California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2017)

3941. Punitive Damages - Individual Defendant—Bifurcated Trial (First Phase)

Download PDF
3941.Punitive Damages—Individual Defendant—Bifurcated Trial
(First Phase)
If you decide that [name of defendant]’s conduct caused [name of
plaintiff]harm, you must decide whether that conduct justifie an award
of punitive damages. At this time, you must decide whether [name of
plaintiff] has proved by clear and convincing evidence that [name of
defendant] engaged in that conduct with malice, oppression, or fraud.
The amount of punitive damages, if any, will be decided later.
“Malice” means that [name of defendant] acted with intent to cause
injury or that [name of defendant]’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 [name of defendant]’s conduct was despicable
and subjected [name of plaintiff] to cruel and unjust hardship in
knowing disregard of [his/her] 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 [name of defendant] intentionally misrepresented or
concealed a material fact and did so intending to harm [name of
plaintiff].
New September 2003; Revised April 2004, December 2005
Directions for Use
For an instruction explaining “clear and convincing evidence,” see CACI No. 201,
More Likely True—Clear and Convincing Proof.
In an appropriate case, the jury may be instructed that a false promise or a
suggestion of a fact known to be false may constitute a misrepresentation as the
word “misrepresentation” is used in the instruction’s definitio of “fraud.”
Sources and Authority
• When Punitive Damages Permitted. Civil Code section 3294.
• Evidence of Profit or Financial Condition. Civil Code section 3295(d).
• “[Section 3295(d)] affects the order of proof at trial, precluding the admission
of evidence of defendants’ financia condition until after the jury has returned a
verdict for plaintiffs awarding actual damages and found that one or more
defendants were guilty of ‘oppression, fraud or malice,’ in accordance with
811
0113
Civil Code section 3294.” (City of El Monte v. Superior Court (1994) 29
Cal.App.4th 272, 274–275 [34 Cal.Rptr.2d 490], internal citations omitted.)
• “Evidence of the defendant’s financia condition is a prerequisite to an award of
punitive damages. In order to protect defendants from the premature disclosure
of their financia position when punitive damages are sought, the Legislature
enacted Civil Code section 3295.” (City of El Monte, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at
p. 276, internal citations omitted.)
• “[C]ourts have held it is reversible error to try the punitive damages issue to a
new jury after the jury which found liability has been excused.” (Rivera v.
Sassoon (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1048 [46 Cal.Rptr.2d 144], internal
citations omitted.)
• “Under the statute, ‘malice does not require actual intent to harm. [Citation.]
Conscious disregard for the safety of another may be sufficient where the
defendant is aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his or her
conduct and he or she willfully fails to avoid such consequences. [Citation.]
Malice may be proved either expressly through direct evidence or by
implication through indirect evidence from which the jury draws inferences.
[Citation.]’ ” (Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1299
[164 Cal.Rptr.3d 112].)
• “Used in its ordinary sense, the adjective ‘despicable’ is a powerful term that
refers to circumstances that are ‘base,’ ‘vile,’ or ‘contemptible.’ As amended to
include this word, the statute plainly indicates that absent an intent to injure the
plaintiff, ‘malice’ requires more than a ‘willful and conscious’ disregard of the
plaintiffs’ interests. The additional component of ‘despicable conduct’ must be
found.” (College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 725 [34
Cal.Rptr.2d 898, 882 P.2d 894], internal citations omitted.)
Secondary Sources
6 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005) Torts, §§ 1559, 1562,
1572–1577, 1607–1623
California Tort Damages (Cont.Ed.Bar) Punitive Damages, §§ 14.1–14.8,
14.15–14.18, 14.23
4 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 54, Punitive Damages, §§ 54.01–54.06,
54.24[4][d] (Matthew Bender)
15 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 177, Damages, § 177.51[17]
(Matthew Bender)
6 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 64, Damages: Tort, § 64.24 et seq.
(Matthew Bender)
CACI No. 3941 DAMAGES
812
0114