CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
GENERAL CLOSING INSTRUCTION
I will now explain the law that applies to this case. You must follow the law as I explain it to you. You must decide this case without sympathy, prejudice, or emotion. You should consider and decide this case as a suit between persons of equal standing in the community. All persons stand equal before the law, and you must treat them as equals in court. If I said or did anything which suggested that I favor the claims or position of any party, you should disregard it. If I indicated in any way that I have an opinion about the facts in this case, you should disregard that. I am not the judge of the facts. You are the judges of the facts. Before I tell you about the law, you should understand several things about my remarks. You must follow the law as I explain it. You should not be concerned with the wisdom of any rule of law. You should consider my explanation as a whole, without singling out any one sentence, or individual point or idea, and ignore the others. The order of my explanations has no significance as to their importance.
To be successful (plaintiff’s name) must convince you that the facts, which he is required to prove, are more likely than not. Circumstantial evidence can prove a fact is more likely than not if it excludes other reasonable hypotheses with a fair amount of certainty. The evidence which you are to consider includes all the testimony of the witnesses, the documents that have been admitted into evidence, and any fair and reasonable conclusions which you can draw from the evidence. But the lawyers’ arguments and my comments or rulings are not evidence. In determining the facts, you alone will decide the value and believability of the evidence. You should study carefully the testimony given and the circumstances under which the witnesses have testified. You may consider:
1) the witness’ ability and opportunity to observe and remember the matter about which he (or she) testified;
2) his (or her) manner while testifying;
3) any reason he (or she) may have for testifying in favor of or against any party;
4) the extent to which the testimony is supported or contradicted by other evidence;
5) whether the testimony inherently improbable or unbelievable;
6) whether the testimony is contrary to the laws of nature or human experience; and
7) whether a witness made a prior statement inconsistent with his (or her) testimony.
Witnesses are expected to testify about facts within their knowledge. They may also state their opinions or conclusions about those facts. You may consider these opinions if you find they help you in determining a fact at issue in this case. We have a special rule for “expert witnesses.” These witnesses have, by education, skill, knowledge, training and experience, become expert in some field. They are permitted to use facts made known to them to form their opinions in the fields in which they are experts, and give their reasons for those opinions. You should consider each expert opinion received into evidence, and give it whatever value you may think it deserves. In deciding the value of the opinion, you may consider :
1) whether it is based upon enough education, skill, knowledge, training and experience, or
2) whether it is based on the actual facts of this case, or
3) whether the reasons given to support the opinion are sound, or
4) whether it is supported or contradicted by other evidence.
If the expert witnesses are medical doctors, you may consider this special principle. The testimony of a doctor, who has treated a person during an extended period of time, is entitled to be given greater value than the testimony of a doctor who saw her once for a independent medical examination.
You are not required to decide any fact according to the number of witnesses presented on that point. The test is not which side brings the greater number of witnesses, or presents the greater quantity of evidence, but rather which witnesses and which evidence appeals to you as being the most accurate and the most convincing.
(Plaintiff’s name) is seeking damages for injury caused by (Defendant’s name)’s fault. (Defendant’s name) is responsible for damages caused by his conduct which falls below the standard of care, that we expect of reasonably careful drivers. The following traffic rules should be considered in determining who was at fault in this collision:
(Include pertinent traffic rules)
When you consider the question of what caused (Plaintiff’s name)’s loss keep in mind that many factors or things may operate at the same time, either independently or together, to cause a loss. You should decide the question in this way:
1) If a person probably would not have suffered a claimed loss without particular conduct, then you must conclude that the conduct did play a part in the loss.
2) On the other hand, if a person probably would have suffered the injury regardless of particular conduct, then you must conclude that the loss was not caused by that conduct.
If you decide that more than one person engaged in substandard conduct which caused (Plaintiff’s name)’s loss, you must assign a percentage of fault to each one. In assigning percentages of fault, you consider the nature of each party’s substandard conduct and the extent to which that conduct contributed to the injury.
Our law requires simple restoration, a just and adequate compensation for losses. It allows no idea of revenge or punishment. Your award should be designed to fully and fairly compensate a person for his/her loss, if you find one has occurred, and should not go beyond that. When you consider the question of physical injury and pain and suffering, you should consider any aggravation of a condition that existed before the incident. If (plaintiff’s name) had a condition before the incident which was aggravated by the collision, he is entitled to be fully compensated for the aggravation, but not for the condition that existed before the collision. If you find that (plaintiff’s namae) was in good health before the collision and after collision he suffered from a disabling condition, you may assume that the collision caused the condition. We fully realize the difficulty of translating personal losses into a dollars and cents figure, but that is what must be done. You must arrive at a figure that will fairly and adequately compensate (plaintiff’s name) for the losses he has already suffered, and that he will in all likelihood suffer in the future. In estimating damages, you may consider the following things:
(1) Medical expenses, past and future;
(2) Physical pain and suffering, past and future;
(3) Mental pain and suffering, past and future;
(4) Loss of earnings, past and future;
(5) Loss of enjoyment of life, past and future.
Loss of earnings includes the loss of future income. A loss of future income is based not only on the difference between (plaintiff’s name)’s earnings before and after his injury. It also includes the loss of earning potential; that is, the loss or reduction of ability to do what he is equipped to do by nature, training and experience for pay. You cannot accurately calculate the loss of future income. So, you must use your sensible judgment in deciding on an amount that is fair to all parties.
In order for you to award (plaintiff’s name)’s expenses for future medical procedures, you must find, based on medical evidence, it is more likely than not that the procedure is necessary, he will submit to it and its probable cost.
Another thing you must consider is this. (Plaitiff’s name) must do the things that an ordinarily cautious person would do to minimize his damages, such as, returning to work for which he is suited by education, experience and physical capacity, as soon as possible. If he fails to do these things and as a result his damages are greater, he cannot collect for this increase in damages.
Like in other parts of their case, (Plaintiff’s name) must prove that more likely than not he suffered these damages. This means, on the one hand, that you are not entitled to award speculative damages for injuries which you think (Plaintiff’s name) might have suffered or might suffer in the future; on the other hand, it means that you may make an effort to reasonably approximate the damages which (Plaintiff’s name) proved are more likely than not, even though he cannot be computed with mathematical certainty. Finally, let me say that the fact that I have given you these statements about the law of damages does not in any way suggest that I feel or do not feel that any damages are due in this case. Whether or not damages are due is solely for you to determine.
This completes my remarks on the law to be applied in this case. You will remember that I told you at the beginning of the trial that you were not to discuss the case among yourselves. I now remove that restriction. It is now your duty to consult with one another and to discuss the evidence, with the idea of reaching agreement, if you can without giving up to your individual judgment. You each must decide the case for yourself, but only after considering the case with your fellow jurors. Don’t hesitate to change an opinion when you are convinced that you are wrong. However, do not change your decision simply because a majority of your fellow jurors disagree with you or for the sole purpose of returning a verdict. To assist you in deciding this case, I have prepared a verdict form. You should simply answer the questions on the form. Nine of you must agree on an answer for each question. When nine of you are of the same opinion about an answer, that ends your deliberation on that question. In deciding on an amount to award, at least nine of you must agree on an amount. You may not average your various opinions about the amount to be awarded.
[EXPLAIN VERDICT FORM]
The first thing you should do when you retire to the jury room is to choose a foreperson to preside over your deliberations and represent you in returning the verdict. When nine or more of you agree on an answer, your foreperson will record that answer on the verdict form. When the form is completed, the foreperson will sign it. Members of the Jury, you will now retire to consider your verdict.
AGGRAVATION OF EXISTING CONDITION
When you consider the question of physical injury and pain and suffering, you should consider any aggravation of a condition that existed before the incident. If (plaintiff’s name) had a condition before the incident which was aggravated by (defendant’s name)’s conduct, he is entitled to be fully compensated for the aggravation.
APPARENT DEFECTS NOT REDHIBITORY VICES
If the defect in the thing sold is apparent, such that the buyer might have discovered it by a simple inspection, he is not permitted to cancel the sale. If the seller tells the buyer about a hidden defect, before or at the time of the sale, the buyer is not permitted to cancel the sale.
AVERAGING VERDICT
In deciding on an amount to award, at least nine of you must agree on an amount. You may not average your various opinions about the amount to be awarded.
BACKING MOTORIST
A backing driver must take great care and attention to ensure that she can back without interfering with other vehicles.
or
A driver shall not back up, unless it’s reasonably safe to back up and she can back up without interfering with other traffic.
