Preliminary Admonitions: Jury Instruction Authorities

Jury Instruction Authorities
No. 100
Requested by ALL PARTIES Requested by Requested by

Given as Requested Given as Modified Given on Court’s Motion
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 100
Preliminary Admonitions
________________________________________________________________________
You have now been sworn as jurors in this case. I want to impress on you the seriousness and
importance of serving on a jury. Trial by jury is a fundamental right in California. The parties
have a right to a jury that is selected fairly, that comes to the case without bias, and that will
attempt to reach a verdict based on the evidence presented. Before we begin, I need to explain
how you must conduct yourselves during the trial.
Do not allow anything that happens outside this courtroom to affect your decision. During the
trial do not talk about this case or the people involved in it with anyone, including family and
persons living in your household, friends and coworkers, spiritual leaders, advisors, or therapists.
You may say you are on a jury and how long the trial may take, but that is all. You must not even
talk about the case with the other jurors until after I tell you that it is time for you to decide the
case.
This prohibition is not limited to face-to-face conversations. It also extends to all forms of
electronic communications. Do not use any electronic device or media, such as a cell phone or
smart phone, PDA, computer, the Internet, any Internet service, any text or instant -messaging
service, any Internet chat room, blog, or website, including social networking websites or online
diaries, to send or receive any information to or from anyone about this case or your experience
as a juror until after you have been discharged from your jury duty.
During the trial you must not listen to anyone else talk about the case or the people involved in
the case. You must avoid any contact with the parties, the lawyers, the witnesses, and anyone
else who may have a connection to the case. If anyone tries to talk to you about this case, tell that
person that you cannot discuss it because you are a juror. If he or she keeps talking to you,
simply walk away and report the incident to the court attendant as soon as you can.
After the trial is over and I have released you from jury duty, you may discuss the case with
LACIV 129 (Rev. 01/07) JURY INSTRUCTION / SPECIAL
anyone, but you are not required to do so.
During the trial, do not read, listen to, or watch any news reports about this case. I have no
information that there will be news reports concerning this case. This prohibition extends to the
use of the Internet in any way, including reading any blog about the case or about anyone
involved with it. If you receive any information about this case from any source outside of the
courtroom, promptly report it to the court attendant. It is important that all jurors see and hear the
same evidence at the same time.
Do not do any research on your own or as a group. Do not use dictionaries, the Internet, or other
reference materials. Do not investigate the case or conduct any experiments. Do not contact
anyone to assist you, such as a family accountant, doctor, or lawyer. Do not visit or view the
scene of any event involved in this case or use any Internet maps or mapping programs or any
other program or device to search for or to view any place discussed in the testimony. If you
happen to pass by the scene, do not stop or investigate. If you do need to view the scene during
the trial, you will be taken there as a group under proper supervision.
It is important that you keep an open mind throughout this trial. Evidence can only be presented
a piece at a time. Do not form or express an opinion about this case while the trial is going on.
You must not decide on a verdict until after you have heard all the evidence and have discussed
it thoroughly with your fellow jurors in your deliberations.
Do not concern yourselves with the reasons for the rulings I will make during the course of the
trial. Do not guess what I may think your verdict should be from anything I might say or do.
When you begin your deliberations, you may discuss the case only in the jury room and only
when all the jurors are present.
You must decide what the facts are in this case. Do not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public
opinion influence your verdict.
At the end of the trial, I will explain the law that you must follow to reach your verdict. You
must follow the law as I explain it to you, even if you do not agree with the law.

No. 101

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 101
Overview of Trial
________________________________________________________________________
To assist you in your tasks as jurors, I will now explain how the trial will proceed. I will begin by
identifying the parties to the case. Roderick B. Currie and Ing-Marie Sundling Currie filed this
lawsuit. They are called the plaintiffs. They seek damages from Ford Motor Company, and
Henry Co. LLC who are called the defendants.
Roderick B. Currie and Ing-Marie Sundling Currie claim Plaintiff Roderick Currie developed a
form of cancer called Mesothelioma as a result of his alleged exposure to asbestos and asbestos-
containing products manufactured, installed, removed, cut and/or sold by various companies,
including the Defendants present in Court today. Defendants Ford Motor Company, and Henry
Co. LLC deny those claims and further deny that any actions by them caused any injury or
damages to Mr. Currie.
First, each side may make an opening statement, but neither side is required to do so. An opening
statement is not evidence. It is simply an outline to help you understand what that party expects
the evidence will show. Also, because it is often difficult to give you the evidence in the order
we would prefer, the opening statement allows you to keep an overview of the case in mind
during the presentation of the evidence. You cannot use it to make any decisions in this case.
Next, the jury will hear the evidence Roderick B. Currie and Ing-Marie Sundling Currie will
present evidence first. When Roderick B. Currie and Ing-Marie Sundling Currie are finished,
Ford Motor Company, and Henry Co. LLC will have an opportunity to present evidence.
Each witness will first be questioned by the side that asked the witness to testify. This is called
direct examination. Then the other side is permitted to question the witness. This is called
cross-examination.
Documents or objects referred to during the trial are called exhibits. Exhibits are given a number

so that they may be clearly identified. Exhibits are not evidence until I admit them into evidence.
During your deliberations, you will be able to look at all exhibits admitted into evidence.
There are many rules that govern whether something will be admitted into evidence. As one side
presents evidence, the other side has the right to object and to ask me to decide if the evidence is
permitted by the rules. Usually, I will decide immediately, but sometimes I may have to hear
arguments outside of your presence.
After the evidence has been presented, I will instruct you on the law that applies to the case and
the attorneys will make closing arguments. What the parties say in closing argument is not
evidence. The arguments are offered to help you understand the evidence and how the law
applies to it.

No. 102

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 102
Taking Notes During the Trial

________________________________________________________________________
You have been given notebooks and may take notes during the trial. Do not take the notebooks
out of the courtroom or jury room at any time during the trial. You may take your notes into the
jury room during deliberations.
You should use your notes only to remind yourself of what happened during the trial. Do not let
your note-taking interfere with your ability to listen carefully to all the testimony and to watch
the witnesses as they testify. Nor should you allow your impression of a witness or other
evidence to be influenced by whether or not other jurors are taking notes. Your independent
recollection of the evidence should govern your verdict, and you should not allow yourself to be
influenced by the notes of other jurors if those notes differ from what you remember.
The court reporter is making a record of everything that is said. If during deliberations you have
a question about what the witness said, you should ask that the court reporter's records be read to
you. You must accept the court reporter's record as accurate.
At the end of the trial, your notes will be collected and destroyed by the court as part of the case
record to you.

No. 103
Requested by Defendant Henry Requested by Defendant Ford Requested by

Company LLC Motor Company
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 103
Multiple Parties
________________________________________________________________________
There are two defendants in this trial. Ford Motor Company, and Henry Co. LLC. You should
decide the case against each defendant separately as if it were a separate lawsuit. Each defendant
is entitled to separate consideration of their own defenses.
Different aspects of this case involve different parties (plaintiffs and defendants). Each
instruction will identify the parties to whom it applies. Pay particular attention to the parties
named in each instruction.

No. 104

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 104
Nonperson Party
________________________________________________________________________
Ford Motor Company; and Henry Co. LLC are parties in this lawsuit. Ford Motor Company;
and Henry Co. LLC are entitled to the same fair and impartial treatment that you would give to
an individual. You must decide this case with the same fairness that you would use if you were
deciding the case between individuals.
When I use words like "person" or "he" or "she" in these instructions to refer to a party, those
instructions also apply to Ford Motor Company; and Henry Co. LLC.

No. 105
Requested by Requested by Defendant Ford Requested by

Motor Company
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 105
Insurance
________________________________________________________________________
You must not consider whether any of the parties in this case has insurance. The presence or
absence of insurance is totally irrelevant. You must decide this case based only on the law and
the evidence.

No. 106

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 106
Evidence
________________________________________________________________________
You must decide what the facts are in this case only from the evidence you see or hear during the
trial. Sworn testimony, documents, or anything else may be admitted into evidence. You may
not consider as evidence anything that you see or hear when court is not in session, even
something done or said by one of the parties, attorneys, or witnesses.
What the attorneys say during the trial is not evidence. In their opening statements and closing
arguments, the attorneys will talk to you about the law and the evidence. What the lawyers say
may help you understand the law and the evidence, but their statements and arguments are not
evidence.
The attorneys' questions are not evidence. Only the witnesses' answers are evidence. You should
not think that something is true just because an attorney's question suggests that it is true.
However, the attorneys for both sides can agree that certain facts are true. This agreement is
called a “stipulation.” No other proof is needed and you must accept those facts as true in this
trial.
Each side has the right to object to evidence offered by the other side. If I do not agree with the
objection, I will say it is overruled. If I overrule an objection, the witness will answer and you
may consider the evidence. If I agree with the objection, I will say it is sustained. If I sustain an
objection, you must ignore the question. If the witness did not answer, you must not guess what
he or she might have said or why I sustained the objection. If the witness has already answered,
you must ignore the answer.
An attorney may make a motion to strike testimony that you have heard. If I grant the motion,
you must totally disregard that testimony. You must treat it as though it did not exist.

No. 109
Requested Defendant by Henry Requested by Requested by

Company LLC
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 109
Removal of Claims or Parties

________________________________________________________________________
Roderick B. Currie’s claim for [insert claim] is no longer an issue in this case.
[Name of Party] is no longer a party to this case.]
Do not speculate as to why this [claim/person] are no longer involved in this case. You should
not consider this during your deliberations.

