allegedly erroneous instruction in California

2019Standard of review We independently review whether the trial court accurately instructed the jury. ( People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193 , 218, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 551 , 82 P.3d 755 .) We review the allegedly erroneous instruction in the context of the evidence presented at trial. ( People v. Crosier (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 712 , 724, 116 Cal.Rptr. 467 ; see also People v. Morine (1903) 138 Cal. 626 , 631, 72 P. 166 ["Instructions are given to juries to be applied to the facts as they may find them"].) We review the instructions as a whole ( People v. Lucas (2014) 60 Cal.4th 153 , 282, 177 Cal.Rptr.3

2019Standard of review We independently review whether the trial court accurately instructed the jury. ( People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193 , 218, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 551 , 82 P.3d 755 .) We review the allegedly erroneous instruction in the context of the evidence presented at trial. ( People v. Crosier (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 712 , 724, 116 Cal.Rptr. 467 ; see also People v. Morine (1903) 138 Cal. 626 , 631, 72 P. 166 ["Instructions are given to juries to be applied to the facts as they may find them"].) We review the instructions as a whole ( People v. Lucas (2014) 60 Cal.4th 153 , 282, 177 Cal.Rptr.3

2019Standard of review We independently review whether the trial court accurately instructed the jury. ( People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193 , 218, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 551 , 82 P.3d 755 .) We review the allegedly erroneous instruction in the context of the evidence presented at trial. ( People v. Crosier (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 712 , 724, 116 Cal.Rptr. 467 ; see also People v. Morine (1903) 138 Cal. 626 , 631, 72 P. 166 ["Instructions are given to juries to be applied to the facts as they may find them"].) We review the instructions as a whole ( People v. Lucas (2014) 60 Cal.4th 153 , 282, 177 Cal.Rptr.3

2019Standard of review We independently review whether the trial court accurately instructed the jury. ( People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193 , 218, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 551 , 82 P.3d 755 .) We review the allegedly erroneous instruction in the context of the evidence presented at trial. ( People v. Crosier (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 712 , 724, 116 Cal.Rptr. 467 ; see also People v. Morine (1903) 138 Cal. 626 , 631, 72 P. 166 ["Instructions are given to juries to be applied to the facts as they may find them"].) We review the instructions as a whole ( People v. Lucas (2014) 60 Cal.4th 153 , 282, 177 Cal.Rptr.3

2019Standard of review We independently review whether the trial court accurately instructed the jury. ( People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193 , 218, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 551 , 82 P.3d 755 .) We review the allegedly erroneous instruction in the context of the evidence presented at trial. ( People v. Crosier (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 712 , 724, 116 Cal.Rptr. 467 ; see also People v. Morine (1903) 138 Cal. 626 , 631, 72 P. 166 ["Instructions are given to juries to be applied to the facts as they may find them"].) We review the instructions as a whole ( People v. Lucas (2014) 60 Cal.4th 153 , 282, 177 Cal.Rptr.3

2019Standard of review We independently review whether the trial court accurately instructed the jury. ( People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193 , 218, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 551 , 82 P.3d 755 .) We review the allegedly erroneous instruction in the context of the evidence presented at trial. ( People v. Crosier (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 712 , 724, 116 Cal.Rptr. 467 ; see also People v. Morine (1903) 138 Cal. 626 , 631, 72 P. 166 ["Instructions are given to juries to be applied to the facts as they may find them"].) We review the instructions as a whole ( People v. Lucas (2014) 60 Cal.4th 153 , 282, 177 Cal.Rptr.3

2019Standard of review We independently review whether the trial court accurately instructed the jury. ( People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193 , 218, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 551 , 82 P.3d 755 .) We review the allegedly erroneous instruction in the context of the evidence presented at trial. ( People v. Crosier (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 712 , 724, 116 Cal.Rptr. 467 ; see also People v. Morine (1903) 138 Cal. 626 , 631, 72 P. 166 ["Instructions are given to juries to be applied to the facts as they may find them"].) We review the instructions as a whole ( People v. Lucas (2014) 60 Cal.4th 153 , 282, 177 Cal.Rptr.3

2019Standard of review We independently review whether the trial court accurately instructed the jury. ( People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193 , 218, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 551 , 82 P.3d 755 .) We review the allegedly erroneous instruction in the context of the evidence presented at trial. ( People v. Crosier (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 712 , 724, 116 Cal.Rptr. 467 ; see also People v. Morine (1903) 138 Cal. 626 , 631, 72 P. 166 ["Instructions are given to juries to be applied to the facts as they may find them"].) We review the instructions as a whole ( People v. Lucas (2014) 60 Cal.4th 153 , 282, 177 Cal.Rptr.3