CAUSE
You must decide what injuries, if any, were caused by (defendant’s name) fault. You should decide the question in this way:
1) If (plaintiff’s name) probably would have suffered a claimed injury regardless of (defendant’s name) fault, then you must conclude that (defendant’s name) fault did not cause the injury;
2) On the other hand, if (plaintiff’s name) probably would not have suffered a claimed injury without (defendant’s name) fault, then you must conclude that (defendant’s name) fault did cause the injury.
CROSSING CENTER LINE
A driver is entitled to assume that other drivers, they encounter, will observe all traffic safety laws and regulations, until he or she discovers or should discover through proper caution that the other driver will not. A driver must operate his or her vehicle on the right side of the center line. Before a driver may change cross the center line, he or she must first determine that it can be done without endangering approaching traffic. If a driver crosses the center line and collides with a oncoming vehicle in the other lane, you may presume that the driver is at fault and she must show by clear and convincing evidence that her fault did not play a part in the collision. A driver, faced by a vehicle in his lane, must stop or take precautions to avoid a collision, only when he discovers or should discover through proper caution that the vehicle cannot or will not clear the lane. If a driver is faced with a sudden emergency, created by someone else, he or she is not held to the same standards and calm judgment ordinarily required of a driver. You cannot penalize the driver for failing to make the wisest selection of all possible evasive measures. However, the driver still must react reasonably considering the circumstances.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Circumstantial evidence can prove a fact is more likely than not if it excludes other reasonable hypotheses with a fair amount of certainty.
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION
(Plaintiff’s name) claims (Defendant’s name) violated his civil rights, causing him damage. He also claim (Defendant’s name) engaged in conduct below the standard of care which the law applies to his activities, and that his conduct caused him damage. A state trooper, as an individual, is responsible for damages caused by his intentional or reckless violation of a person’s civil rights. A state trooper is responsible for damages caused by conduct below the standard of care which our law applies to his activities. As his employer, the State is responsible for injuries caused by a trooper engaging in conduct below the standard of care which our law applies to his activities, but not injuries caused by a trooper violating a person’s civil rights.
COMPARATIVE FAULT
This is a suit seeking damages for injury. A person is responsible for damages caused by its fault. (Defendant’s name) is at fault if he engaged in conduct below the standard which the law applies to his activities. Generally, a person is required to act with the degree of care which we might reasonably expect from an ordinarily cautious person under the same or similar circumstances. As part of your consideration of whether someone acted with the required degree of care, you may ask: “How would an ordinarily cautious person have acted or what precautions would he have taken if faced with similar conditions or circumstances?” An injured person’s conduct that contributes in part to his own injury may reduce his recovery. So, if you decide that (Defendant’s name)’s fault caused an injury, you must determine whether (defendant’s name) has proven that it is more likely than not that (Plaintiff’s name)’s conduct was below the standard expected of him, and whether this conduct contributed to an injury.
If you decide that more than one person‘s fault caused (Plaintiff’s name)’s damamge, you must assign a percentage of fault to each one. In assigning percentages of fault, you consider the nature of each person’s substandard conduct and the extent to which that conduct contributed to the death or loss. In making the first assessment, you should consider:
1) whether a person’s fault resulted from inadvertance or involved an awareness of the danger;
2) how great a risk did the person’s conduct create;
3) the significance of what was sought by the person’s conduct;
4) the capacities of the person’s, whether inferior or superior; and
5) any extenuating circumstances which might have required a person to proceed in haste, without proper thought.
In making the second assessment, you may consider the extent to which a person’s conduct contributed to the loss.
CONSORTIUM
(Plaintiff’s name) is claiming a loss of consortium. Consortium is the love and affection, society and companionship, sexual relations, right of support and performance of material services, aid and assistance, and felicity which exist between a husband and wife. You may award (Plaintiff’s name) damages for the loss of or decrease in consortium, if any, that the (Plaintiffs’ name) have proved more likely than not was caused by the collision.
MEANING OF CUSTODY
(Defendant’s name) had custody of (the thing) if he was its owner or was in a position to exercise supervision or control over it, and to draw benefit from it.
THING IN ONE’S CUSTODY
(Defendant’s name) is responsible for damages caused by the things in his custody, caused by its ruin (defect) if:
1) he knew about the ruin (defect) or with the exercise of reasonable care he should have known about it; and
2) he could have prevented the damage by exercising reasonable care; and
3) he failed to exercise that reasonable care.
DAMAGE CAUSED BY ANIMAL (NOT DOG)
(Defendant’s name) is responsible for damage caused by his (animal), if
1) he knew that his (animal)’s behavior would cause damage or with the exercise of reasonable care he should have known that his (animal)’s behavior would cause damage; and
2) he could have prevented the damage by exercising reasonable care; and
3) he failed to exercise that reasonable care.
ACTS OF CHILDREN
(Defendant’s name) is responsible for damages caused by their unemancipated, minor child, residing with them or placed by them in the care of another person.
DAMAGE CAUSED BY DOG
(Defendant’s name) is responsible for damages caused by his dog, if he could have prevented it. He is not responsible if (plaintiff’s name) provoked the dog.
DUTY OF DENTIST
A dentist has a duty to exercise the degree of skill ordinarily employed, under similar circumstances, by the members of his profession in good standing in a community or locality similar to the one in which he practices. He is expected to use reasonable care and his best judgment, in the application of his skill to the case.
DEFAMATION
(Plaintiff’s name) claims (Defendant’s name) defamed him. For defamation different rules apply in different situations. For each occasion (plaintiff’s name) must establish that more likely than not (Defendant’s name) made the statement to someone other than (Plaintiff’s name). If a statement accuses Mr. Theriot of a criminal act, he must convince you that it is more likely than not the statement caused him damage. If a statement did not accuse (Plaintiff’s name) of a criminal act, he must establish that more likely than not:
1) the statement was false; and
2) the statement exposed (Plaintiff’s name) to contempt, hatred, distrust or ridicule, or caused him to be shunned or avoided, or tended to injure his reputation; and
3) (Defendant’s name) made the statement out of ill will, bad intent, envy, spite, or revenge; or he made it knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth of the statement; and
4) the statement caused damage to plaintiffs.
Even if (plaintiff’s name) prove everything necessary to be successful, (defendant’s name) can be successful if he establishes that more likely than not the statement is true or substantially true.
DEFECT – RISK
A defect in a thing creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others when the likelihood that harm might occur and the seriousness of such harm outweighs the importance to society of the custody of the thing and the way the owner or custodian has chosen to maintain the thing under the circumstances. This means that you are to weigh the magnitude of the possible harm against the utility of custody of the thing under all the prevailing circumstances.
DEFECTIVE DESIGN OF PREMISES
A company is responsible for damages caused by the design of its premises under certain circumstances. If the design of the parking lot and entrance caused (Plaintiff’s name) to fall, (Defendant’s name) is responsible if the parking lot and entrance had a defective design which created an unreasonable risk of harm to (Plaintiff’s name). A defect creates an unreasonable risk of harm, when the likelihood that harm might occur and the seriousness of the harm if it did happen outweighs the importance to society of the thing’s custody, the way the owner has chosen to maintain the thing, and the burden of preventing the defect. (Defendant’s name)’s responsibility arises from its legal relationship to the parking lot, not from any lack of care on its part.
DEFECTIVE DESIGN OF PREMISES
A company is responsible for damages caused by the design of its premises under certain circumstances. If the design of the parking lot and entrance caused (Plaintiff’s name) to fall, (Defendant’s name) is responsible if the parking lot and entrance had a defective design which created an unreasonable risk of harm to (Plaintiff’s name). A defect creates an unreasonable risk of harm, when the likelihood that harm might occur and the seriousness of the harm if it did happen outweighs the importance to society of the thing’s custody, the way the owner has chosen to maintain the thing, and the burden of preventing the defect. (Defendant’s name)’s responsibility arises from its legal relationship to the parking lot, not from any lack of care on its part.
DESIGN DEFECT
(Plaintiff’s name) is seeking damages for personal injury caused by the fault of (Defendant’s name). (Defendant’s name) is at fault if the (describe item) had an unreasonably dangerous design when the it left (defendant’s name)’s control. The design is unreasonably dangerous if:
1) an alternative design exists that could prevent the injury suffered by (plaintiff’s name); and
2) the likelihood that the design would cause the injury and the seriousness of the injury outweighs the burden of adopting the alternative design and the alternative design’s adverse effect on the usefulness of the seatbelt.