No. 107

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 107
Witnesses
________________________________________________________________________
A witness is a person who has knowledge related to this case. You will have to decide whether
you believe each witness and how important each witness's testimony is to the case. You may
believe all, part, or none of a witness's testimony.
In deciding whether to believe a witness's testimony, you may consider, among other factors, the
following:
(a) How well did the witness see, hear, or otherwise sense what he or she described in
court?
(b) How well did the witness remember and describe what happened?
(c) How did the witness look, act, and speak while testifying?
(d) Did the witness have any reason to say something that was not true? For example,
did the witness show any bias or prejudice or have a personal relationship with
any of the parties involved in the case or have a personal stake in how this case is
decided?
(e) What was the witness's attitude toward this case or about giving testimony?
Sometimes a witness may say something that is not consistent with something else he or she
said. Sometimes different witnesses will give different versions of what happened. People often
forget things or make mistakes in what they remember. Also, two people may see the same event
but remember it differently. You may consider these differences, but do not decide that
testimony is untrue just because it differs from other testimony.
However, if you decide that a witness has deliberately testified untruthfully about something
important, you may choose not to believe anything that witness said. On the other hand, if you
think the witness testified untruthfully about some things but told the truth about others, you may
accept the part you think is true and ignore the rest.
Do not make any decision simply because there were more witnesses on one side than on the
other. If you believe it is true, the testimony of a single witness is enough to prove a fact.

No. 111

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 111
Instruction to Alternate Jurors

________________________________________________________________________
As alternate jurors, you are bound by the same rules that govern the conduct of the jurors who
are sitting on the panel. You will observe the same trial and should pay attention to all of my
instructions just as if you were sitting on the panel. Sometimes a juror needs to be excused
during a trial for illness or some other reason. If that happens, an alternate will be selected to take
that juror’s place.

No. 112

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 112
Questions from Jurors

________________________________________________________________________
If, during the trial, you have a question that you believe should be asked of a witness, you may
write out the question and send it to me through my courtroom staff. I will share your question
with the attorneys and decide whether it may be asked.
Do not feel disappointed if your question is not asked. Your question may not be asked for a
variety of reasons. For example, the question may call for an answer that is not allowed for legal
reasons. Also, you should not try to guess the reason why a question is not asked or speculate
about what the answer might have been. Because the decision whether to allow the question is
mine alone, do not hold it against any of the attorneys or their clients if your question is not
asked.
Remember that you are not an advocate for one side or the other. Each of you is an impartial
judge of the facts. Your questions should be posed in as neutral a fashion as possible. Do not
discuss any question asked by any juror with any other juror until after deliberations begin.

No. 113

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 113
Bias
________________________________________________________________________
Each one of us has biases about or certain perceptions or stereotypes of other people. We may be
aware of some of our biases, though we may not share them with others. We may not be fully
aware of some of our other biases.
Our biases often affect how we act, favorably or unfavorably, toward someone. Bias can affect
our thoughts, how we remember, what we see and hear, whom we believe or disbelieve, and how
we make important decisions.
As jurors you are being asked to make very important decisions in this case. You must not let
bias, prejudice, or public opinion influence your decision. You must not be biased in favor of or
against any party or witness because of his or her disability, gender, race, religion, ethnicity,
sexual orientation, age, national origin, or socioeconomic status.
Your verdict must be based solely on the evidence presented. You must carefully evaluate the
evidence and resist any urge to reach a verdict that is influenced by bias for or against any party
or witness.

No. 114
Requested by Plaintiffs Roderick Requested by Requested by

B. Currie and Ing-Marie Sundling-
Currie
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 114
Bench Conferences and Conferences in Chambers

________________________________________________________________________
From time to time during the trial, it may become necessary for me to talk with the attorneys out
of the hearing of the jury, either by having a conference at the bench when the jury is present in
the courtroom, or by calling a recess to discuss matters outside of your presence. The purpose of
these conferences is not to keep relevant information from you, but to decide how certain
evidence is to be treated under the rules of evidence. Do not be concerned about our discussions
or try to guess what is being said.
I may not always grant an attorney's request for a conference. Do not consider my granting or
denying a request for a conference as any indication of my opinion of the case or of my view of
the evidence.

No. 116
Requested by Plaintiffs Roderick Requested by Defendant Ford Requested by

B. Currie and Ing-Marie Sundling- Motor Company
Currie
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 116
Why Electronic Communications and Research Are Prohibited

________________________________________________________________________
I know that many of us are used to communicating and perhaps even learning by electronic
communications and research. However, there are good reasons why you must not electronically
communicate or do any research on anything having to do with this trial or the parties.
In court, jurors must make important decisions that have consequences for the parties. Those
decisions must be based only on the evidence that you hear in this courtroom.
The evidence that is presented in court can be tested; it can be shown to be right or wrong by
either side; it can be questioned; and it can be contradicted by other evidence. What you might
read or hear on your own could easily be wrong, out of date, or inapplicable to this case.
The parties can receive a fair trial only if the facts and information on which you base your
decisions are presented to you as a group, with each juror having the same opportunity to see,
hear, and evaluate the evidence.
Also, a trial is a public process that depends on disclosure in the courtroom of facts and
evidence. Using information gathered in secret by one or more jurors undermines the public
process and violates the rights of the parties.

No. 200

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 200
Obligation to Prove—More Likely True Than Not True

________________________________________________________________________
A party must persuade you, by the evidence presented in court, that what he or she is required to
prove is more likely to be true than not true. This is referred to as "the burden of proof."
After weighing all of the evidence, if you cannot decide that something is more likely to be true
than not true, you must conclude that the party did not prove it. You should consider all the
evidence, no matter which party produced the evidence.
In criminal trials, the prosecution must prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. But in civil trials, such as this one, the party who is required to prove something need
prove only that it is more likely to be true than not true.

No. 201

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 201
More Likely True—Clear and Convincing Proof

________________________________________________________________________
Certain facts must be proved by clear and convincing evidence which is a higher burden of
proof. This means the party must persuade you that it is highly probable that the fact is true. I
will tell you specifically which of the facts must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

No. 202

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 202
Direct and Indirect Evidence

________________________________________________________________________
Evidence can come in many forms. It can be testimony about what someone saw or heard or
smelled. It can be an exhibit admitted into evidence. It can be someone's opinion.
Direct evidence can prove a fact by itself. For example, if a witness testifies she saw a jet plane
flying across the sky, that testimony is direct evidence that a plane flew across the sky. Some
evidence proves a fact indirectly. For example, a witness testifies that he saw only the white trail
that jet planes often leave. This indirect evidence is sometimes referred to as “circumstantial
evidence.” In either instance, the witness’s testimony is evidence that a jet plane flew across the
sky.
As far as the law is concerned, it makes no difference whether evidence is direct or indirect. You
may choose to believe or disbelieve either kind. Whether it is direct or indirect, you should give
every piece of evidence whatever weight you think it deserves.

No. 203

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 203
Party Having Power to Produce Better Evidence

________________________________________________________________________
You may consider the ability of each party to provide evidence. If a party provided weaker
evidence when it could have provided stronger evidence, you may distrust the weaker evidence.

No. 204

Currie
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 204
Willful Suppression of Evidence

________________________________________________________________________
You may consider whether one party intentionally concealed or destroyed evidence. If you
decide that a party did so, you may decide that the evidence would have been unfavorable to that
party.

No. 205

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 205
Failure to Explain or Deny Evidence

________________________________________________________________________
If a party failed to explain or deny evidence against him when he could reasonably be expected
to have done so based on what he knew, you may consider his failure to explain or deny in
evaluating that evidence.
It is up to you to decide the meaning and importance of the failure to explain or deny evidence
against the party.

No. 206

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 206
Evidence Admitted for Limited Purpose

________________________________________________________________________
During the trial, I explained to you that certain evidence was admitted for a limited purpose. You
may consider that evidence only for the limited purpose that I described, and not for any other
purpose.

No. 207

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 207
Evidence Applicable to One Party

________________________________________________________________________
During the trial, I explained that certain evidence could be considered as to one or more parties,
but not to every party. You may not consider that evidence as to any other party.

No. 208

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 208
Deposition as Substantive Evidence

________________________________________________________________________
During the trial, you received deposition testimony that was read from the deposition transcript.
A deposition is the testimony of a person taken before trial. At a deposition the person is sworn
to tell the truth and is questioned by the attorneys. You must consider the deposition testimony
that was presented to you in the same way as you consider testimony given in court.

No. 209

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 209
Use of Interrogatories of a Party

________________________________________________________________________
Before trial, each party has the right to ask the other parties to answer written questions. These
questions are called interrogatories. The answers are also in writing and are given under oath.
You must consider the questions and answers that were read to you the same as if the questions
and answers had been given in court.

No. 210

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 210
Requests for Admissions

________________________________________________________________________
Before trial, each party has the right to ask another party to admit in writing that certain matters
are true. If the other party admits those matters, you must accept them as true. No further
evidence is required to prove them.
However, these matters must be considered true only as they apply to the party who admitted
they were true.

No. 212

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 212
Statements of a Party Opponent

________________________________________________________________________
A party may offer into evidence any oral or written statement made by an opposing party outside
the courtroom.
When you evaluate evidence of such a statement, you must consider these questions:
1. Do you believe that the party actually made the statement? If you do not believe
that the party made the statement, you may not consider the statement at all.
2. If you believe that the statement was made, do you believe it was reported
accurately?
You should view testimony about an oral statement made by a party outside the courtroom with
caution.