2016(Faulk v. Soberanes (1961) 56 Cal.2d 466, 471 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 545 , 363 P.2d 593 ] [“appellant . . . has the burden to present a record sufficiently complete to establish that the claimed errors were not invited by her, and in the absence of such a showing she may not properly complain”].) Under the invited error doctrine, where the record does not disclose which party requested an allegedly erroneous instruction, “the reviewing court must presume that the appellant requested the instruction and therefore cannot complain of error.” (Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655,

2016(Faulk v. Soberanes (1961) 56 Cal.2d 466, 471 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 545 , 363 P.2d 593 ] [“appellant . . . has the burden to present a record sufficiently complete to establish that the claimed errors were not invited by her, and in the absence of such a showing she may not properly complain”].) Under the invited error doctrine, where the record does not disclose which party requested an allegedly erroneous instruction, “the reviewing court must presume that the appellant requested the instruction and therefore cannot complain of error.” (Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655,

2016(Morehouse v. Taubman Co. (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 548, 559 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 308 ] [absent “any indication before us which party requested the challenged instruction in the first instance . . . , it is presumed to have been given at appellant’s request”].) Here, Callaghan does not point to and we see nothing in the record that discloses which party requested CACI Nos. 400 and 401 regarding the essential factual elements of general negligence and the basic standard of care in negligence cases.

2016(Morehouse v. Taubman Co. (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 548, 559 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 308 ] [absent “any indication before us which party requested the challenged instruction in the first instance . . . , it is presumed to have been given at appellant’s request”].) Here, Callaghan does not point to and we see nothing in the record that discloses which party requested CACI Nos. 400 and 401 regarding the essential factual elements of general negligence and the basic standard of care in negligence cases.

2016(Cristler v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 72, 82 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 34 ].) In doing so, and in evaluating any prejudicial impact of the allegedly erroneous instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the losing party because “we must assume the jury might have believed the evidence upon which the proposed instruction was predicated and might have rendered a verdict in favor of the losing party had a proper instruction been given.” (Bourgi v. West Covina Motors, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1649, 1664 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 758 ].) When deciding whether an

2016(Cristler v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 72, 82 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 34 ].) In doing so, and in evaluating any prejudicial impact of the allegedly erroneous instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the losing party because “we must assume the jury might have believed the evidence upon which the proposed instruction was predicated and might have rendered a verdict in favor of the losing party had a proper instruction been given.” (Bourgi v. West Covina Motors, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1649, 1664 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 758 ].) When deciding whether an

2016(Cristler v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 72, 82 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 34 ].) In doing so, and in evaluating any prejudicial impact of the allegedly erroneous instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the losing party because “we must assume the jury might have believed the evidence upon which the proposed instruction was predicated and might have rendered a verdict in favor of the losing party had a proper instruction been given.” (Bourgi v. West Covina Motors, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1649, 1664 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 758 ].) When deciding whether an

2016(Cristler v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 72, 82 .) In doing so, and in evaluating any prejudicial impact of the allegedly erroneous instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the losing party because "we must assume the jury might have believed the evidence upon which the proposed instruction was predicated and might have rendered a verdict in favor of the losing party had a proper instruction been given." (Bourgi v. West Covina Motors, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1649, 1664 .) When 5 Appellants have not challenged the sufficiency of the evidenc

2016(Faulk v. Soberanes (1961) 56 Cal.2d 466, 471 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 545 , 363 P.2d 593 ] [“appellant . . . has the burden to present a record sufficiently complete to establish that the claimed errors were not invited by her, and in the absence of such a showing she may not properly complain”].) Under the invited error doctrine, where the record does not disclose which party requested an allegedly erroneous instruction, “the reviewing court must presume that the appellant requested the instruction and therefore cannot complain of error.” (Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655,

2016(Faulk v. Soberanes (1961) 56 Cal.2d 466, 471 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 545 , 363 P.2d 593 ] [“appellant . . . has the burden to present a record sufficiently complete to establish that the claimed errors were not invited by her, and in the absence of such a showing she may not properly complain”].) Under the invited error doctrine, where the record does not disclose which party requested an allegedly erroneous instruction, “the reviewing court must presume that the appellant requested the instruction and therefore cannot complain of error.” (Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655,

2015"First, a product may be found defective in design if the plaintiff establishes that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner." (Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, 432 (Barker).) "Second, a product may alternatively be found defective in design if the plaintiff demonstrates that the product's design proximately 13 caused his injury and the defendant fails to establish, in light of the relevant factors, that, on balance, the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of dange

1994In fact, it appears that the allegedly erroneous instruction in Hamilton was based in part on the “possibility” language of Apodaca, supra, 76 Cal.App.3d at page 489 , and that the defendant had specifically argued that the instruction was contrary to Colautti, supra, 439 U.S. at page 388 [ 58 L.Ed.2d at p. 605 ].