DIRECTING TRAFFIC
A law enforcement officer is authorized to direct, control and regulate traffic. Drivers must comply with the lawful orders and directions of a law enforcement officer.
DIVING
Before diving into water, a person has a primary duty to determine that it is safe to dive.
EXITING DRIVEWAY
When entering a street from a driveway, a driver must stop before driving onto the sidewalk and yield to all vehicles on the street which are close enough to create an immediate hazard.
DWI
A motorist shall not operate an automobile when he has consumed enough alcohol to impair his mental and physical ability to operate the automobile safely. A specific blood alcohol level alone is not enough to determine a person’s ability to operate an automobile safely.
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES DWI
You may award damages to make an example of (Defendant’s name) to deter drunk driving. Before you can award these exemplary damages, (Plaintiff’s name) must prove that his injuries were caused by:
1) (Defendant’s name)’s wanton and reckless disregard for the rights and safety of others; and
2) his intoxication while operating a motor vehicle.
If you find these things are more likely than not, you may award an amount which will achieve the purpose of making an example of (Defendant’s name) to deter drunk driving.
EGGSHELL VICTIM
In determining a fair and adequate compensation, you must consider the principle that a defendant takes his victim as he finds her. In other words even if (plaintiff’s name)’s injuries are more severe than what most people would experience, she is still entitled to be fully compensated for her injuries.
EXPERT WITNESS
Witnesses are expected to testify about facts within their knowledge. They may also state their opinions or conclusions about those facts. We have a special rule for “expert witnesses.” These witnesses have, by education, skill, knowledge, training and experience, become expert in some field. They are permitted to use facts made known to them to form their opinions in the fields in which they are experts, and give their reasons for those opinions. You should consider each expert opinion received into evidence, and give it whatever value you may think it deserves. In deciding the value of the opinion, you may consider :
1) whether it is based upon enough education, skill, knowledge, training and experience, or
2) whether it is based on the actual facts of this case, or
3) whether the reasons given to support the opinion are sound, or
4) whether it is supported or contradicted by other evidence.
TREATING DOCTOR EXPERT
If the expert witnesses are medical doctors, you may consider this special principle. The testimony of a doctor, who has treated a person during an extended period of time, is entitled to be given greater value than the testimony of a doctor who saw her once for a independent medical examination.
FAILURE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE
If someone fails to produce evidence available to him and gives no reasonable explanation, you may presume that the evidence would have been unfavorable to his case.
FLASHING YELLOW
A driver approaching a flashing yellow light must proceed cautiously, paying keen attention to determine if he can cross safely.
GENERAL CLOSING – STIPULATED LIABILITY
I will now explain the law that applies to this case. You must follow the law as I explain it to you. You must decide this case without sympathy, prejudice, or emotion. You should consider and decide this case as a suit between persons of equal standing in the community. The state is entitled to the same fair trial as a private individual. All persons stand equal before the law, and you must treat them as equals in court. If I said or did anything which suggested that I favor the claims or position of any party, you should disregard it. If I indicated in any way that I have an opinion about the facts in this case, you should disregard that. I am not the judge of the facts. You are the judges of the facts. Before I tell you about the law, you should understand several things about my remarks. You must follow the law as I explain it. You should not be concerned with the wisdom of any rule of law. You should consider my explanation as a whole, without singling out any one sentence, or individual point or idea, and ignore the others. The order of my explanations has no significance as to their importance. To be successful (Plaintif’s name) must convince you that the facts, which he is required to prove, are more likely than not. Circumstantial evidence can prove a fact is more likely than not if it excludes other reasonable theory with a fair amount of certainty. The evidence which you are to consider includes all the testimony of the witnesses, the documents that have been admitted into evidence, and any fair and reasonable conclusions which you can draw from the evidence. But the lawyers’ arguments and my comments or rulings are not evidence. In determining the facts, you alone will decide the value and believability of the evidence. You should study carefully the testimony given and the circumstances under which the witnesses have testified. You may consider:
1) the witness’ ability and opportunity to observe and remember the matter about which he (or she) testified;
2) his (or her) manner while testifying;
3) any reason he (or she) may have for testifying in favor of or against any party;
4) the extent to which the testimony is supported or contradicted by other evidence;
5) whether the testimony inherently improbable or unbelievable;
6) whether the testimony is contrary to the laws of nature or human experience; and
7) whether a witness made a prior statement inconsistent with his (or her) testimony.
Witnesses are expected to testify about facts within their knowledge. They may also state their opinions or conclusions about those facts. You may consider these opinions if you find they help you in determining a fact at issue in this case. We have a special rule for “expert witnesses.” These witnesses have, by education, skill, knowledge, training and experience, become expert in some field. They are permitted to use facts made known to them to form their opinions in the fields in which they are experts, and give their reasons for those opinions. You should consider each expert opinion received into evidence, and give it whatever value you may think it deserves. In deciding the value of the opinion, you may consider :
1) whether it is based upon enough education, skill, knowledge, training and experience, or
2) whether it is based on the actual facts of this case, or
3) whether the reasons given to support the opinion are sound, or
4) whether it is supported or contradicted by other evidence.
You are not required to decide any fact according to the number of witnesses presented on that point. The test is not which side brings the greater number of witnesses, or presents the greater quantity of evidence, but rather which witnesses and which evidence appeals to you as being the most accurate and the most convincing.
(Plaintiff’s name) is seeking damages for injury caused by the fault of (Defendant’s name). (Defendant’s name) admitted that he was at fault. (Defendant’s name) is responsible for injuries caused by the collision. So, you must decide what injuries, if any, were caused by the collision.
When you consider the question of what caused (Plaintiff’s name)’s loss keep in mind that many factors or things may operate at the same time, either independently or together, to cause a loss. You should decide the question in this way:
1) If a person probably would not have suffered a claimed loss without particular conduct, then you must conclude that the conduct did play a part in the loss.
2) On the other hand, if a person probably would have suffered the injury regardless of particular conduct, then you must conclude that the loss was not caused by that conduct.
If you decide that more than one person or agency engaged in substandard conduct which caused (Plaintiff’s name)’s loss, you must assign a percentage of fault to each one. In assigning percentages of fault, you consider the nature of each party’s substandard conduct and the extent to which that conduct contributed to the injury. In making the first assessment, you should consider:
1) whether a party’s conduct resulted from inadvertance or involved an awareness of the danger;
2) how great a risk did the party’s conduct create;
3) the significance of what was sought by the party’s conduct;
4) the capacities of the party’s, whether inferior or superior; and
5) any extenuating circumstances which might have required a party to proceed in haste, without proper thought.
In making the second assessment, you may consider the extent to which a party’s conduct contributed to the loss.
Our law requires simple restoration, a just and adequate compensation for losses. It allows no idea of revenge or punishment. Your award should be designed to fully and fairly compensate a person for his/her loss, if you find one has occurred, and should not go beyond that. We fully realize the difficulty of translating personal losses into a dollars and cents figure, but that is what must be done. You must arrive at a figure that will fairly and adequately compensate a party for the losses s/he has already suffered, and that s/he will in all likelihood suffer in the future. In estimating damages, you may consider the following things:
(1) Medical and lifecare expenses, past and future;
(2) Physical pain and suffering, past and future;
(3) Mental pain and suffering, past and future;
(4) Loss of earnings, past and future;
(5) Loss of enjoyment of life, past and future.
Loss of earnings includes the loss of future income. A loss of future income is based not only on the difference between plaintiff’s earnings before and after her injury. It also includes the loss of earning potential; that is, the loss or reduction of ability to do what s/he is equipped to do by nature, training and experience for pay. You cannot accurately calculate the loss of future income. So, you must use your sensible judgment in deciding on an amount that is fair to all parties. Like in other parts of their case, (Plaintiff’s name) must prove that more likely than not they suffered these damages. This means, on the one hand, that you are not entitled to award speculative damages for injuries which you think (Plaintiff’s name) might have suffered or might suffer in the future; on the other hand, it means that you may make an effort to reasonably approximate the damages which he proved are more likely than not, even though they cannot be computed with mathematical certainty. Finally, let me say that the fact that I have given you these statements about the law of damages does not in any way suggest that I feel or do not feel that any damages are due in this case. Whether or not damages are due is solely for you to determine.