No. 213
Requested by Plaintiffs Roderick Requested by Defendant Henry Requested by

B. Currie and Ing-Marie Sundling- Company LLC
Currie
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 213
Adoptive Admissions
________________________________________________________________________
You have heard evidence that [DECLARANT NAME] made the following statement:
[DECLARANT STATEMENT] You may consider that statement as evidence against [ NAME
OF PARTY AGAINST WHOM STATEMENT WAS OFFERED] only if you decide that all of
the following conditions are true:
1. The statement was made to [NAME OF PARTY AGAINST WHOM

STATEMENT WAS OFFERED] or made in [HIS/HER] presence;
2. [NAME OF PARTY AGAINST WHOM STATEMENT WAS OFFERED] heard

and understood the statement;
3. [NAME OF PARTY AGAINST WHOM STATEMENT WAS OFFERED]

would, under all the circumstances, naturally have denied the statement if
[HE/SHE] thought it was not true;
AND
4. [NAME OF PARTY AGAINST WHOM STATEMENT WAS OFFERED]

[GENDER] could have denied it but did not.
If you decide that any of these conditions are not true, you must not consider for any purpose
either the statement or [NAME OF PARTY AGAINST WHOM STATEMENT WAS
OFFERED]’s response.
You must not consider this evidence against any other party.

No. 218

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 218
Statements Made to Physician (Previously Existing Condition)

________________________________________________________________________
[NAME OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDER] has testified that Roderick Currie made statements to
him about Roderick Currie’s medical history. These statements helped [NAME OF HEALTH
CARE PROVIDER] diagnose the patient’s condition. You can use these statements to help you
examine the basis of [NAME OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDER]’s opinion. You cannot use them
for any other purpose.
However, a statement by Roderick Currie to [NAME OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDER] about

his current medical condition may be considered as evidence of that medical condition.

No. 219

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 219
Expert Witness Testimony

________________________________________________________________________
During the trial you heard testimony from expert witnesses. The law allows an expert to state
opinions about matters in his or her field of expertise even if he or she has not witnessed any of
the events involved in the trial.
You do not have to accept an expert’s opinion. As with any other witness, it is up to you to
decide whether you believe the expert’s testimony and choose to use it as a basis for your
decision. You may believe all, part, or none of an expert’s testimony. In deciding whether to
believe an expert’s testimony, you should consider:
1. The expert’s training and experience;
2. The facts the expert relied on; and
3. The reasons for the expert’s opinion.

No. 220
Requested by ALL PARTIES Requested Requested by

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 220
Experts—Questions Containing Assumed Facts

________________________________________________________________________
The law allows expert witnesses to be asked questions that are based on assumed facts. These are
sometimes called “hypothetical questions.”
In determining the weight to give to the expert’s opinion that is based on the assumed facts, you
should consider whether the assumed facts are true.

No. 221

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 221
Conflicting Expert Testimony

________________________________________________________________________
If the expert witnesses disagreed with one another, you should weigh each opinion against the
others. You should examine the reasons given for each opinion and the facts or other matters that
each witness relied on. You may also compare the experts' qualifications.

No. 223

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 223
Opinion Testimony of Lay Witness

________________________________________________________________________
A witness who was not testifying as an expert gave an opinion during the trial. You may, but are
not required to, accept that opinion. You may give the opinion whatever weight you think is
appropriate.
Consider the extent of the witness’s opportunity to perceive the matters on which the opinion is
based, the reasons the witness gave for the opinion, and the facts or information on which the
witness relied in forming that opinion. You must decide whether information on which the
witness relied was true and accurate. You may disregard all or any part of an opinion that you
find unbelievable, unreasonable, or unsupported by the evidence.

No. 400

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 400
Negligence—Essential Factual Elements

________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiffs Roderick B. Currie claims that he was harmed by Defendants Ford Motor Company,
and Henry Co. LLC’s negligence. To establish this claim, Roderick B. Currie must prove all of
the following:
A) Ford Motor Company
1. That Ford Motor Company was negligent;
2. That Plaintiffs were harmed; and
3. That Ford Motor Company’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing

Plaintiffs' harm.
B) Henry Co. LLC.
1. That Henry Co. LLC was negligent;
2. That Plaintiffs were harmed; and
3. That Henry Co. LLC’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs'
harm.

No. 401

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 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 he or she 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 Defendants Ford Motor
Company, and Henry Co. LLC’s situation.

No. 405

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 405
Comparative Fault of Plaintiff

________________________________________________________________________
Ford Motor Company, and Henry Co. claim that Plaintiff Roderick B. Currie’s own negligence
contributed his harm. To succeed on this claim, Defendants must prove both of the following:
1. That Roderick B. Currie was negligent; and
2. That Roderick B. Currie’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing his harm.
If Defendants prove the above, Roderick B. Currie’s damages are reduced by your determination
of the percentage of Roderick B. Currie’s responsibility. I will calculate the actual reduction.

No. 406

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 406
Apportionment of Responsibility
________________________________________________________________________
Ford Motor Company and Henry Co. claim that the negligence of Borg Warner Corporation;
CBS Corporation; Cirrus Enterprises, LLC; Cytec Industries, Inc.; Dana Companies LLC; DAP
Products, Inc.; Edelbrock Corporation; FMC Corporation; General Electric Company; General
Motors Co.; Henkel Corporation; W.W. Henry Company; Holley Performance Products, Inc.;
International Business Machine Corporation a/k/a IBM; Lenze AC Tech Corporation; McCord
Corporation; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; The National Cash Register Company a/k/a
NCR Corporation; The Pep Boys – Manny Moe & Jack Of California; Pfizer Inc.; Sears,
Roebuck and Co.; Shell Oil Company; Union Carbide Corporation and the United States Army
contributed to Roderick Currie’s harm. To succeed on this claim, Defendants must prove both of
the following:
1. That Borg Warner Corporation; CBS Corporation; Cirrus Enterprises, LLC; Cytec
Industries, Inc.; Dana Companies LLC; DAP Products, Inc.; Edelbrock Corporation; FMC
Corporation; General Electric Company; General Motors Co.; Henkel Corporation; W.W. Henry
Company; Holley Performance Products, Inc.; International Business Machine Corporation a/k/a
IBM; Lenze AC Tech Corporation; McCord Corporation; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company;
The National Cash Register Company a/k/a NCR Corporation; The Pep Boys – Manny Moe &
Jack Of California; Pfizer Inc.; Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Shell Oil Company; Union Carbide
Corporation and/or the United States Army was negligent; and
2. That the negligence of Borg Warner Corporation; CBS Corporation; Cirrus Enterprises,
LLC; Cytec Industries, Inc.; Dana Companies LLC; DAP Products, Inc.; Edelbrock Corporation;
FMC Corporation; General Electric Company; General Motors Co.; Henkel Corporation; Henry
Company LLC; W.W. Henry Company; Holley Performance Products, Inc.; International
Business Machine Corporation a/k/a IBM; Lenze AC Tech Corporation; McCord Corporation;
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; The National Cash Register Company a/k/a NCR
Corporation; The Pep Boys – Manny Moe & Jack Of California; Pfizer Inc.; Sears, Roebuck and

Co.; Shell Oil Company; Union Carbide Corporation and/or the United States Army was a
substantial factor in causing Roderick Currie’s harm.
If you find that the negligence of more than one person including Ford Motor Company and
Henry Co. and Plaintiffs Roderick Currie and Ing-Marie Sundling Currie and Borg Warner
Corporation; CBS Corporation; Cirrus Enterprises, LLC; Cytec Industries, Inc.; Dana Companies
LLC; DAP Products, Inc.; Edelbrock Corporation; FMC Corporation; Ford Motor Company;
General Electric Company; General Motors Co.; Henkel Corporation; Henry Company LLC;
W.W. Henry Company; Holley Performance Products, Inc.; International Business Machine
Corporation a/k/a IBM; Lenze AC Tech Corporation; McCord Corporation; Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company; The National Cash Register Company a/k/a NCR Corporation; The Pep
Boys – Manny Moe & Jack Of California; Pfizer Inc.; Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Shell Oil
Company; Union Carbide Corporation and the United States Army was a substantial factor in
causing Roderick B. Currie’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 Roderick B. Currie’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.

No. 411

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 411
Reliance on Good Conduct of Others

________________________________________________________________________
Every person has a right to expect that every other person will use reasonable care, unless he or
she knows, or should know, that the other person will not use reasonable care.

No. 413

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 413
Custom or Practice
________________________________________________________________________
You may consider customs or practices in the community in deciding whether Ford Motor
Company and Henry Company LLC acted reasonably. Customs and practices do not necessarily
determine what a reasonable person would have done in Defendants’ 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.

No. 418
Requested by Defendant Henry Requested by Requested by

Company LLC
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 418
Presumption of Negligence per se

________________________________________________________________________
[Insert citation to statute, regulation, or ordinance] states: [INSERT LANGUAGE]
If you decide
1. That Roderick B. Currie violated this law and
2. That the violation was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm,
then you must find that Roderick B. Currie was negligent.
If you find that Roderick B. Currie did not violate this law or that the violation was not a
substantial factor in bringing about the harm, then you must still decide whether Roderick B.
Currie was negligent in light of the other instructions.

No. 430

CompanyLLC Motor Company
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 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.

No. 431

Currie
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 431
Causation: Multiple Causes

________________________________________________________________________
A person's negligence may combine with another factor to cause harm. If you find that
Defendants Ford Motor Company’s and/or Henry Company LLC’s negligence was a substantial
factor in causing Roderick B. Currie’s harm, then Ford Motor Company and/or Henry Company
LLC is/are responsible for Roderick B. Currie’s harm. Ford Motor Company and/or Henry
Company LLC cannot avoid responsibility just because some other person, condition, or event
was also a substantial factor in causing Roderick B. Currie’s harm.

