California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2017)

3109. Abduction - Essential Factual Elements (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.06)

Download PDF
3109.Abduction—Essential Factual Elements (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§ 15610.06)
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [[name of individual defendant]/ [and]
[name of employer defendant]] abducted [him/her/[name of decedent]] in
violation of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act.
To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the
1. That [[name of individual defendant]/[name of employer
defendant]’s employee] [removed [name of plaintiff/decedent] from
California and] restrained [him/her/[name of decedent]] from
returning to California;
2. That [name of plaintiff/decedent] was [65 years of age or older/a
dependent adult] at the time of the conduct;
3. [That [name of plaintiff/decedent] did not have the capacity to
consent to the [removal and] restraint;]
3. [or]
3. [That [[name of plaintiff/decedent]’s conservator/the court] did not
consent to the [removal and] restraint;]
4. That [name of plaintiff/decedent] was harmed; and
5. That [[name of individual defendant]’s/[name of employer
defendant]’s employee’s] conduct was a substantial factor in
causing [name of plaintiff/decedent]’s harm.
New September 2003; Revised December 2005, October 2008
Directions for Use
This instruction may be given in cases brought under the Elder Abuse and
Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act by the victim of elder abduction, or by the
survivors of the victim. If the victim is the plaintiff and is seeking damages for
pain and suffering, see CACI No. 3905A, Physical Pain, Mental Suffering, and
Emotional Distress (Noneconomic Damage), in the Damages series.
If the individual responsible for the abduction is a defendant in the case, use
“[name of individual defendant]” throughout. If only the individual’s employer is a
defendant, use “[name of employer defendant]’s employee” throughout.
If the plaintiff seeks the enhanced remedies of attorney fees and costs, and in the
case of a wrongful death, the decedent’s pain and suffering, give CACI No. 3110,
Abduction—Enhanced Remedies Sought. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657.05.)
If the plaintiff is seeking enhanced remedies against the individual’s employer, also
give either CACI No. 3102A, Employer Liability for Enhanced Remedies—Both
Individual and Employer Defendants, or CACI No. 3102B, Employer Liability for
Enhanced Remedies—Employer Defendant Only. To recover damages against the
employer under a theory of vicarious liability, see instructions in the Vicarious
Responsibility series (CACI No. 3700 et seq.).
The instructions in this series are not intended to cover every circumstance under
which a plaintiff may bring a cause of action under the Elder Abuse and Dependent
Adult Civil Protection Act.
Sources and Authority
• “Abduction” Defined Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.06.
“Elder Abuse” Defined Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.07
• “Dependent Adult” Defined Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.23.
• “Elder” Defined Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.27.
• “The purpose of the [Elder Abuse Act] is essentially to protect a particularly
vulnerable portion of the population from gross mistreatment in the form of
abuse and custodial neglect.” (Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 33 [82
Cal.Rptr.2d 610, 971 P.2d 986].)
• “As amended in 1991, the Elder Abuse Act was designed to protect elderly and
dependent persons from abuse, neglect, or abandonment. In addition to adopting
measures designed to encourage reporting of abuse and neglect, the Act
authorizes the court to award attorney fees to the prevailing plaintiffs and
allows survivors to recover pain and suffering damages in cases of intentional
and reckless abuse where the elder has died.” (Mack v. Soung (2000) 80
Cal.App.4th 966, 971–972 [95 Cal.Rptr.2d 830], disapproved on other grounds
in Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 148, 164 [202
Cal.Rptr.3d 447, 370 P.3d 1011], internal citations omitted.)
• “The effect of the 1991 amendment to the elder abuse law was to . . . permit a
decedent’s personal representative or successor to recover pain and suffering
damages when plaintiff can prove by clear and convincing evidence
recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice in the commission of elder abuse.
Even then, those damages would be subject to the $250,000 cap placed by Civil
Code section 3333.2, subdivision (b) for noneconomic damages against a health
care provider. In this limited circumstance, the decedent’s right to pain and
suffering damages would not die with him or her; the damages would be
recoverable by a survivor.” (ARA Living Centers—Pacific Inc. v. Superior
Court (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1556, 1563 [23 Cal.Rptr.2d 224].)
Secondary Sources
6 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005) Torts, §§ 1686–1688
Balisok, Civil Litigation Series: Elder Abuse Litigation, §§ 7:1, 7:3 (The Rutter
1 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 5, Abuse of Minors and Elders,
§ 5.33[5] (Matthew Bender)