CACI No. 1906. Misrepresentations Made to Persons Other Than the Plaintiff
Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2024 edition)
Download PDF
1906.Misrepresentations Made to Persons Other Than the
Plaintiff
[Name of defendant] is responsible for a representation that was not made
directly to [name of plaintiff] if [he/she/nonbinary pronoun/it] made the
representation [to a group of persons including [name of plaintiff]] [or]
[to another person, intending or reasonably expecting that it would be
repeated to [name of plaintiff]].
New September 2003
Directions for Use
An instruction on concealment made to a person other than the plaintiff is not
necessary; this point is covered by the third option of element 1 in CACI No. 1901,
Concealment.
Sources and Authority
• Intent to Defraud Class. Civil Code section 1711.
• “It is true that in order for a defendant to be liable for fraud, he or she must
intend that a particular representation (or concealment) be relied upon by a
specific person or persons. However, it is also established that a defendant
cannot escape liability if he or she makes a representation to one person while
intending or having reason to expect that it will be repeated to and acted upon
by the plaintiff (or someone in the class of persons of which plaintiff is a
member). This is the principle of indirect deception described in section 533 of
the Restatement Second of Torts (section 533): ‘The maker of a fraudulent
misrepresentation is subject to liability for pecuniary loss to another who acts in
justifiable reliance upon it if the misrepresentation, although not made directly to
the other, is made to a third person and the maker intends or has reason to
expect that its terms will be repeated or its substance communicated to the other,
and that it will influence his conduct in the transaction or type of transaction
involved.’ Comment d to section 533 makes it clear the rule of section 533
applies where the maker of the misrepresentation has information that gives him
special reason to expect that the information will be communicated to others and
will influence their conduct. Comment g goes on to explain that it is not
necessary that the maker of the misrepresentation have the particular person in
mind. It is enough that it is intended to be repeated to a particular class of
persons.” (Shapiro v. Sutherland (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1534, 1548 [76
Cal.Rptr.2d 101], internal citations omitted; see also Geernaert v. Mitchell (1995)
31 Cal.App.4th 601, 605-606 [37 Cal.Rptr.2d 483].)
• “[L]iability for a fraud worked on an agent is imposed where it is the agent who
not only places reliance on the misrepresentations, but also makes the decision
and takes action based upon the misrepresentations.” (Hasso v. Hapke (2014)
1191
227 Cal.App.4th 107, 129 [173 Cal.Rptr.3d 356].)
• “The maker of a fraudulent misrepresentation is subject to liability for pecuniary
loss to another who acts in justifiable reliance upon it if the misrepresentation,
although not made directly to the other, is made to a third person and the maker
intends or has reason to expect that its terms will be repeated or its substance
communicated to the other, and that it will influence his conduct in the
transaction or type of transactions involved.” (Hasso, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at
p. 130.)
Secondary Sources
5 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Torts, §§ 922-926
3 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 40, Fraud and Deceit and Other Business Torts,
§ 40.05[3] (Matthew Bender)
23 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 269, Fraud and Deceit, § 269.14
(Matthew Bender)
California Civil Practice: Torts, § 22:34 (Thomson Reuters)
CACI No. 1906 FRAUD OR DECEIT
1192
© Judicial Council of California.