No. 432

Motor Company
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 432
Affirmative Defense—Causation: Third-Party Conduct as Superseding Cause

________________________________________________________________________
Ford Motor Company claims that it is not responsible for Roderick B. Currie’s harm
because of the later misconduct of Borg Warner Corporation; CBS Corporation; Cirrus
Enterprises, LLC; Cytec Industries, Inc.; Dana Companies LLC; DAP Products, Inc.; Edelbrock
Corporation; FMC Corporation; Ford Motor Company; General Electric Company; General
Motors Co.; Henkel Corporation; Henry Company LLC; W.W. Henry Company; Holley
Performance Products, Inc.; International Business Machine Corporation a/k/a IBM; Lenze AC
Tech Corporation; McCord Corporation; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; The National
Cash Register Company a/k/a NCR Corporation; The Pep Boys – Manny Moe & Jack Of
California; Pfizer Inc.; Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Shell Oil Company; Union Carbide Corporation;
and the United States Army. To avoid legal responsibility for the harm, Ford Motor
Company must prove all of the following:
1. That Borg Warner Corporation; CBS Corporation; Cirrus Enterprises, LLC;

Cytec Industries, Inc.; Dana Companies LLC; Edelbrock Corporation; FMC
Corporation; General Electric Company; General Motors Company; Henkel
Corporation; W.W. Henry Company; Holley Performance Products, Inc.;
International Business Machine Corporation a/k/a IBM; Lenze AC Tech
Corporation; McCord Corporation; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; The
National Cash Register Company a/k/a NCR Corporation; The Pep Boys –
Manny Moe & Jack Of California; Pfizer Inc.; Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Shell Oil
Company; Union Carbide Corporation and the United States Army conduct
occurred after the conduct of Ford Motor Company;
2. That a reasonable person would consider Borg Warner Corporation; CBS

Corporation; Cirrus Enterprises, LLC; Cytec Industries, Inc.; Dana Companies
LLC; Edelbrock Corporation; FMC Corporation; General Electric Company;
General Motors Company; Henkel Corporation; W.W. Henry Company; Holley
Performance Products, Inc.; International Business Machine Corporation a/k/a
IBM; Lenze AC Tech Corporation; McCord Corporation; Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company; The National Cash Register Company a/k/a NCR
Corporation; The Pep Boys – Manny Moe & Jack Of California; Pfizer Inc.;
Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Shell Oil Company; Union Carbide Corporation and the
United States Army conduct as a highly unusual or an extraordinary response
to the situation;
3. That Ford Motor Company did not know and had no reason to expect that
Borg Warner Corporation; CBS Corporation; Cirrus Enterprises, LLC; Cytec
Industries, Inc.; Dana Companies LLC; Edelbrock Corporation; FMC
Corporation; General Electric Company; General Motors Company; Henkel
Corporation; W.W. Henry Company; Holley Performance Products, Inc.;
International Business Machine Corporation a/k/a IBM; Lenze AC Tech
Corporation; McCord Corporation; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; The
National Cash Register Company a/k/a NCR Corporation; The Pep Boys –
Manny Moe & Jack Of California; Pfizer Inc.; Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Shell Oil
Company; Union Carbide Corporation and the United States Army would act in
a negligent manner; and
4. That the kind of harm resulting from Borg Warner Corporation; CBS
Corporation; Cirrus Enterprises, LLC; Cytec Industries, Inc.; Dana Companies
LLC; Edelbrock Corporation; FMC Corporation; General Electric Company;
General Motors Company; Henkel Corporation; W.W. Henry Company; Holley
Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Shell Oil Company; Union Carbide Corporation and the
United States Army conduct was different from the kind of harm that could
have been reasonably expected from Ford Motor Company conduct.

No. 434

Currie
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 434
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 Roderick B. Currie’s harm. If you cannot decide which defendant caused
Roderick B. Currie’s harm, you must decide that each defendant is responsible for the harm.
However, if a defendant proves that it did not cause Roderick B. Currie’s harm, then you must conclude that
defendant is not responsible.

No. 435

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 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.
Roderick B. Currie may prove that exposure to asbestos from Ford Motor Company’s and Henry
Company LLC’s product was a substantial factor causing his illness by showing, through expert
testimony, that there is a reasonable medical probability that the exposure was a substantial
factor contributing to his developing cancer.

No. 1200

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 1200
Strict Liability—Essential Factual Elements

________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Roderick B. Currie was harmed by a product distributed, manufactured and/or sold by
Ford Motor Company and distributed, manufactured and/or sold by Henry Company LLC that:
contained a manufacturing defect; or
was defectively designed; or
did not include sufficient instructions or warning of potential safety hazards.

No. 1203

Currie
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 1203
Strict Liability—Design Defect—Consumer Expectation Test—Essential Factual Elements

________________________________________________________________________
Roderick B. Currie claims Ford Motor Company’s original equipment brakes, clutches and
gaskets’ design, and Henry Company LLC’s roofing cement was defective because Ford Motor
Company’s original equipment brakes, clutches and gaskets and Henry Company LLC’s roofing
cement did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected it to perform. To
establish this claim, Roderick B. Currie must prove the following:
1. That Ford Motor Company manufactured/distributed/sold the original brakes, clutches, and
gaskets;
2. That the original equipment brakes, clutches and gaskets did not perform as safely as an
ordinary consumer would have expected it to perform when used or misused in an intended or
reasonably foreseeable way;
3. That Roderick B. Currie was harmed; and
4. That the original equipment brakes, clutches and gaskets’ design was a substantial factor in
causing Roderick B. Currie’s harm.
B) Henry Company LLC
1. That Henry Company LLC manufactured/distributed/sold the roofing cement;
2. That the roofing cement did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have
expected it to perform when used or misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way;
4. That the roofing cement’s design was a substantial factor in causing Roderick B. Currie’s
harm.

No. 1204

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 1204
Strict Liability—Design Defect—Risk-Benefit Test—Essential Factual Elements—Shifting

Burden of Proof
________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Roderick B. Currie claims that Ford Motor Company’s original equipment clutches,
brakes and gaskets and Henry Co.’s roofing cement’s design caused harm to Roderick Currie.
To establish this claim, Roderick Currie must prove all of the following:
1. That Ford Motor Company manufactured, distributed or sold the original

equipment clutches, brakes and gaskets;
2. That Roderick Currie was harmed; and
3. That the original equipment clutches, brakes and gaskets’ design was a substantial
factor in causing harm to Roderick Currie.
A) Henry Co.
1. That Henry Co. manufactured, distributed or sold the roofing cement;
2. That Roderick Currie was harmed; and
3. That the roofing cement’s design was a substantial factor in causing harm to
Roderick Currie.
If Roderick Currie has proved these three facts, then your decision on this claim must be for
Roderick Currie unless Ford Motor Company prove that the benefits of original equipment

clutches, brakes, and gaskets and/or Henry Co. prove that the benefits of the roofing cement
outweigh the risks of the design. In deciding whether the benefits outweigh the risks, you should
consider the following:
(a) The gravity of the potential harm resulting from the use of:
1) Ford Motor Company’s original equipment clutches, brakes, and gaskets and
2) Henry Co.’s roofing cement
(b) The likelihood that this harm would occur;
(c) The feasibility of an alternative safer design at the time of manufacture;
(d) The cost of an alternative design;
(e) The disadvantages of an alternative design; and
(f) Other relevant factors.

.

No. 1205

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 1205
Strict Liability—Failure to Warn—Essential Factual Elements

________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiffs Roderick B. Currie claims that
1) Ford Motor Company’s original equipment clutches, brakes, and gaskets and
2) Henry Co.’s roofing cement
lacked sufficient instructions or warning of potential risks. To establish this claim, Roderick B.
Currie must prove all of the following:

1. That Ford Motor Company manufactured, distributed, and/or sold the original
equipment clutches, brakes, and gaskets
2. That the original equipment clutches, brakes, and gaskets had potential risks that
were known or knowable in light of the scientific and medical knowledge that
was generally accepted in the scientific community at the time of manufacture,
distribution, or sale;
3. That the potential risks presented a substantial danger when the original
equipment clutches, brakes and/or gaskets are used or misused in an intended or
reasonably foreseeable way;
4. That ordinary consumers would not have recognized the potential risks;
5. That Ford Motor Company failed to adequately warn or instruct of the potential
risks;

7. That the lack of sufficient instructions or warnings was a substantial factor in

B) Henry Co.
1. That Henry Co. manufactured, distributed, and/or sold the roofing cement;
2. That the roofing cement had potential risks that were known or knowable in light
of the scientific and medical knowledge that was generally accepted in the
scientific community at the time of manufacture, distribution, or sale;
3. That the potential risks presented a substantial danger when the roofing cement is
used or misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way;
4. That ordinary consumers would not have recognized the potential risks;
5. That Henry Co. failed to adequately warn or instruct of the potential risks;
7. That the lack of sufficient instructions or warnings was a substantial factor in


No. 1207A

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 1207A
Strict Liability—Comparative Fault of Plaintiff

________________________________________________________________________
Defendants Ford Motor Company, and Henry Co. LLC claim that Roderick B. Currie’s own
negligence contributed to his harm. To succeed on this claim, Defendants must prove both of the
following:
1. That Roderick B. Currie negligently used, misused, and/or modified the
a) Ford Motor Company original equipment clutches, brakes, or gaskets

b) Henry Company LLC’s roofing cement
and
2. That this negligence was a substantial factor in causing Roderick B. Currie’s

harm.
If Ford Motor Company and/or Henry Co. prove the above, Roderick B. Currie’s damages are
reduced by your determination of the percentage of Roderick B. Currie’s responsibility. I will
calculate the actual reduction.

