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 — 1.9.5.2 Subsidiary as Alter Ego of Parent Corporation is an essential legal instruction used in civil cases to determine whether a subsidiary company can be treated as the alter ego of its parent company. This instruction evaluates the circumstances under which a subsidiary can be held liable for the actions or debts of its parent corporation, essentially piercing the corporate veil. Keywords: California, jury instruction, subsidiary, alter ego, parent corporation, civil cases, liability, corporate veil. There are no specific types of California Jury Instruction — 1.9.5.2 Subsidiary as Alter Ego of Parent Corporation, as the instruction is a general guideline for courts and lawyers when dealing with alter ego claims in California. Here is a detailed description of what this instruction entails: California Jury Instruction — 1.9.5.2 Subsidiary as Alter Ego of Parent Corporation: This instruction aids jurors in determining whether a subsidiary corporation can be treated as the alter ego of its parent corporation. The concept of an alter ego arises when the corporate veil is pierced, allowing the legal identity of the parent company and the subsidiary company to be merged, thus making the parent company responsible for the liabilities or actions of the subsidiary. In order to successfully prove the alter ego status, the following elements must be established: 1. Control: The plaintiff must demonstrate that the parent company has such control over the subsidiary that the latter is merely an instrumentality or agent of the former. The control can be either direct or indirect, and it must be exercised in a way that the subsidiary's independent existence has been disregarded. 2. Fraud, Injustice, or Unfairness: The plaintiff must prove that the parent company's use of the subsidiary as an alter ego has been done with fraudulent or unfair intentions, leading to injustice or harm to the plaintiff. The parent company must have used the subsidiary to shield itself from a legal or contractual duty. 3. Unity of Interest: The plaintiff must illustrate that there is a substantial unity of interest between the parent and subsidiary corporation, making it unfair to distinguish between the two entities. This can be demonstrated through the commingling of funds, misrepresentation of subsidiary's identity, inadequate capitalization, or disregard of corporate formalities. If the above elements are convincingly proven, the jury can find the subsidiary as the alter ego of the parent corporation, allowing the plaintiff to hold the parent company liable for the subsidiary's actions, debts, or obligations. Remember, this jury instruction serves as a guide for jurors and should be considered in conjunction with other relevant instructions and evidence presented during the trial.
California Jury Instruction — 1.9.5.2 Subsidiary as Alter Ego of Parent Corporation is an essential legal instruction used in civil cases to determine whether a subsidiary company can be treated as the alter ego of its parent company. This instruction evaluates the circumstances under which a subsidiary can be held liable for the actions or debts of its parent corporation, essentially piercing the corporate veil. Keywords: California, jury instruction, subsidiary, alter ego, parent corporation, civil cases, liability, corporate veil. There are no specific types of California Jury Instruction — 1.9.5.2 Subsidiary as Alter Ego of Parent Corporation, as the instruction is a general guideline for courts and lawyers when dealing with alter ego claims in California. Here is a detailed description of what this instruction entails: California Jury Instruction — 1.9.5.2 Subsidiary as Alter Ego of Parent Corporation: This instruction aids jurors in determining whether a subsidiary corporation can be treated as the alter ego of its parent corporation. The concept of an alter ego arises when the corporate veil is pierced, allowing the legal identity of the parent company and the subsidiary company to be merged, thus making the parent company responsible for the liabilities or actions of the subsidiary. In order to successfully prove the alter ego status, the following elements must be established: 1. Control: The plaintiff must demonstrate that the parent company has such control over the subsidiary that the latter is merely an instrumentality or agent of the former. The control can be either direct or indirect, and it must be exercised in a way that the subsidiary's independent existence has been disregarded. 2. Fraud, Injustice, or Unfairness: The plaintiff must prove that the parent company's use of the subsidiary as an alter ego has been done with fraudulent or unfair intentions, leading to injustice or harm to the plaintiff. The parent company must have used the subsidiary to shield itself from a legal or contractual duty. 3. Unity of Interest: The plaintiff must illustrate that there is a substantial unity of interest between the parent and subsidiary corporation, making it unfair to distinguish between the two entities. This can be demonstrated through the commingling of funds, misrepresentation of subsidiary's identity, inadequate capitalization, or disregard of corporate formalities. If the above elements are convincingly proven, the jury can find the subsidiary as the alter ego of the parent corporation, allowing the plaintiff to hold the parent company liable for the subsidiary's actions, debts, or obligations. Remember, this jury instruction serves as a guide for jurors and should be considered in conjunction with other relevant instructions and evidence presented during the trial.