This completes my remarks on the law to be applied in this case. You will remember that I told you at the beginning of the trial that you were not to discuss the case among yourselves. I now remove that restriction. It is now your duty to consult with one another and to discuss the evidence, with the idea of reaching agreement, if you can without giving up to your individual judgment. You each must decide the case for yourself, but only after considering the case with your fellow jurors. Don’t hesitate to change an opinion when you are convinced that you are wrong. However, do not change your decision simply because a majority of your fellow jurors disagree with you or for the sole purpose of returning a verdict. To assist you in deciding this case, I have prepared a verdict form. You should simply answer the questions on the form. Nine of you must agree on an answer for each question. When nine of you are of the same opinion about an answer, that ends your deliberation on that question. In deciding on an amount to award, at least nine of you must agree on an amount. You may not average your various opinions about the amount to be awarded.
[EXPLAIN VERDICT FORM]
The first thing you should do when you retire to the jury room is to choose a foreperson to preside over your deliberations and represent you in returning the verdict. When nine or more of you agree on an answer, your foreperson will record that answer on the verdict form. When the form is completed, the foreperson will sign it. Members of the Jury, you will now retire to consider your verdict.
HIGHWAY DEFECT
The state is required to keep its highways in a reasonably safe condition for a reasonably careful driver. The failure to update a highway to current standards does not establish the existence of a unreasonably dangerous condition. The state is required to operate is highways in a reasonably safe manner for a reasonably safe driver. If an unreasonably dangerous condition or operation causes a loss, the state is responsible for the loss if it knew or should have known of the unreasonably dangerous condition or operation.
CURVE SIGN
A reasonably safe condition includes adequate signs to warn of a dangerous curve. Whether a warning is required is determined by the nature of the curve, the nature of the road, and the situation and circumstances surrounding the curve. The purpose of requiring a warning is to give a motorist the opportunity to take the action necessary to safely negotiate the curve. The failure to update a highway to current standards does not establish the existence of a unreasonably dangerous condition.
INTENTIONAL ACTS
(Defendant’s name) must refrain from intentional invasions of, or interference with, the physical integrity of (Plaintiff’s Name). “Intent” is the purpose or state of mind with which a person acts. Ordinarily, it is reasonable to conclude that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of the acts which he does knowingly. You may find intent was present if (defendant’s name)desired to cause the consequences of his act, or you may also find intent present if you conclude that (defendant’s name) must have known that the consequences of his act were substantially certain to result.
JONES ACT – UNSEAWORTHINESS
(Plaintiff’s name) claims two bases for recovery. His first basis concerns fault. A person is responsible for damages caused by his fault. To be successful (Plaintiff’s name) must prove more likely than not that (employer’s name)’s fault caused his losses. A company is at fault if one or more of its employees engage in conduct below the standard which the law applies to his activities. Generally, a person is required to act with the degree of care which we might reasonably expect from an ordinary person. As (Plaintiff’s name)’s employer, (employer’s name) must provide a reasonably safe workplace. It must supervise and instruct seaman about safe work methods. It must provide adequate and proper equipment. A company is at fault if its employees engage in conduct below the standard which the law applies to its activities.
In deciding if (employer’s name)’s substandard conduct caused (Plaintiff’s name) a loss, you should ask the question: “Did (employer’s name)’s substandard conduct play any slight part or contribute in some way to produce a loss?”
(Plaintiff’s name)’s second basis concerns unseaworthiness. As the owner of the (vessel’s name), (employer’s name) must keep the (vessel’s name) seaworthy. To be seaworthy the (vessel’s name) must be reasonably suited for its intended use. Its crew must be adequately trained. It must be adequately equipped.
To recover based on an unseaworthy condition, (Plaintiff’s name) must prove more likely than not that the (vessel’s name) was unseaworthy and the unseaworthy condition played substantial part in causing an injury.
LEFT TURN
A motorist intending to make a left turn off a highway:
1) must signal his intention continuously for at least 100 feet before turning;
2) must look ahead and to the rear; and
3) must not turn until he can do so with reasonable safety.
A motorist overtaking and passing on the left must do so at a safe distance; shall not overtake and pass unless the left side is clearly visible and free of oncoming traffic; and, shall not pass when approaching an intersection.
LEFT TURNING MOTORIST
A driver, making a left turn, must give the proper signal, must take great care to determine that she can turn without danger to normal oncoming traffic, and must yield to that traffic.
LOSS OF INCOME
Loss of earnings includes the loss of future income. A loss of future income is based not only on the difference between plaintiff’s earnings before and after her injury. It also includes the loss of her earning potential; that is, the loss or reduction of her ability to do what she is equipped to do by nature, training and experience for pay. You cannot accurately calculate the loss of future income. So, you must use your sensible judgment in deciding on an amount that is fair to all parties.
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
In this suit (Plaintiff’s name) is seeking to recover for injuries caused by the fault of Dr. (Defendant’s name). A doctor is responsible for damages caused by his fault. Dr.(defendant’s name) is at fault if he failed to exercise the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by doctors who practice (name of speciality). In deciding the proper degree of care and skill, you must be guided by the opinion of experts and members of the medical profession.
To be successful (plaintifff’s name) must prove more likely than not that Dr. (defendant’s name) was at fault and his fault caused her injuries.
or
(Plaintiff’s names) are seeking damages for the death of (decedent’s name &relationship), which they claim was caused by the fault of Dr. (defendant’s name). A doctor is responsible for damages caused by his fault. To be successful (Plaintiff’s name) must prove more likely than not that Dr. (defendant’s name)’s fault caused (decedent’s name) death or a loss of her chance of survival.
To prove a doctor’s fault, (plaintiff’s name) must prove more likely than not:
1) the standard of care expected of the doctor in his medical speciality; and
2) that the doctor’s treatment fell below that standard.
MINIMAL COLLISION
If medical and lay testimony convinces you that (plaintiff’s name) more likely that not sustained some injuries, the minimal force of the collision causing the injuries is not materially important.
MINIMIZE LOSS
nother thing you must consider is this. An injured person must do the things that an ordinarily cautious person would do to minimize his damages, such as, returning to work for which he is suited by education, experience and physical capacity, as soon as possible. If he fails to do these things and as a result his damages are greater, he cannot collect for this increase in damages.
OVERSIZED VEHICLES
The driver of an escort vehicle is responsible for the movement of the escorted vehicle. He must ensure that the escorted vehicle is operated according to all provisions of the permit and “Louisiana’s Regulations for Trucks, Vehicles and Loads”. These regulations include:
1) An oversize load shall travel as near to the right side of the roadway as is safely possible to insure that traffic will be able to pass safely. The escort and oversize load shall not infringe upon the opposite bound lane whenever possible.
2) The escort and oversize load shall be equipped with radios to provide communication between them. The escort is responsible for advising the oversize load of any conditions that may require cautionary action, such as reducing speed, pulling off the roadway, etc.
3) Escort movements shall not impede the normal flow of traffic whenever possible.
OVERTAKING VEHICLE & OTHER AUTO RULES
Motorists are required to maintain a sharp lookout ahead to discover those who might be in danger. This becomes more important when visibility is poor. In that case the motorist should slow down and keep his vehicle under control, so that he can bring it to a stop within his range of vision.
Motorists must use ordinary and reasonable caution to discover and avoid hitting any stalled vehicle or other obstruction on the highway. This rule applies even if the stalled vehicle or other obstruction is illegally there.
In a rear-end collision you may assume that the conduct of the driver who ran into the rear of the car ahead of him was below the standard expected of him.
Generally, a driver of an overtaking car, approaching another car from the rear must use great care in keeping a lookout for any indication that the car ahead may change its course; 4) a driver must drive at a speed which will allow him to stop within his range of vision;
No driver may drive on the left side of a highway within 100 hundred feet of an intersection.
No driver may drive on the left side of a highway where a solid yellow line is marked to the right of the center line of the highway;
A person must drive his vehicle at a reasonable and prudent speed. What is reasonable and prudent is determined by the conditions and potential hazards existing at the time. Conditions you should consider are other traffic on the highway, the highway surface and width, and the weather conditions.
During inclement weather, a person must drive his vehicle at a speed which will allow him to stop within his range of vision.
A driver must use reasonable care to observe and avoid striking a stationary vehicle, obstructing his lane. In deciding what is reasonable, you should consider all the facts and circumstances surrounding the collision, including the locality of the collision, the lighting conditions, the respective positions of the vehicles, visibility and presence and operation of lighting or warning equipment.