No. 1207B

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 1207B
Strict Liability—Comparative Fault of Third Person

________________________________________________________________________
Ford Motor Company and Henry Co. LLC claim that the fault of Borg Warner Corporation
(Borg-Warner, Morse Tec, Inc.; CBS Corporation (Viacom, Inc.); Cirrus Enterprises, LLC;
Cytec Industries, Inc.; Dana Companies LLC (Victor Gasket Manufacturing Company); DAP
Products, Inc.; Edelbrock Corporation; FMC Corporation; General Electric Company; General
Motors Corporation f/k/a Henkel Loctite Corporation; W.W. Henry Company; Holley
Performance Products, Inc.; International Business Machine Corporation a/k/a IBM; Lenze AC
Tech Corporation; McCord Corporation; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; The National
Cash Register Company a/k/a NCR Corporation; The Pep Boys – Manny Moe & Jack Of
California; Pfizer Inc.; Sears, Roebuck And Co.; Shell Oil Company; Union Carbide Corporation
and the United States Army contributed to Roderick B. Currie’s harm. To succeed on this
claim, Ford Motor Company and/or Henry Co. must prove both of the following:
1. That Borg Warner Corporation (Borg-Warner, Morse Tec, Inc.; CBS Corporation
(Viacom, Inc.); Cirrus Enterprises, LLC; Cytec Industries, Inc.; Dana Companies
LLC (Victor Gasket Manufacturing Company); DAP Products, Inc.; Edelbrock
Corporation; FMC Corporation; General Electric Company; General Motors
Corporation f/k/a Henkel Loctite Corporation; W.W. Henry Company; Holley
Sears, Roebuck And Co.; Shell Oil Company; Union Carbide Corporation and the
United States Army was otherwise negligent; and
2. That this negligence was a substantial factor in causing Roderick B. Currie’s

harm.

If you find that the negligence of more than one person including Ford Motor Company,
Henry Co. and Roderick B. Currie and Borg Warner Corporation (Borg-Warner,
Morse Tec, Inc.; CBS Corporation (Viacom, Inc.); Cirrus Enterprises, LLC; Cytec
Industries, Inc.; Dana Companies LLC (Victor Gasket Manufacturing Company);
DAP Products, Inc.; Edelbrock Corporation; FMC Corporation; General Electric
Company; General Motors Corporation f/k/a Henkel Loctite Corporation; W.W.
Henry Company; Holley Performance Products, Inc.; International Business
Machine Corporation a/k/a IBM; Lenze AC Tech Corporation; McCord
Corporation; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; The National Cash Register
Company a/k/a NCR Corporation; The Pep Boys – Manny Moe & Jack Of
California; Pfizer Inc.; Sears, Roebuck And Co.; Shell Oil Company; Union
Carbide Corporation and the United States Army was a substantial factor in
causing Roderick B. Currie’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 Roderick B. Currie’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.]

No. 1220

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 1220
Negligence—Essential Factual Elements

________________________________________________________________________
Roderick B. Currie claims that he was harmed by Ford Motor Company and Henry Company
LLC’s negligence and that they should be held responsible for that harm. To establish this claim,
Roderick B. Currie must prove all of the following:

1. That Ford Motor Company designed, manufactured, supplied, and/or installed the
original equipment clutches, brakes, and gaskets;
2. That Ford Motor Company was negligent in designing, manufacturing, supplying,

and/or installing the original equipment clutches, brakes, and gaskets;

Roderick B. Currie’s harm.
B) Henry Co.
1. That Henry Co. designed, manufactured, and/or supplied the roofing cement
2. That Henry Co. was negligent in designing, manufacturing, and/or supplying the
roofing cement;


No. 1221

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 1221
Negligence—Basic Standard of Care

________________________________________________________________________
A designer, manufacturer and supplier is negligent if it fails to use the amount of care in
designing, manufacturing and supplying the product that a reasonably careful designer,
manufacturer and supplier would use in similar circumstances to avoid exposing others to a
foreseeable risk of harm.
In determining whether Ford Motor Company and Henry Company LLC used reasonable care,
you should balance what Ford Motor Company and Henry Company LLC knew or should have
known about the likelihood and severity of potential harm from the product against the burden of
taking safety measures to reduce or avoid the harm.

No. 1222

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 1222
Negligence—Manufacturer or Supplier—Duty to Warn—Essential Factual Elements

________________________________________________________________________
Roderick B. Currie claims that Ford Motor Company and Henry Company LLC were negligent
by not using reasonable care to warn about Ford’s original equipment brakes, clutches and
gaskets and Henry’s roofing cement’s dangerous condition or about facts that made the original
equipment brakes, clutches and gaskets and roofing cement were likely to be dangerous. To
establish this claim, Roderick B. Currie must prove all of the following:
1. That Ford Motor Company manufactured, distributed, and sold the original
equipment brakes, clutches and gaskets;
2. That Ford Motor Company knew or reasonably should have known that the
original equipment brakes, clutches and gaskets were dangerous or were likely to
be dangerous when used or misused in a reasonably foreseeable manner;
3. That Ford Motor Company knew or reasonably should have known that users
would not realize the danger;
4. That Ford Motor Company failed to adequately warn of the danger;
5. That a reasonable manufacturer, distributor, or seller under the same or similar

circumstances would have warned of the danger;
7. That Ford Motor Company’s failure to warn was a substantial factor in causing

1. That Henry Company LLC manufactured, distributed, and sold the roofing
cement;
2. That Henry Company LLC knew or reasonably should have known that the
roofing cement was dangerous or was likely to be dangerous when used or
misused in a reasonably foreseeable manner;
3. That Henry Company LLC knew or reasonably should have known that users
would not realize the danger;
4. That Henry Company LLC failed to adequately warn of the danger;
5. That a reasonable manufacturer, distributor, or seller under the same or similar

circumstances would have warned of the danger;
7. That Henry Company LLC’s failure to warn was a substantial factor in causing

No. 1245

Motor Company
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 1245
Affirmative Defense—Product Misuse or Modification

________________________________________________________________________
Ford Motor Company and Henry Company LLC claim that they are not responsible for Roderick
B. Currie’s claimed harm because Ford’s original equipment brakes, clutches and gaskets and
Henry’s roofing cement were misused or modified after they left Ford Motor Company’s and
Henry Company LLC’s possession. To succeed on this defense, Ford Motor Company and
Henry Company LLC must prove that:
A) Ford Motor Company:
1. The original equipment brakes, clutches and gaskets were misused or modified
after they left Ford Motor Company’s possession; and
2. The misuse or modification was so highly extraordinary that it was not reasonably
foreseeable to Ford Motor Company; and therefore should be considered as the
sole cause of Roderick B. Currie’s harm.
1. The roofing cement was misused or modified after they left Henry Company
LLC’s possession; and
2. The misuse or modification was so highly extraordinary that it was not reasonably
foreseeable to Henry Company LLC; and therefore should be considered as the
sole cause of Roderick B. Currie’s harm.

No. 3220

Company LLC
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 3220
Affirmative Defense—Unauthorized or Unreasonable Use

________________________________________________________________________
Henry Company LLC is not responsible for any harm to Roderick B. Currie if Henry Company
LLC proves that any failure to match any implied warranty was caused by unauthorized or
unreasonable use of the roofing cement after it was sold.

No. 3900

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 3900
Introduction to Tort Damages—Liability Contested

________________________________________________________________________
If you decide that Roderick B. Currie has proved his claim against Ford Motor Company, and
Henry Company LLC, you also must decide how much money will reasonably compensate
Roderick B. Currie for the harm. This compensation is called “damages.”
The amount of damages must include an award for each item of harm that was caused by Ford
Motor Company and/or Henry Co.’s wrongful conduct, even if the particular harm could not
have been anticipated.
Roderick B. Curries does not have to prove the exact amount of damages that will provide
reasonable compensation for the harm. However, you must not speculate or guess in awarding
damages.

No. 3902

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 3902
Economic and Noneconomic Damages

________________________________________________________________________
The damages claimed by Roderick B. Currie for the harm caused by Ford Motor Company and
Henry Co. LLC fall into two categories called economic damages and non-economic damages.
You will be asked on the verdict form to state the two categories of damages separately.

No. 3903

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 3903
Items of Economic Damage

________________________________________________________________________
The following are the specific items of economic damages claimed by Roderick B. Currie:
1 . Medical Expenses;
2 . Lost Social Security Earnings; and
3 . Household services expenses.

No. 3903A
Requested by Plaintiffs Roderick Requested by Henry Company Requested by

B. Currie and Ing-Marie Sundling- LLC
Currie
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 3903A
Medical Expenses—Past and Future (Economic Damage)

________________________________________________________________________
1. Past and future medical expenses.
To recover damages for past medical expenses, Roderick B. Currie must prove the reasonable
cost of reasonably necessary medical care that he has received.
To recover damages for future medical expenses, Roderick B. Currie must prove the reasonable
cost of reasonably necessary medical care that he is reasonably certain to need in the future.

No. 3903C

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 3903C
Past and Future Lost Earnings (Economic Damage)

________________________________________________________________________
2. Future lost earnings.
To recover damages for future lost earnings/income Roderick B. Currie must prove the amount
of income he will be reasonably certain to lose in the future as a result of the injury.

