California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2017)

3440. Damages

Download PDF
If you decide that [name of plaintiff] has proved [his/her/its] claim
against [name of defendant], you also must decide how much money will
reasonably compensate [name of plaintiff] for the harm. This
compensation is called “damages.”
The amount of damages must include an award for all harm that was
caused by [name of defendant], even if the particular harm could not
have been anticipated.
[Name of plaintiff] must prove the amount of [his/her/its] damages.
However, [name of plaintiff] does not have to prove the exact amount of
damages that will provide reasonable compensation for the harm. You
must not speculate or guess in awarding damages.
The following are the specific items of damages claimed by [name of
1. [Loss of reasonably anticipated sales and profits];
2. [An increase in [name of plaintiff]’s expenses];
3. [Insert other applicable item of damage].
New September 2003
Sources and Authority
• Private Right of Action for Antitrust Violation. Business and Professions Code
section 16750(a).
• “The plaintiff in a Cartwright Act proceeding must show that an antitrust
violation was the proximate cause of his injuries. The frequently stated
‘standing to sue’ requirement is merely a rule that an action for violation of the
antitrust laws may be maintained only by a party within the ‘target area’ of the
antitrust violation, and not by one incidentally injured thereby. An ‘antitrust
injury’ must be proved; that is, the type of injury the antitrust laws were
intended to prevent, and which flows from the invidious conduct which renders
defendants’ acts unlawful. Finally, a plaintiff must show an injury within the
area of the economy that is endangered by a breakdown of competitive
conditions.” (Kolling v. Dow Jones & Co. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 709, 723–724
[187 Cal.Rptr. 797], internal citations and footnote omitted.)
• “ ‘[D]amage issues in these cases are rarely susceptible of the kind of concrete,
detailed proof of injury which is available in other contexts . . . . [I]n the
absence of more precise proof, the factfinder may “conclude as a matter of just
and reasonable inference from the proof of defendants’ wrongful acts and their
tendency to injure plaintiffs’ business, and from the evidence of the decline in
prices, profits and values, not shown to be attributable to other causes, that
defendants’ wrongful acts had caused damage to the plaintiffs.” ’ ” (Diesel Elec.
Sales and Serv., Inc. v. Marco Marine San Diego, Inc. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th
202, 219–220 [20 Cal.Rptr.2d 62], internal citations omitted.)
Secondary Sources
1 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005) Contracts, § 602
6Antitrust Laws and Trade Regulation, Ch. 105, California, § 105.09 (Matthew
3 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 40, Fraud and Deceit and Other Business Torts,
§ 40.172 (Matthew Bender)
49 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 565, Unfair Competition,
§ 565.34[3] (Matthew Bender)
1 Matthew Bender Practice Guide: California Unfair Competition and Business
Torts, Ch. 5, Antitrust, 5.45, 5.48–5.50, 5.66[5], 5.67–5.75
3441–3499. Reserved for Future Use