense: 1. Pure Comparative Negligence: In this type of comparative negligence defense, California operates under a pure comparative negligence system. It means that even if the plaintiff is found to be partially at fault, they can still recover damages, albeit reduced by their assigned percentage of fault. For example, if the plaintiff is determined to be 20% at fault, their awarded damages will be reduced by 20%. 2. Modified Comparative Negligence: Under this type, California follows a modified comparative negligence system. It has two variations: a. 50% Bar Rule: In this version, the plaintiff is barred from recovering damages if their assigned percentage of fault is equal to or exceeds 50%. If the plaintiff's assigned fault is below 50%, they can still recover damages reduced by their percentage of fault. b. 51% Bar Rule: In this variation, the plaintiff is barred from recovery if their assigned fault is equal to or exceeds 51%. Conversely, the plaintiff can seek damages if their assigned fault is below 51%, but their recovery will be reduced by their percentage of fault. Keywords: Pure Comparative Negligence, Modified Comparative Negligence, California law, system, recover damages, reduced, percentage of fault, barred, 50% Bar Rule, 51% Bar Rule, assigned percentage, recovery, variations. These different types of California Jury Instruction — 1.1 Comparative Negligence Defense aim to ensure a fair and just outcome in civil cases by allowing the allocation of fault and damages based on the parties' level of negligence. It encourages jurors to consider the actions of both the plaintiff and defendant when determining liability, ultimately promoting fairness in the legal system. Keywords: fair and just outcome, civil cases, allocation of fault, damages, level of negligence, plaintiff, defendant, liability, fairness, legal system.