No. 3903D

Currie
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 3903D
Lost Earning Capacity (Economic Damage)

________________________________________________________________________
3. The loss of Roderick B. Currie’s ability to earn money.
To recover damages for the loss of the ability to earn money as a result of the injury, Roderick B.
Currie must prove the reasonable value of that loss to them. It is not necessary that he have a
work history.

No. 3903E

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 3903E
Loss of Ability to Provide Household Services (Economic Damage)

________________________________________________________________________
4. The loss of Roderick B. Currie’s ability to provide household services.
To recover damages for the loss of the ability to provide household services, Roderick B. Currie
must prove the reasonable value of the services he would have been reasonably certain to
provide to his household if the injury had not occurred.

No. 3904A

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 3904A
Present Cash Value

________________________________________________________________________
If you decide that Roderick B. Currie’s harm includes future economic damages for loss of
earnings and future medical expenses, then the amount of those future damages must be reduced
to their present cash value. This is necessary because money received now will, through
investment, grow to a larger amount in the future. Ford Motor Company and Henry Company
LLC must prove the amount by which future damages should be reduced to present value.
To find present cash value, you must determine the amount of money that, if reasonably invested
today, will provide Roderick B. Currie with the amount of his future damages.
You may consider expert testimony in determining the present cash value of future economic
damages.

No. 3905

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 3905
Items of Noneconomic Damage

________________________________________________________________________
The following are the specific items of noneconomic damages claimed by Roderick B. Currie:
1 . Physical pain;
2 . Mental suffering;
3 . Loss of enjoyment of life; and
4 . Physical impairment.

No. 3905A

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 3905A
Physical Pain, Mental Suffering, and Emotional Distress (Noneconomic Damage)

________________________________________________________________________
1. Past and future physical pain, mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and physical
impairment.
No fixed standard exists for deciding the amount of these noneconomic damages. You must use
your judgment to decide a reasonable amount based on the evidence and your common sense.
To recover for future physical pain, mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and physical
impairment, Roderick B. Currie must prove that he is reasonably certain to suffer that harm.

No. 3920

Currie
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 3920
Loss of Consortium (Noneconomic Damage)

________________________________________________________________________
Ing-Marie Sundling-Currie claims that she has been harmed by the injury to her husband
Roderick Currie. If you decide that Ing-Marie Sundling Currie has proved her loss of consortium
claim against Ford Motor Company and Henry Co. you also must decide how much money, if
any, will reasonably compensate Ing-Marie Sundling-Currie for loss of her husband Roderick
Currie’s companionship and services, including:
1. The loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection,

society, moral support; and
2. The loss of the enjoyment of sexual relations.
Ing-Marie Sundling-Currie may recover for harm she proves she has suffered to date and for
harm she is reasonably certain to suffer in the future.
For future harm, determine the amount in current dollars paid at the time of judgment that will
compensate Ing-Marie Sundling-Currie for that harm. This amount of noneconomic damages
should not be further reduced to present cash value because that reduction should only be
performed with respect to economic damages.
No fixed standard exists for deciding the amount of these damages. You must use your judgment
to decide a reasonable amount based on the evidence and your common sense.
Do not include in your award any compensation for the following:
1. The loss of financial support from Roderick Currie;

2. Personal services, such as nursing, that Ing-Marie Sundling-Currie has provided
or will provide to Roderick B. Currie;
3. Any loss of earnings that Ing-Marie Sundling-Currie has suffered by giving up

employment to take care of Roderick B. Currie; or
4. The cost of obtaining domestic household services to replace services that would
have been performed by Roderick B. Currie.

No. 3924

Motor Company
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 3924
No Punitive Damages
________________________________________________________________________
You must not include in your award any damages to punish or make an example of Defendants
Ford Motor Company, and Henry Co. Such damages would be punitive damages, and they
cannot be a part of your verdict. You must award only the damages that fairly compensate
Plaintiffs Roderick B. Currie and Ing-Marie Sundling Currie for their loss.

No. 3925

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 3925
Arguments of Counsel Not Evidence of Damages

________________________________________________________________________
The arguments of the attorneys are not evidence of damages. Your award must be based on your
reasoned judgment applied to the testimony of the witnesses and the other evidence that has been
admitted during trial.

No. 3926

Company LLC
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 3926
Settlement Deduction
________________________________________________________________________
You have heard evidence that Roderick B. Currie has settled his claim against . Any award of
damages to Roderick B. Currie should be made without considering any amount that he may
have received under this settlement. I will make the proper deduction from any award of
damages.

No. 3930
Requested by Requested by Defendant Ford Requested by Defendant Henry

Motor Company Company LLC
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 3930
Mitigation of Damages (Personal Injury)

________________________________________________________________________
If you decide Defendants Ford Motor Company, Henry Co. are responsible for the original harm,
Plaintiff Roderick B. Currie is not entitled to recover damages for harm that Ford Motor
Company and Henry Co. proves Roderick B. Currie and Ing-Marie Sundling Currie could have
avoided with reasonable efforts or expenditures.
You should consider the reasonableness of Roderick B. Currie and Ing-Marie Sundling Currie’s
efforts in light of the circumstances facing Roderick B. Currie and Ing-Marie Sundling Currie at
the time, including his ability to make the efforts or expenditures without undue risk or hardship.
If Roderick B. Currie and Ing-Marie Sundling Currie made reasonable efforts to avoid harm,
then your award should include reasonable amounts that he spent for this purpose.

No. 3932

Currie
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 3932
Life Expectancy
________________________________________________________________________
If you decide Roderick B. Currie has suffered damages that will continue for the rest of his life,
you must determine how long he will probably live. According to Vital Statistics of the United
States, published by the National Center for Health Statistics a 83-year-old male is expected to
live another 6.7 years. This is the average life expectancy. Some people live longer and others
die sooner.
This published information is evidence of how long a person is likely to live but is not
conclusive. In deciding a person’s life expectancy, you should also consider, among other
factors, that person’s health, habits, activities, lifestyle, and occupation.

No. 3933

Motor Company
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 3933
Damages From Multiple Defendants

________________________________________________________________________
In this case, Plaintiffs Roderick B. Currie and Ing-Marie Sundling Currie seek damages from
more than one defendant. You must determine the liability of each defendant to Plaintiffs
separately.
If you determine that more than one defendant is liable to Plaintiffs for damages, you will be
asked to find Plaintiffs’ total damages.
In deciding on the amount of damages, consider only Plaintiffs’ claimed losses. Do not attempt
to divide the damages among the defendants. The allocation of responsibility for payment of
damages among multiple defendants is to be done by the court after you reach your verdict.

No. 3934

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 3934
Damages on Multiple Legal Theories

________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiffs Roderick B. Currie and Ing-Marie Sundling Currie seek damages from Ford Motor
Company, and Henry Co. under more than one legal theory. However, each item of damages
may be awarded only once, regardless of the number of legal theories alleged.
You will be asked to decide whether Ford Motor Company and/or Henry Co. are liable to
Plaintiffs under the following legal theories:
1. Design defect;
2. Failure to warn;
3. Negligence.
The following items of damages are recoverable only once under all of the above legal theories:
1. Medical Expenses
2. Household Services
3. Lost future income from Social Security earnings
The following additional items of damages are recoverable only once under all of the above legal
theories:
1. Physical pain;
2. Mental stress;

3. Loss of enjoyment of life; and;
4. emotional distress.

No. 3946

Currie
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 3946
Punitive Damages—Entity Defendant—Bifurcated Trial (First Phase)

________________________________________________________________________
If you decide that Ford Motor Company's and/or Henry Company LLC’s conduct caused
Roderick B. Currie and Ing-Marie Sundling-Currie harm, you must decide whether that conduct
justifies an award of punitive damages. The amount, if any, of punitive damages will be an issue
decided later.
At this time, you must decide whether Roderick B. Currie and Ing-Marie Sundling-Currie have
proved that Ford Motor Company and/or Henry Company LLC engaged in that conduct with
malice, oppression, or fraud. To do this, Roderick B. Currie and Ing-Marie Sundling-Currie must
prove the following by clear and convincing evidence:
1. That the conduct constituting malice, oppression, or fraud was committed by one or more
officers, directors, or managing agents of Ford Motor Company and/or Henry Company LLC
who acted on behalf of Ford Motor Company and/or Henry Company LLC; or
2. That the conduct constituting malice, oppression, or fraud was authorized by one or more
officers, directors, or managing agents of Ford Motor Company and/or Henry Company LLC: or
3. That one or more officers, directors, or managing agents of Ford Motor Company and/or
Henry Company LLC knew of the conduct constituting malice, oppression, or fraud and adopted
or approved that conduct after it occurred.
“Malice” means that Ford Motor Company and/or Henry Company LLC acted with intent to
cause injury or that Ford Motor Company’s and/or Henry Company LLC’s conduct was
despicable and was done with a willful and knowing disregard of the rights or safety of another.
A person acts with knowing disregard when he or she is aware of the probable dangerous
consequences of his or her conduct and deliberately fails to avoid those consequences.
“Oppression” means that Ford Motor Company’s and/or Henry Company LLC’s conduct was
despicable and subjected Roderick B. Currie and Ing-Marie Sundling-Currie to cruel and unjust
hardship in knowing disregard of their rights.
“Despicable conduct” is conduct that is so vile, base, or contemptible that it would be looked
down on and despised by reasonable people.
“Fraud” means that Ford Motor Company and/or Henry Company LLC intentionally
misrepresented or concealed a material fact and did so intending to harm Plaintiffs.
An employee is a “managing agent” if he or she exercises substantial independent authority and

judgment in his or her corporate decision making such that his or her decisions ultimately
determine corporate policy.