A state police officer is authorized to direct, control and regulate traffic. Drivers must comply with the lawful orders and directions of a state police officer.
A driver approaching a flashing yellow light must proceed cautiously, paying keen attention to determine if he can cross safely.
PEDESTRIAN
Specifically, a motorist must keep a sharp lookout ahead to discover any person in danger. However, a motorist, particularly at night, is not required to guard against an unusual or unexpected obstruction which she has no reason to anticipate and which is difficult to discover. If a motorist on the alert could have avoided striking a person, the motorists who strikes that person has engaged in substandard conduct. Before moving out of her lane, a motorist must determine that she can do so safely. A pedestrian walking along a highway shall walk only on the left side of the shoulder, facing traffic approaching from the opposite direction. Before crossing a roadway, a pedestrian must yield to all traffic on the roadway. The pedestrian must not move into the path of a vehicle when the motorist is too close to avoid a collision.
PRESUMED CAUSE
You may, but are not required to, presume that the accident caused an injury, if (Plaintiff’s Name) has proven more likely than not that:
1) She was in good health before the accident; and
2) she experienced pain following the accident; and
3) there is a reasonable medical possibility that the accident caused the injury
This presumption can be rebutted by other evidence.
PRODUCTS LIABILITY
(Plaintiff’s name) claims that he was injured by a defective (describe product) manufactured by (manufacturer’s name). To be successful he must prove four things are more likely than not:
1) the (describe product) was being used as intended or foreseeable;
2) it was defective, when (manufacturer’s name) sold it;
3) the defect caused an injury to him; and
4) his injury resulted in the damages, he claims.
To determine whether the (describe product) was defective you must decide whether the (describe product) was unreasonably dangerous when used or misused as intended or forseeable. Just because an accident happened does not mean the (describe product) was defective. Likewise, just because this type of accident did not happen before, does not mean that the (describe product) was not defective. To decide whether the (describe product) was defective you can ask four questions. If you answer all four questions no, the (describe product) is not unreasonably dangerous. If you answer any one yes, the (describe product) is unreasonably dangerous.
1. Was the danger involved in this accident beyond the kind of danger an ordinary user of the (describe product) would contemplate ?
2. Did (manufacturer’s name) provide inadequate guards against unreasonable dangers?
3. Did (manufacturer’s name) provide users with inadequate warnings of potential dangers, unknown to ordinary users of this type of thing?
4. Did (manufacturer’s name) fail to provide reasonably foreseeable users with instructions for the safe operation of the (describe product)?
If (defendant’s name) have proven more likely than not that the (describe product) is unreasonably dangerous when used as intended or foreseeable, you must then decide if the defect caused (defendant’s name) injuries.
RAILROAD CROSSING
A railroad and the State both have a duty to maintain highway/railroad crossings so that they can be safely crossed by motorists using reasonable care. If a crossing needs automatic signals and the railroad knows about the need, it shall not unreasonably delay the installation of a flashing signal. If a crossing needs automatic signals and the State knows about the need, it shall not unreasonably delay the installation of a flashing signal. The (name of railroad company) and the State must comply with the Master Agreement between them. A train locomotive must be equipped with a speed indicator clearly readable from the engineer’s normal position. The speed limit for the train on this track is (?) m.p.h. An engineer is not required to operate his train so that he can stop it within his field of vision. The speed limit for automobiles on this highway is (?) m.p.h. As a motorist approaches a railroad track, he must look and listen for oncoming trains. If a motorist’s view of the track is obstructed, he must be more careful in determining that there are no trains in the vicinity. For nine hundred feet before a highway crossing, a train is required to sound its horn continuously through the crossing or sound its horn two long blasts, one short blast and one long blast, which shall continue through the crossing. If a train sounds its horn as required and it is an immediate hazard because of its speed and nearness, a motorist shall stop within fifty feet but not less than fifteen feet from the nearest rail and not cross until it is safe. A train crew may assume that a motorist will stop unless his approach is so unusual that it would notify a ordinarily cautious person that the car cannot be stopped in time to avoid a collision.
REDHIBITION BURDEN OF PROOF; PRESUMPTION
The buyer must prove that the redhibitory defect existed before the sale was made to him. But if the vice has made its appearance within three days immediately following the sale, it is presumed to have existed before the sale.
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
This is a suit seeking damages for injury. A company is responsible for damages caused by its fault. A company is at fault if its employee engages in conduct below the standard which the law applies to its activities. Generally, a company’s employee is required to act with the degree of care which we might reasonably expect from an ordinarily cautious person under the same or similar circumstances. As part of your consideration of whether someone acted with the required degree of care, you may ask: “How would an ordinarily cautious person have acted or what precautions would he have taken if faced with similar conditions or circumstances?”
SEAMAN
(Plaintiff’s name) was a seaman if:
1) he has a connection with a vessel in navigation;
2) his connection was substantial in duration and nature; and
3) his duties contributed to the function of the vessel or the accomplishment of its mission.
A seaman does not lose his status when he is temporarily assigned by his employer to duties off the vessel. You must determine whether (plaintiff’s name) lost his seaman status. Factors you may consider are the duration of the assignment, its relationship to (Defendant’s name)’s business, whether (Plaintiff’s name) was free to accept or reject the assignment without endangering his employment, and any other relevant factors. A factor that you may consider in determining whether (Plaintiff’s name) was a seaman is the payment of maintenance.
SELLER AS MANUFACTURER
A seller who puts out as his own product, a product manufactured by another is subject to the same standard of behavior as the manufacturer of the product.
SLIP & FALL
(Plaintiff’s name) claims that a condition on (Defendant’s name)’s premise cause him to fall. (Defendant’s name) must keep his aisles, passageways and floors in a reasonably safe condition, free of hazardous conditions which reasonably might cause damage. To succeed (plaintiff’s name) must prove that:
(1 ) The condition presented to him an unreasonable risk of harm that was reasonably foreseeable;
(2 ) Before the fall (Defendant’s name) created, or had actual notice of the condition or the condition existed for a period of time that (Defendant’s name) would have discovered the condition if he had been reasonably careful; and
(3 ) (Defendant’s name) failed to exercise reasonable care.
SPEED
A person must drive his vehicle at a reasonable and prudent speed. What is reasonable and prudent is determined by the conditions and potential hazards existing at the time. Conditions you should consider are other traffic on the highway, the highway surface and width, and the weather conditions. During inclement weather, a person must drive his vehicle at a speed which will allow him to stop within his range of vision.
STIPULATED LIABILITY
(Plaintiff’s name) is seeking damages for injury caused by the fault of (defendant’s name). (Defendant’s name) has admitted that he was at fault. (Defendant’s name) is responsible for injuries caused by the collision. So, you must decide what injuries, if any, were caused by the collision.
STOP SIGN
A driver must drive prudently which includes maintaining control of his vehicle and maintaining a proper lookout for hazards. A driver approaching a stop sign must stop before entering the intersection and yield to all vehicles on the intersecting road which are approaching so closely that entering would create an immediate hazard.
A driver on a favored highway has the right to assume that a driver approaching the intersection from the less favored highway will stop at the stop sign and yield the right-of-way. If a driver on a favored highway sees that another driver has failed to yield the right of way, he must take reasonable steps to avoid an accident if reasonably possible. However, if a person suddenly finds himself in a position of immediate danger without time to consider and weigh all the circumstances and best means to avoid the danger, he is not required act in a way that upon later reflection may appear to have been better. A person cannot take advantage of this rule when he or she creates the danger through his or her own fault. Before a driver changes lanes on a multiple lane highway, he must determine that he can do it safely.
STOP SIGN
A driver must drive prudently which includes maintaining control of his vehicle and maintaining a proper lookout for hazards. A driver approaching a stop sign must stop before entering the intersection and yield to all vehicles on the intersecting road which are approaching so closely that entering would create an immediate hazard.
A driver on a favored highway has the right to assume that a driver approaching the intersection from the less favored highway will stop at the stop sign and yield the right-of-way. If a driver on a favored highway sees that another driver has failed to yield the right of way, he must take reasonable steps to avoid an accident if reasonably possible. However, if a person suddenly finds himself in a position of immediate danger without time to consider and weigh all the circumstances and best means to avoid the danger, he is not required act in a way that upon later reflection may appear to have been better. A person cannot take advantage of this rule when he or she creates the danger through his or her own fault. Before a driver changes lanes on a multiple lane highway, he must determine that he can do it safely.
