California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2017)

411. Reliance on Good Conduct of Others

Download PDF
411.Reliance on Good Conduct of Others
Every person has a right to expect that every other person will use
reasonable care [and will not violate the law], unless he or she knows,
or should know, that the other person will not use reasonable care [or
will violate the law].
New September 2003
Directions for Use
This instruction should not be used if the only other actor is the plaintiff and there
is no evidence that the plaintiff acted unreasonably. (Springer v. Reimers (1970) 4
Cal.App.3d 325, 336 [84 Cal.Rptr. 486].)
Sources and Authority
• The general rule is that “every person has a right to presume that every other
person will perform his duty and obey the law and in the absence of reasonable
grounds to think otherwise, it is not negligence to assume that he is not exposed
to danger which could come to him only from violation of law or duty by such
other person.” (Celli v. Sports Car Club of America, Inc. (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d
511, 523 [105 Cal.Rptr. 904].) “However, this rule does not extend to a person
who is not exercising ordinary care, nor to one who knows or, by the exercise
of such care, would know that the law is not being observed.” (Malone v.
Perryman (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 227, 234 [37 Cal.Rptr. 864].)
• Defendants are entitled to rely on the reasonable conduct of third parties who
owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. (Tucker v. Lombardo (1956) 47 Cal.2d 457,
467 [303 P.2d 1041].) The central issue addressed by the instruction is whether
or not the bad act of the third person was foreseeable by the defendant.
(Whitton v. State of California (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 235, 244–246 [159
Cal.Rptr. 405].) “If the likelihood that a third person may act in a particular
manner is the hazard or one of the hazards which makes the actor negligent,
such an act whether innocent, negligent, intentionally tortious, or criminal does
not prevent the actor from being liable for harm caused thereby.” (Rest.2d Torts,
§ 449; Bigbee v. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 49, 58
[192 Cal.Rptr. 857, 665 P.2d 947].)
• Many cases involving issues of third-party criminal conduct are analyzed as
questions of law—i.e., existence of a duty, which may require analysis of
foreseeability. (See Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th
666, 678 [25 Cal.Rptr.2d 137, 863 P.2d 207]; Ky. Fried Chicken of Cal. v.
Superior Court (1997) 14 Cal.4th 814, 819 [59 Cal.Rptr.2d 756, 927 P.2d
1260].)
• In cases where a third party commits a criminal act, the defendant is generally
not liable for failure to protect the plaintiff from the resulting harm. The
249
0035
exceptions are (1) where the defendant has a special relationship to the plaintiff,
(2) where the defendant has undertaken an obligation to protect the plaintiff, or
(3) where the defendant’s conduct created or increased the risk of harm through
the misconduct. (Rest.2d Torts, § 302B, com. e.)
Secondary Sources
6 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005) Torts, §§ 1311–1313
1Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 1, Negligence, § 1.02 (Matthew Bender)
4 California Trial Guide, Unit 90, Closing Argument, §§ 90.88, 90.90 (Matthew
Bender)
California Products Liability Actions, Ch. 2, Liability for Defective Products, § 2.21
(Matthew Bender)
33 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 380, Negligence (Matthew
Bender)
16 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 165, Negligence (Matthew Bender)
CACI No. 411 NEGLIGENCE
250
0036