No. 3964

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 3964
Jurors Not to Consider Attorney Fees and Court Costs

________________________________________________________________________
You must not consider, or include as part of any award, attorney fees or expenses that the parties
incurred in bringing or defending this lawsuit.

No. 5000

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 5000
Duties of the Judge and Jury

________________________________________________________________________
Members of the jury, you have now heard all the evidence and the closing arguments of the
attorneys. It is my duty to instruct you on the law that applies to this case. You must follow these
instructions as well as those that I previously gave you. You will have a copy of my instructions
with you when you go to the jury room to deliberate. I have provided each of you with your own
copy of the instructions.
You must decide what the facts are. You must consider all the evidence and then decide what
you think happened. You must decide the facts based on the evidence admitted in this trial.
Do not allow anything that happens outside this courtroom to affect your decision. Do not talk
about this case or the people involved in it with anyone, including family and persons living in
your household, friends and coworkers, spiritual leaders, advisors, or therapists. Do not do any
research on your own or as a group. Do not use dictionaries or other reference materials.
These prohibitions on communications and research extend to all forms of electronic

communications. Do not use any electronic devices or media, such as a cell phone or smart
phone, PDA, computer, tablet device, the Internet, any Internet service, any text or instant-
messaging service, any Internet chat room, blog, or website, including social networking
websites or online diaries, to send or receive any information to or from anyone about this case
or your experience as a juror until after you have been discharged from your jury duty.
Do not investigate the case or conduct any experiments. Do not contact anyone to assist you,
such as a family accountant, doctor, or lawyer. Do not visit or view the scene of any event
involved in this case. If you happen to pass by the scene, do not stop or investigate. All jurors
must see or hear the same evidence at the same time. You must not let bias, sympathy, prejudice,
or public opinion influence your decision.

I will now tell you the law that you must follow to reach your verdict. You must follow the law
exactly as I give it to you, even if you disagree with it. If the attorneys have said anything
different about what the law means, you must follow what I say.
In reaching your verdict, do not guess what I think your verdict should be from something I may
have said or done.
Pay careful attention to all the instructions that I give you. All the instructions are important
because together they state the law that you will use in this case. You must consider all of the
instructions together.
After you have decided what the facts are, you may find that some instructions do not apply. In
that case, follow the instructions that do apply and use them together with the facts to reach your
verdict.
If I repeat any ideas or rules of law during my instructions, that does not mean that these ideas or
rules are more important than the others. In addition, the order in which the instructions are given
does not make any difference.
Most of the instructions are typed. However, some handwritten or typewritten words may have
been added, and some words may have been deleted. Do not discuss or consider why words may
have been added or deleted. Please treat all the words the same, no matter what their format.
Simply accept the instruction in its final form.

No. 5001

Motor Company
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 5001
Insurance
________________________________________________________________________
You must not consider whether any of the parties in this case has insurance. The presence or
absence of insurance is totally irrelevant. You must decide this case based only on the law and
the evidence.

No. 5002

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 5002
Evidence
________________________________________________________________________
You must decide what the facts are in this case only from the evidence you have seen or heard
during the trial, including any exhibits that I admit into evidence. Sworn testimony, documents,
or anything else may be admitted into evidence. You may not consider as evidence anything that
you saw or heard when court was not in session, even something done or said by one of the
parties, attorneys, or witnesses.
What the attorneys say during the trial is not evidence. In their opening statements and closing
arguments, the attorneys talk to you about the law and the evidence. What the lawyers say may
help you understand the law and the evidence, but their statements and arguments are not
evidence.
The attorneys’ questions are not evidence. Only the witnesses’ answers are evidence. You should
not think that something is true just because an attorney’s question suggested that it was true.
However, the attorneys for both sides have agreed that certain facts are true. This agreement is
called a stipulation. No other proof is needed and you must accept those facts as true in this trial.
Each side had the right to object to evidence offered by the other side. If I sustained an objection
to a question, ignore the question and do not guess as to why I sustained the objection. If the
witness did not answer, you must not guess what he or she might have said. If the witness
already answered, you must ignore the answer.
During the trial I granted a motion to strike testimony that you heard. You must totally disregard
that testimony. You must treat it as though it did not exist.

No. 5003

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 5003
Witnesses
________________________________________________________________________
A witness is a person who has knowledge related to this case. You will have to decide whether
you believe each witness and how important each witness’s testimony is to the case. You may
believe all, part, or none of a witness's testimony.
In deciding whether to believe a witness's testimony, you may consider, among other factors, the
following:
(a) How well did the witness see, hear, or otherwise sense what he or she described in
court?
(b) How well did the witness remember and describe what happened?
(c) How did the witness look, act, and speak while testifying?
(d) Did the witness have any reason to say something that was not true? For example,
did the witness show any bias or prejudice or have a personal relationship with
any of the parties involved in the case or have a personal stake in how this case is
decided?
(e) What was the witness's attitude toward this case or about giving testimony?
Sometimes a witness may say something that is not consistent with something else he or she
said. Sometimes different witnesses will give different versions of what happened. People often
forget things or make mistakes in what they remember. Also, two people may see the same event
but remember it differently. You may consider these differences, but do not decide that
testimony is untrue just because it differs from other testimony.

However, if you decide that a witness deliberately testified untruthfully about something
important, you may choose not to believe anything that witness said. On the other hand, if you
think the witness testified untruthfully about some things but told the truth about others, you may
accept the part you think is true and ignore the rest.
Do not make any decision simply because there were more witnesses on one side than on the
other. If you believe it is true, the testimony of a single witness is enough to prove a fact.
You must not be biased against any witness because of his or her disability, gender, race,
religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or socioeconomic status.

No. 5005

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 5005
Multiple Parties
________________________________________________________________________
There are two plaintiffs in this trial. You should decide the case of each plaintiff separately as if
it were a separate lawsuit. Each plaintiff is entitled to separate consideration of his or her own
claim(s).
There are two defendants in this trial. You should decide the case against each defendant
separately as if it were a separate lawsuit. Each defendant is entitled to separate consideration of
their own defenses.
Unless I tell you otherwise, all instructions apply to each plaintiff and defendant

No. 5006

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 5006
Nonperson Party
________________________________________________________________________
Ford Motor Company, and Henry Co. are entitled to the same fair and impartial treatment that
you would give to an individual. You must decide this case with the same fairness that you
would use if you were deciding the case between individuals.
When I use words like “person” or “he” or “she” in these instructions to refer to a party, those
instructions also apply to Ford Motor Company, and Henry Co.

No. 5007

Motor Company
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 5007
Removal of Claims or Parties and Remaining Claims and Parties

________________________________________________________________________
TBD’s claim for TBD is no longer an issue in this case.
TBD is no longer a party to this case.
Do not speculate as to why these claims and persons are no longer involved in the case. You
should not consider this during your deliberations.
The following claim remains for you to resolve by your deliberations:
7. TBD’s claim against TBD for TBD to which TBD alleges IF YES PROVIDE.

No. 5009

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 5009
Predeliberation Instructions
________________________________________________________________________
When you go to the jury room, the first thing you should do is choose a presiding juror. The
presiding juror should see to it that your discussions are orderly and that everyone has a fair
chance to be heard.
It is your duty to talk with one another in the jury room and to consider the views of all the
jurors. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but only after you have considered the
evidence with the other members of the jury. Feel free to change your mind if you are convinced
that your position should be different. You should all try to agree. But do not give up your honest
beliefs just because the others think differently.
Please do not state your opinions too strongly at the beginning of your deliberations or
immediately announce how you plan to vote as it may interfere with an open discussion. Keep an
open mind so that you and your fellow jurors can easily share ideas about the case.
You should use your common sense and experience in deciding whether testimony is true and
accurate. However, during your deliberations, do not make any statements or provide any
information to other jurors based on any special training or unique personal experiences that you
may have had related to matters involved in this case. What you may know or have learned
through your training or experience is not a part of the evidence received in this case.
Sometimes jurors disagree or have questions about the evidence or about what the witnesses said
in their testimony. If that happens, you may ask to have testimony read back to you or ask to see
any exhibits admitted into evidence that have not already been provided to you. Also, jurors may
need further explanation about the laws that apply to the case. If this happens during your
discussions, write down your questions and give them to the court attendant. I will talk with the
attorneys before I answer so it may take some time. You should continue your deliberations
while you wait for my answer. I will do my best to answer them. When you write me a note, do

not tell me how you voted on an issue until I ask for this information in open court.
Your decision must be based on your personal evaluation of the evidence presented in the case.
Each of you may be asked in open court how you voted on each question.
While I know you would not do this, I am required to advise you that you must not base your
decision on chance, such as a flip of a coin. If you decide to award damages, you may not agree
in advance to simply add up the amounts each juror thinks is right and then, without further
deliberations, make the average your verdict.
You may take breaks, but do not discuss this case with anyone, including each other, until all of
you are back in the jury room.

No. 5010

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 5010
Taking Notes During the Trial

________________________________________________________________________
If you have taken notes during the trial you may take your notebooks with you into the jury
room.
You may use your notes only to help you remember what happened during the trial. Your
independent recollection of the evidence should govern your verdict. You should not allow
yourself to be influenced by the notes of other jurors if those notes differ from what you
remember.
At the end of the trial, your notes will be collected and destroyed.