SUDDEN EMERGENCY
When a person suddenly finds himself in immediate danger without enough time to consider all the circumstances or the best way to get out of danger, he is not expected to react in the same way as a person who has time to consider the whole situation. Basically a person is not expected to anticipate sudden or unexpected events. This rule does not apply to the person who creates the immediate danger.
THING IN ONE’S CUSTODY
(Defendant’s name) is responsible for damages caused by the things in his custody, caused by its ruin (defect) if:
1) he knew about the ruin (defect) or with the exercise of reasonable care he should have known about it; and
2) he could have prevented the damage by exercising reasonable care; and
3) he failed to exercise that reasonable care.
TRAFFIC RULES
The following traffic rules should be considered in determining who was at fault in this collision:
Motor vehicles must be driven upon the right half of the roadway.
A driver of a vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, considering the speed of the vehicles.
A driver of a vehicle may pass another vehicle on the right when
1) the vehicle overtaken is making or is about to make a left turn;
2) the passing can be made safely; and
3) the passing can be made without driving off the main traveled portion of the highway.
Unless a special hazard exists, no person shall operate a motor vehicle on a highway at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
No driver shall turn a vehicle to enter a private driveway or otherwise turn a vehicle from a direct course or move to the right or left on a highway unless and until the movement can be made with reasonable safety.
No driver shall stop or suddenly decrease vehicle speed without first signaling with brake lights when there is an opportunity to do so.
A driver may assume that other drivers on the highway operate their vehicles in a reasonably cautious manner and obey the traffic rules. If a driver is faced with a sudden emergency, not of his or her making, the driver must react as a reasonable person would in a similar circumstance. He is not required to choose a reaction, which on calm reflection might appear to have been better than that chosen in this case.
A driver must drive prudently which includes maintaining control of his vehicle and maintaining a proper lookout for hazards.
On a two lane roadway a driver must operate his vehicle on the right side and shall not move into the left lane until the driver has first ascertained that the move can be made safely.
Drivers of vehicles proceeding in opposite directions shall pass each other to the right.
A driver must not operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
A driver approaching a stop sign must stop before entering the intersection. He must yield to all vehicles on the intersecting road which are approaching so closely that entering would create an immediate hazard. When the driver’s vision is obstructed, the driver must proceed with greater care.
A motorist on the favored street has the right to assume any driver approaching the intersection on the street controlled by a stop sign will yield the right of way.
A driver shall operate his vehicle as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not move from the lane until he first ascertains that he can move safely. A driver shall indicate his intention to change lanes with his signal lights.
A driver shall securely fasten his load to prevent it from becoming loose, detached or a hazard to other motorists.
A person must drive his vehicle at a reasonable and prudent speed. What is reasonable and prudent is determined by the conditions and potential hazards existing at the time. Conditions you should consider are other traffic on the highway, the highway surface and width, and the weather conditions. During inclement weather, a person must drive his vehicle at a speed which will allow him to stop within his range of vision.
If a vehicle becomes disabled in the traveled part of the highway and it is impossible to avoid stopping the vehicle there, the driver must move the vehicle as soon as possible. Until it is removed, the driver must protect traffic in a reasonable manner.
A driver must use reasonable care to observe and avoid striking a stationary vehicle, obstructing his lane. In deciding what is reasonable, you should consider all the facts and circumstances surrounding the collision, including the locality of the collision, the lighting conditions, the respective positions of the vehicles, visibility and presence and operation of lighting or warning equipment.
TURN FROM HIGHWAY
1) a driver intending to turn off a highway must signal his intention continuously for at least 100 feet before turning;
2) a driver intending to make a left turn from a highway must look to the rear and must not turn until he can do so with reasonable safety.
I will now explain the law that applies to this case. You must follow the law as I explain it to you. You must decide this case without sympathy, prejudice, or emotion. You should consider and decide this case as a suit between persons of equal standing in the community. All persons stand equal before the law, and you must treat them as equals in court. If I said or did anything which suggested that I favor the claims or position of any party, you should disregard it. If I indicated in any way that I have an opinion about the facts in this case, you should disregard that. I am not the judge of the facts. You are the judges of the facts. Before I tell you about the law, you should understand several things about my remarks. You must follow the law as I explain it. You should not be concerned with the wisdom of any rule of law. You should consider my explanation as a whole, without singling out any one sentence, or individual point or idea, and ignore the others. The order of my explanations has no significance as to their importance.
To be successful (plaintiff’s name) must convince you that the facts, which he is required to prove, are more likely than not. Circumstantial evidence can prove a fact is more likely than not if it excludes other reasonable hypotheses with a fair amount of certainty. The evidence which you are to consider includes all the testimony of the witnesses, the documents that have been admitted into evidence, and any fair and reasonable conclusions which you can draw from the evidence. But the lawyers’ arguments and my comments or rulings are not evidence. In determining the facts, you alone will decide the value and believability of the evidence. You should study carefully the testimony given and the circumstances under which the witnesses have testified. You may consider:
1) the witness’ ability and opportunity to observe and remember the matter about which he (or she) testified;
2) his (or her) manner while testifying;
3) any reason he (or she) may have for testifying in favor of or against any party;
4) the extent to which the testimony is supported or contradicted by other evidence;
5) whether the testimony inherently improbable or unbelievable;
6) whether the testimony is contrary to the laws of nature or human experience; and
7) whether a witness made a prior statement inconsistent with his (or her) testimony.
Witnesses are expected to testify about facts within their knowledge. They may also state their opinions or conclusions about those facts. You may consider these opinions if you find they help you in determining a fact at issue in this case. We have a special rule for “expert witnesses.” These witnesses have, by education, skill, knowledge, training and experience, become expert in some field. They are permitted to use facts made known to them to form their opinions in the fields in which they are experts, and give their reasons for those opinions. You should consider each expert opinion received into evidence, and give it whatever value you may think it deserves. In deciding the value of the opinion, you may consider :
1) whether it is based upon enough education, skill, knowledge, training and experience, or
2) whether it is based on the actual facts of this case, or
3) whether the reasons given to support the opinion are sound, or
4) whether it is supported or contradicted by other evidence.
If the expert witnesses are medical doctors, you may consider this special principle. The testimony of a doctor, who has treated a person during an extended period of time, is entitled to be given greater value than the testimony of a doctor who saw her once for a independent medical examination.
You are not required to decide any fact according to the number of witnesses presented on that point. The test is not which side brings the greater number of witnesses, or presents the greater quantity of evidence, but rather which witnesses and which evidence appeals to you as being the most accurate and the most convincing.
(Plaintiff’s name) is seeking damages for injury caused by (Defendant’s name)’s fault. (Defendant’s name) is responsible for damages caused by his conduct which falls below the standard of care, that we expect of reasonably careful drivers. The following traffic rules should be considered in determining who was at fault in this collision:
(Include pertinent traffic rules)
When you consider the question of what caused (Plaintiff’s name)’s loss keep in mind that many factors or things may operate at the same time, either independently or together, to cause a loss. You should decide the question in this way:
1) If a person probably would not have suffered a claimed loss without particular conduct, then you must conclude that the conduct did play a part in the loss.
2) On the other hand, if a person probably would have suffered the injury regardless of particular conduct, then you must conclude that the loss was not caused by that conduct.
If you decide that more than one person engaged in substandard conduct which caused (Plaintiff’s name)’s loss, you must assign a percentage of fault to each one. In assigning percentages of fault, you consider the nature of each party’s substandard conduct and the extent to which that conduct contributed to the injury.
Our law requires simple restoration, a just and adequate compensation for losses. It allows no idea of revenge or punishment. Your award should be designed to fully and fairly compensate a person for his/her loss, if you find one has occurred, and should not go beyond that. When you consider the question of physical injury and pain and suffering, you should consider any aggravation of a condition that existed before the incident. If (plaintiff’s name) had a condition before the incident which was aggravated by the collision, he is entitled to be fully compensated for the aggravation, but not for the condition that existed before the collision. If you find that (plaintiff’s namae) was in good health before the collision and after collision he suffered from a disabling condition, you may assume that the collision caused the condition. We fully realize the difficulty of translating personal losses into a dollars and cents figure, but that is what must be done. You must arrive at a figure that will fairly and adequately compensate (plaintiff’s name) for the losses he has already suffered, and that he will in all likelihood suffer in the future. In estimating damages, you may consider the following things:
(1) Medical expenses, past and future;
(2) Physical pain and suffering, past and future;
(3) Mental pain and suffering, past and future;
(4) Loss of earnings, past and future;
(5) Loss of enjoyment of life, past and future.