1994In fact, it appears that the allegedly erroneous instruction in Hamilton was based in part on the “possibility” language of Apodaca, supra, 76 Cal.App.3d at page 489 , and that the defendant had specifically argued that the instruction was contrary to Colautti, supra, 439 U.S. at page 388 [ 58 L.Ed.2d at p. 605 ].

1989(Hale v. Morgan (1978) 22 Cal.3d 388, 394 [ 149 Cal.Rptr. 375 [ 584 P.2d 512 ]; Wilson v. Lewis (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 802, 805 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 396 ].) The record herein is indisputably clear that in both his pretrial statement and at trial husband conceded that if the residence was found to be his separate property, the court should determine the parties’ community interest in the home pursuant to Moore . 4 By such acquiescence in the allegedly erroneous standard, husband is barred from raising for the first time here on appeal the error stemming from adjudication pursuant to that procedure.

1989(Hale v. Morgan (1978) 22 Cal.3d 388, 394 [ 149 Cal.Rptr. 375 [ 584 P.2d 512 ]; Wilson v. Lewis (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 802, 805 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 396 ].) The record herein is indisputably clear that in both his pretrial statement and at trial husband conceded that if the residence was found to be his separate property, the court should determine the parties’ community interest in the home pursuant to Moore . 4 By such acquiescence in the allegedly erroneous standard, husband is barred from raising for the first time here on appeal the error stemming from adjudication pursuant to that procedure.

1989(Hale v. Morgan (1978) 22 Cal.3d 388, 394 [ 149 Cal.Rptr. 375 [ 584 P.2d 512 ]; Wilson v. Lewis (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 802, 805 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 396 ].) The record herein is indisputably clear that in both his pretrial statement and at trial husband conceded that if the residence was found to be his separate property, the court should determine the parties’ community interest in the home pursuant to Moore . 4 By such acquiescence in the allegedly erroneous standard, husband is barred from raising for the first time here on appeal the error stemming from adjudication pursuant to that procedure.

1989(Hale v. Morgan (1978) 22 Cal.3d 388, 394 [ 149 Cal.Rptr. 375 [ 584 P.2d 512 ]; Wilson v. Lewis (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 802, 805 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 396 ].) The record herein is indisputably clear that in both his pretrial statement and at trial husband conceded that if the residence was found to be his separate property, the court should determine the parties’ community interest in the home pursuant to Moore . 4 By such acquiescence in the allegedly erroneous standard, husband is barred from raising for the first time here on appeal the error stemming from adjudication pursuant to that procedure.

1968Plaintiff urges that if the record on appeal does not disclose the identity of the party requesting the allegedly erroneous instruction, it must be presumed that they were given at the defendants’ request, citing Lynch v. Birwell, 44 Cal.2d 839, 847 [ 285 P.2d 919 ], and Kantlehner v. Bisceglia, 102 Cal.App.2d 1, 6 [ 226 P.2d 636 ], This contention is in accord with the substantive rule of law to the effect: "... if the record does not show at whose request instructions were given, it will be presumed that they were requested by the appellant who claims them to be erroneous.” (4 Cal.Jur.2d App

1968Plaintiff urges that if the record on appeal does not disclose the identity of the party requesting the allegedly erroneous instruction, it must be presumed that they were given at the defendants’ request, citing Lynch v. Birwell, 44 Cal.2d 839, 847 [ 285 P.2d 919 ], and Kantlehner v. Bisceglia, 102 Cal.App.2d 1, 6 [ 226 P.2d 636 ], This contention is in accord with the substantive rule of law to the effect: "... if the record does not show at whose request instructions were given, it will be presumed that they were requested by the appellant who claims them to be erroneous.” (4 Cal.Jur.2d App

1968Plaintiff urges that if the record on appeal does not disclose the identity of the party requesting the allegedly erroneous instruction, it must be presumed that they were given at the defendants’ request, citing Lynch v. Birwell, 44 Cal.2d 839, 847 [ 285 P.2d 919 ], and Kantlehner v. Bisceglia, 102 Cal.App.2d 1, 6 [ 226 P.2d 636 ], This contention is in accord with the substantive rule of law to the effect: "... if the record does not show at whose request instructions were given, it will be presumed that they were requested by the appellant who claims them to be erroneous.” (4 Cal.Jur.2d App

1968Plaintiff urges that if the record on appeal does not disclose the identity of the party requesting the allegedly erroneous instruction, it must be presumed that they were given at the defendants’ request, citing Lynch v. Birwell, 44 Cal.2d 839, 847 [ 285 P.2d 919 ], and Kantlehner v. Bisceglia, 102 Cal.App.2d 1, 6 [ 226 P.2d 636 ], This contention is in accord with the substantive rule of law to the effect: "... if the record does not show at whose request instructions were given, it will be presumed that they were requested by the appellant who claims them to be erroneous.” (4 Cal.Jur.2d App