No. 5011

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 5011
Reading Back of Trial Testimony in Jury Room

________________________________________________________________________
You may request in writing that trial testimony be read to you. I will have the court reporter read
the testimony to you. You may request that all or a part of a witness’s testimony be read.
Your request should be as specific as possible. It will be helpful if you can state:
1. The name of the witness;
2. The subject of the testimony you would like to have read; and
3. The name of the attorney or attorneys asking the questions when the testimony
was given.
The court reporter is not permitted to talk with you when she or he is reading the testimony you
have requested.
While the court reporter is reading the testimony, you may not deliberate or discuss the case.
You may not ask the court reporter to read testimony that was not specifically mentioned in a
written request. If your notes differ from the testimony, you must accept the court reporter’s
record as accurate.

No. 5012

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 5012
Introduction to Special Verdict Form

________________________________________________________________________
I will give you verdict forms with questions you must answer. I have already instructed you on
the law that you are to use in answering these questions. You must follow my instructions and
the forms carefully. You must consider each question separately. Although you may discuss the
evidence and the issues to be decided in any order, you must answer the questions on the verdict
forms in the order they appear. After you answer a question, the form tells you what to do next.
All 12 of you must deliberate on and answer each question. At least 9 of you must agree on an
answer before all of you can move on to the next question. However, the same 9 or more people
do not have to agree on each answer.
When you have finished filling out the forms, your presiding juror must write the date and sign it
at the bottom of the last page and then notify the court attendant that you are ready to present
your verdict in the courtroom.

No. 5013

Currie
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 5013
Deadlocked Jury Admonition

________________________________________________________________________
You should reach a verdict if you reasonably can. You have spent time trying to reach a verdict
and this case is important to the parties so that they can move on with their lives with this matter
resolved.
If you are unable to reach a verdict, the case will have to be tried before another jury selected in
the same manner and from the same community from which you were chosen and at additional
cost to everyone.
Please carefully consider the opinions of all the jurors, including those with whom you disagree.
Keep an open mind and feel free to change your opinion if you become convinced that it is
wrong.
You should not, however, surrender your beliefs concerning the truth and the weight of the
evidence. Each of you must decide the case for yourself and not merely go along with the
conclusions of your fellow jurors.

No. 5014

Currie
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 5014
Substitution of Alternate Juror

________________________________________________________________________
One of your fellow jurors has been excused and an alternate juror has been selected to join the
jury. Do not consider this substitution for any purpose.
The alternate juror must participate fully in the deliberations that lead to any verdict. The parties
have the right to a verdict reached only after full participation of the jurors whose votes
determine that verdict. This right will only be assured if you begin your deliberations again, from
the beginning. Therefore, you must set aside and disregard all past deliberations and begin your
deliberations all over again. Each of you must disregard the earlier deliberations and decide this
case as if those earlier deliberations had not taken place.
Now, please return to the jury room and scementt your deliberations from the beginning.

No. 5015

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 5015
Instruction to Alternate Jurors on Submission of Case to Jury

________________________________________________________________________
The jury will soon begin deliberating, but you are still alternate jurors and are bound by my
earlier instructions about your conduct.
Until the jury is discharged, do not talk about the case or about any of the people or any subject
involved in it with anyone, not even your family or friends, and not even with each other. Do not
have any contact with the deliberating jurors. Do not decide how you would vote if you were
deliberating. Do not form or express an opinion about the issues in this case, unless you are
substituted for one of the deliberating jurors.

No. 5017

Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 5017
Polling the Jury

________________________________________________________________________
After your verdict is read in open court, you may be asked individually to indicate whether the
verdict expresses your personal vote. This is referred to as “polling” the jury and is done to
ensure that at least nine jurors have agreed to each decision.
The verdict forms that you will receive ask you to answer several questions. You must vote
separately on each question. Although nine or more jurors must agree on each answer, it does not
have to be the same nine for each answer. Therefore, it is important for each of you to remember
how you have voted on each question so that if the jury is polled, each of you will be able to
answer accurately about how you voted.
Each of you will be provided a draft copy of the verdict form for your use in keeping track of
your votes.

No. 5020

Currie
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 5020
Demonstrative Evidence
________________________________________________________________________
During the trial, materials have been shown to you to help explain testimony or other evidence in
case. Some of these materials have been admitted into evidence, and you will be able to review
them during your deliberations.
Other materials have also been shown to you during the trial, but they have not been admitted
into evidence. You will not be able to review them during your deliberations because they are
not themselves evidence or proof of any facts. You may, however, consider the testimony given
in connection with those materials.

No. 5090

Company LLC
Refused
Withdrawn ___________________________________________
Judicial Officer
Instruction
No. 5090
Final Instruction on Discharge of Jury

________________________________________________________________________
Members of the jury, this completes your duties in this case. On behalf of the parties and their
attorneys, thank you for your time and your service. It can be a great personal sacrifice to serve
as a juror, but by doing so you are fulfilling an extremely important role in California’s system of
justice. Each of us has the right to a trial by jury, but that right would mean little unless citizens
such as each of you are willing to serve when called to do so. You have been attentive and
conscientious during the trial, and I am grateful for your dedication.
Throughout the trial, I continued to admonish you that you could not discuss the facts of the case
with anyone other than your fellow jurors and then only during deliberations when all twelve
jurors were present. I am now relieving you from that restriction, but I have another admonition.
You now have the absolute right to discuss or not to discuss your deliberations and verdict with
anyone. It is appropriate for the parties, their attorneys or representatives to ask you to discuss
the case, but any such discussion may occur only with your consent and only if the discussion is
at a reasonable time and place. You should immediately report any unreasonable contact to the
court.
If you do choose to discuss the case with anyone, feel free to discuss it from your own
perspective, but be respectful of the other jurors and their views and feelings.
Thank you for your time and your service; you are discharged.


Preliminary Admonitions: Jury Instruction Authorities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preliminary Admonitions: Jury Instruction Authorities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preliminary Admonitions: Jury Instruction Authorities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jury Instruction Authorities

Requested by ALL PARTIES Requested by Requested by

LACIV 129 (Rev. 01/07) JURY INSTRUCTION / SPECIAL

Requested by ALL PARTIES Requested by Requested by

LACIV 129 (Rev. 01/07) JURY INSTRUCTION / SPECIAL

LACIV 129 (Rev. 01/07) JURY INSTRUCTION / SPECIAL

Requested by ALL PARTIES Requested by Requested by

Taking Notes During the Trial

LACIV 129 (Rev. 01/07) JURY INSTRUCTION / SPECIAL

Requested by Defendant Henry Requested by Defendant Ford Requested by

LACIV 129 (Rev. 01/07) JURY INSTRUCTION / SPECIAL

Requested by ALL PARTIES Requested by Requested by

LACIV 129 (Rev. 01/07) JURY INSTRUCTION / SPECIAL

Requested by Requested by Defendant Ford Requested by

LACIV 129 (Rev. 01/07) JURY INSTRUCTION / SPECIAL

Requested by ALL PARTIES Requested by Requested by

LACIV 129 (Rev. 01/07) JURY INSTRUCTION / SPECIAL

Requested Defendant by Henry Requested by Requested by

Removal of Claims or Parties

[Name of Party] is no longer a party to this case.]

LACIV 129 (Rev. 01/07) JURY INSTRUCTION / SPECIAL

Requested by ALL PARTIES Requested by Requested by

LACIV 129 (Rev. 01/07) JURY INSTRUCTION / SPECIAL

Requested by ALL PARTIES Requested by Requested by

Instruction to Alternate Jurors

LACIV 129 (Rev. 01/07) JURY INSTRUCTION / SPECIAL

Requested by ALL PARTIES Requested by Requested by

Questions from Jurors

LACIV 129 (Rev. 01/07) JURY INSTRUCTION / SPECIAL

Requested by ALL PARTIES Requested by Requested by

LACIV 129 (Rev. 01/07) JURY INSTRUCTION / SPECIAL

Requested by Plaintiffs Roderick Requested by Requested by

Bench Conferences and Conferences in Chambers

LACIV 129 (Rev. 01/07) JURY INSTRUCTION / SPECIAL

Requested by Plaintiffs Roderick Requested by Defendant Ford Requested by

Why Electronic Communications and Research Are Prohibited

LACIV 129 (Rev. 01/07) JURY INSTRUCTION / SPECIAL

Requested by ALL PARTIES Requested by Requested by

Obligation to Prove—More Likely True Than Not True

LACIV 129 (Rev. 01/07) JURY INSTRUCTION / SPECIAL

Requested by ALL PARTIES Requested by Requested by

More Likely True—Clear and Convincing Proof

LACIV 129 (Rev. 01/07) JURY INSTRUCTION / SPECIAL

Requested by ALL PARTIES Requested by Requested by

Direct and Indirect Evidence

LACIV 129 (Rev. 01/07) JURY INSTRUCTION / SPECIAL

Requested by ALL PARTIES Requested by Requested by

Party Having Power to Produce Better Evidence

LACIV 129 (Rev. 01/07) JURY INSTRUCTION / SPECIAL

Requested by Plaintiffs Roderick Requested by Requested by

Willful Suppression of Evidence

LACIV 129 (Rev. 01/07) JURY INSTRUCTION / SPECIAL

Requested by ALL PARTIES Requested by Requested by

Failure to Explain or Deny Evidence

LACIV 129 (Rev. 01/07) JURY INSTRUCTION / SPECIAL

Requested by ALL PARTIES Requested by Requested by

Evidence Admitted for Limited Purpose

LACIV 129 (Rev. 01/07) JURY INSTRUCTION / SPECIAL