Loss of earnings includes the loss of future income. A loss of future income is based not only on the difference between (plaintiff’s name)’s earnings before and after his injury. It also includes the loss of earning potential; that is, the loss or reduction of ability to do what he is equipped to do by nature, training and experience for pay. You cannot accurately calculate the loss of future income. So, you must use your sensible judgment in deciding on an amount that is fair to all parties.
In order for you to award (plaintiff’s name)’s expenses for future medical procedures, you must find, based on medical evidence, it is more likely than not that the procedure is necessary, he will submit to it and its probable cost.
Another thing you must consider is this. (Plaitiff’s name) must do the things that an ordinarily cautious person would do to minimize his damages, such as, returning to work for which he is suited by education, experience and physical capacity, as soon as possible. If he fails to do these things and as a result his damages are greater, he cannot collect for this increase in damages.
Like in other parts of their case, (Plaintiff’s name) must prove that more likely than not he suffered these damages. This means, on the one hand, that you are not entitled to award speculative damages for injuries which you think (Plaintiff’s name) might have suffered or might suffer in the future; on the other hand, it means that you may make an effort to reasonably approximate the damages which (Plaintiff’s name) proved are more likely than not, even though he cannot be computed with mathematical certainty. Finally, let me say that the fact that I have given you these statements about the law of damages does not in any way suggest that I feel or do not feel that any damages are due in this case. Whether or not damages are due is solely for you to determine.
This completes my remarks on the law to be applied in this case. You will remember that I told you at the beginning of the trial that you were not to discuss the case among yourselves. I now remove that restriction. It is now your duty to consult with one another and to discuss the evidence, with the idea of reaching agreement, if you can without giving up to your individual judgment. You each must decide the case for yourself, but only after considering the case with your fellow jurors. Don’t hesitate to change an opinion when you are convinced that you are wrong. However, do not change your decision simply because a majority of your fellow jurors disagree with you or for the sole purpose of returning a verdict. To assist you in deciding this case, I have prepared a verdict form. You should simply answer the questions on the form. Nine of you must agree on an answer for each question. When nine of you are of the same opinion about an answer, that ends your deliberation on that question. In deciding on an amount to award, at least nine of you must agree on an amount. You may not average your various opinions about the amount to be awarded.
[EXPLAIN VERDICT FORM]
The first thing you should do when you retire to the jury room is to choose a foreperson to preside over your deliberations and represent you in returning the verdict. When nine or more of you agree on an answer, your foreperson will record that answer on the verdict form. When the form is completed, the foreperson will sign it. Members of the Jury, you will now retire to consider your verdict.
AGGRAVATION OF EXISTING CONDITION
When you consider the question of physical injury and pain and suffering, you should consider any aggravation of a condition that existed before the incident. If (plaintiff’s name) had a condition before the incident which was aggravated by (defendant’s name)’s conduct, he is entitled to be fully compensated for the aggravation.
APPARENT DEFECTS NOT REDHIBITORY VICES
If the defect in the thing sold is apparent, such that the buyer might have discovered it by a simple inspection, he is not permitted to cancel the sale. If the seller tells the buyer about a hidden defect, before or at the time of the sale, the buyer is not permitted to cancel the sale.
AVERAGING VERDICT
In deciding on an amount to award, at least nine of you must agree on an amount. You may not average your various opinions about the amount to be awarded.
BACKING MOTORIST
A backing driver must take great care and attention to ensure that she can back without interfering with other vehicles.
or
A driver shall not back up, unless it’s reasonably safe to back up and she can back up without interfering with other traffic.
CAUSE
You must decide what injuries, if any, were caused by (defendant’s name) fault. You should decide the question in this way:
1) If (plaintiff’s name) probably would have suffered a claimed injury regardless of (defendant’s name) fault, then you must conclude that (defendant’s name) fault did not cause the injury;
2) On the other hand, if (plaintiff’s name) probably would not have suffered a claimed injury without (defendant’s name) fault, then you must conclude that (defendant’s name) fault did cause the injury.
CROSSING CENTER LINE
A driver is entitled to assume that other drivers, they encounter, will observe all traffic safety laws and regulations, until he or she discovers or should discover through proper caution that the other driver will not. A driver must operate his or her vehicle on the right side of the center line. Before a driver may change cross the center line, he or she must first determine that it can be done without endangering approaching traffic. If a driver crosses the center line and collides with a oncoming vehicle in the other lane, you may presume that the driver is at fault and she must show by clear and convincing evidence that her fault did not play a part in the collision. A driver, faced by a vehicle in his lane, must stop or take precautions to avoid a collision, only when he discovers or should discover through proper caution that the vehicle cannot or will not clear the lane. If a driver is faced with a sudden emergency, created by someone else, he or she is not held to the same standards and calm judgment ordinarily required of a driver. You cannot penalize the driver for failing to make the wisest selection of all possible evasive measures. However, the driver still must react reasonably considering the circumstances.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Circumstantial evidence can prove a fact is more likely than not if it excludes other reasonable hypotheses with a fair amount of certainty.
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION
(Plaintiff’s name) claims (Defendant’s name) violated his civil rights, causing him damage. He also claim (Defendant’s name) engaged in conduct below the standard of care which the law applies to his activities, and that his conduct caused him damage. A state trooper, as an individual, is responsible for damages caused by his intentional or reckless violation of a person’s civil rights. A state trooper is responsible for damages caused by conduct below the standard of care which our law applies to his activities. As his employer, the State is responsible for injuries caused by a trooper engaging in conduct below the standard of care which our law applies to his activities, but not injuries caused by a trooper violating a person’s civil rights.
COMPARATIVE FAULT
This is a suit seeking damages for injury. A person is responsible for damages caused by its fault. (Defendant’s name) is at fault if he engaged in conduct below the standard which the law applies to his activities. Generally, a person is required to act with the degree of care which we might reasonably expect from an ordinarily cautious person under the same or similar circumstances. As part of your consideration of whether someone acted with the required degree of care, you may ask: “How would an ordinarily cautious person have acted or what precautions would he have taken if faced with similar conditions or circumstances?” An injured person’s conduct that contributes in part to his own injury may reduce his recovery. So, if you decide that (Defendant’s name)’s fault caused an injury, you must determine whether (defendant’s name) has proven that it is more likely than not that (Plaintiff’s name)’s conduct was below the standard expected of him, and whether this conduct contributed to an injury.
If you decide that more than one person‘s fault caused (Plaintiff’s name)’s damamge, you must assign a percentage of fault to each one. In assigning percentages of fault, you consider the nature of each person’s substandard conduct and the extent to which that conduct contributed to the death or loss. In making the first assessment, you should consider:
1) whether a person’s fault resulted from inadvertance or involved an awareness of the danger;
2) how great a risk did the person’s conduct create;
3) the significance of what was sought by the person’s conduct;
4) the capacities of the person’s, whether inferior or superior; and
5) any extenuating circumstances which might have required a person to proceed in haste, without proper thought.
In making the second assessment, you may consider the extent to which a person’s conduct contributed to the loss.
CONSORTIUM
(Plaintiff’s name) is claiming a loss of consortium. Consortium is the love and affection, society and companionship, sexual relations, right of support and performance of material services, aid and assistance, and felicity which exist between a husband and wife. You may award (Plaintiff’s name) damages for the loss of or decrease in consortium, if any, that the (Plaintiffs’ name) have proved more likely than not was caused by the collision.
MEANING OF CUSTODY
(Defendant’s name) had custody of (the thing) if he was its owner or was in a position to exercise supervision or control over it, and to draw benefit from it.
THING IN ONE’S CUSTODY
(Defendant’s name) is responsible for damages caused by the things in his custody, caused by its ruin (defect) if:
1) he knew about the ruin (defect) or with the exercise of reasonable care he should have known about it; and
2) he could have prevented the damage by exercising reasonable care; and
3) he failed to exercise that reasonable care.
DAMAGE CAUSED BY ANIMAL (NOT DOG)
(Defendant’s name) is responsible for damage caused by his (animal), if
1) he knew that his (animal)’s behavior would cause damage or with the exercise of reasonable care he should have known that his (animal)’s behavior would cause damage; and
2) he could have prevented the damage by exercising reasonable care; and
3) he failed to exercise that reasonable care.
ACTS OF CHILDREN
(Defendant’s name) is responsible for damages caused by their unemancipated, minor child, residing with them or placed by them in the care of another person.
DAMAGE CAUSED BY DOG
(Defendant’s name) is responsible for damages caused by his dog, if he could have prevented it. He is not responsible if (plaintiff’s name) provoked the dog.
DUTY OF DENTIST
A dentist has a duty to exercise the degree of skill ordinarily employed, under similar circumstances, by the members of his profession in good standing in a community or locality similar to the one in which he practices. He is expected to use reasonable care and his best judgment, in the application of his skill to the case.
DEFAMATION
(Plaintiff’s name) claims (Defendant’s name) defamed him. For defamation different rules apply in different situations. For each occasion (plaintiff’s name) must establish that more likely than not (Defendant’s name) made the statement to someone other than (Plaintiff’s name). If a statement accuses Mr. Theriot of a criminal act, he must convince you that it is more likely than not the statement caused him damage. If a statement did not accuse (Plaintiff’s name) of a criminal act, he must establish that more likely than not:
1) the statement was false; and
2) the statement exposed (Plaintiff’s name) to contempt, hatred, distrust or ridicule, or caused him to be shunned or avoided, or tended to injure his reputation; and
3) (Defendant’s name) made the statement out of ill will, bad intent, envy, spite, or revenge; or he made it knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth of the statement; and
4) the statement caused damage to plaintiffs.
Even if (plaintiff’s name) prove everything necessary to be successful, (defendant’s name) can be successful if he establishes that more likely than not the statement is true or substantially true.
DEFECT – RISK
A defect in a thing creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others when the likelihood that harm might occur and the seriousness of such harm outweighs the importance to society of the custody of the thing and the way the owner or custodian has chosen to maintain the thing under the circumstances. This means that you are to weigh the magnitude of the possible harm against the utility of custody of the thing under all the prevailing circumstances.
DEFECTIVE DESIGN OF PREMISES
A company is responsible for damages caused by the design of its premises under certain circumstances. If the design of the parking lot and entrance caused (Plaintiff’s name) to fall, (Defendant’s name) is responsible if the parking lot and entrance had a defective design which created an unreasonable risk of harm to (Plaintiff’s name). A defect creates an unreasonable risk of harm, when the likelihood that harm might occur and the seriousness of the harm if it did happen outweighs the importance to society of the thing’s custody, the way the owner has chosen to maintain the thing, and the burden of preventing the defect. (Defendant’s name)’s responsibility arises from its legal relationship to the parking lot, not from any lack of care on its part.
DEFECTIVE DESIGN OF PREMISES
A company is responsible for damages caused by the design of its premises under certain circumstances. If the design of the parking lot and entrance caused (Plaintiff’s name) to fall, (Defendant’s name) is responsible if the parking lot and entrance had a defective design which created an unreasonable risk of harm to (Plaintiff’s name). A defect creates an unreasonable risk of harm, when the likelihood that harm might occur and the seriousness of the harm if it did happen outweighs the importance to society of the thing’s custody, the way the owner has chosen to maintain the thing, and the burden of preventing the defect. (Defendant’s name)’s responsibility arises from its legal relationship to the parking lot, not from any lack of care on its part.
DESIGN DEFECT
(Plaintiff’s name) is seeking damages for personal injury caused by the fault of (Defendant’s name). (Defendant’s name) is at fault if the (describe item) had an unreasonably dangerous design when the it left (defendant’s name)’s control. The design is unreasonably dangerous if:
1) an alternative design exists that could prevent the injury suffered by (plaintiff’s name); and
2) the likelihood that the design would cause the injury and the seriousness of the injury outweighs the burden of adopting the alternative design and the alternative design’s adverse effect on the usefulness of the seatbelt.
DIRECTING TRAFFIC
A law enforcement officer is authorized to direct, control and regulate traffic. Drivers must comply with the lawful orders and directions of a law enforcement officer.
DIVING
Before diving into water, a person has a primary duty to determine that it is safe to dive.
EXITING DRIVEWAY
When entering a street from a driveway, a driver must stop before driving onto the sidewalk and yield to all vehicles on the street which are close enough to create an immediate hazard.
DWI
A motorist shall not operate an automobile when he has consumed enough alcohol to impair his mental and physical ability to operate the automobile safely. A specific blood alcohol level alone is not enough to determine a person’s ability to operate an automobile safely.
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES DWI
You may award damages to make an example of (Defendant’s name) to deter drunk driving. Before you can award these exemplary damages, (Plaintiff’s name) must prove that his injuries were caused by:
1) (Defendant’s name)’s wanton and reckless disregard for the rights and safety of others; and
2) his intoxication while operating a motor vehicle.
If you find these things are more likely than not, you may award an amount which will achieve the purpose of making an example of (Defendant’s name) to deter drunk driving.
EGGSHELL VICTIM
In determining a fair and adequate compensation, you must consider the principle that a defendant takes his victim as he finds her. In other words even if (plaintiff’s name)’s injuries are more severe than what most people would experience, she is still entitled to be fully compensated for her injuries.
EXPERT WITNESS
Witnesses are expected to testify about facts within their knowledge. They may also state their opinions or conclusions about those facts. We have a special rule for “expert witnesses.” These witnesses have, by education, skill, knowledge, training and experience, become expert in some field. They are permitted to use facts made known to them to form their opinions in the fields in which they are experts, and give their reasons for those opinions. You should consider each expert opinion received into evidence, and give it whatever value you may think it deserves. In deciding the value of the opinion, you may consider :
1) whether it is based upon enough education, skill, knowledge, training and experience, or
2) whether it is based on the actual facts of this case, or
3) whether the reasons given to support the opinion are sound, or
4) whether it is supported or contradicted by other evidence.
TREATING DOCTOR EXPERT
If the expert witnesses are medical doctors, you may consider this special principle. The testimony of a doctor, who has treated a person during an extended period of time, is entitled to be given greater value than the testimony of a doctor who saw her once for a independent medical examination.
FAILURE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE
If someone fails to produce evidence available to him and gives no reasonable explanation, you may presume that the evidence would have been unfavorable to his case.
FLASHING YELLOW
A driver approaching a flashing yellow light must proceed cautiously, paying keen attention to determine if he can cross safely.
GENERAL CLOSING – STIPULATED LIABILITY
I will now explain the law that applies to this case. You must follow the law as I explain it to you. You must decide this case without sympathy, prejudice, or emotion. You should consider and decide this case as a suit between persons of equal standing in the community. The state is entitled to the same fair trial as a private individual. All persons stand equal before the law, and you must treat them as equals in court. If I said or did anything which suggested that I favor the claims or position of any party, you should disregard it. If I indicated in any way that I have an opinion about the facts in this case, you should disregard that. I am not the judge of the facts. You are the judges of the facts. Before I tell you about the law, you should understand several things about my remarks. You must follow the law as I explain it. You should not be concerned with the wisdom of any rule of law. You should consider my explanation as a whole, without singling out any one sentence, or individual point or idea, and ignore the others. The order of my explanations has no significance as to their importance. To be successful (Plaintif’s name) must convince you that the facts, which he is required to prove, are more likely than not. Circumstantial evidence can prove a fact is more likely than not if it excludes other reasonable theory with a fair amount of certainty. The evidence which you are to consider includes all the testimony of the witnesses, the documents that have been admitted into evidence, and any fair and reasonable conclusions which you can draw from the evidence. But the lawyers’ arguments and my comments or rulings are not evidence. In determining the facts, you alone will decide the value and believability of the evidence. You should study carefully the testimony given and the circumstances under which the witnesses have testified. You may consider:
1) the witness’ ability and opportunity to observe and remember the matter about which he (or she) testified;
2) his (or her) manner while testifying;
3) any reason he (or she) may have for testifying in favor of or against any party;
4) the extent to which the testimony is supported or contradicted by other evidence;
5) whether the testimony inherently improbable or unbelievable;
6) whether the testimony is contrary to the laws of nature or human experience; and
7) whether a witness made a prior statement inconsistent with his (or her) testimony.
Witnesses are expected to testify about facts within their knowledge. They may also state their opinions or conclusions about those facts. You may consider these opinions if you find they help you in determining a fact at issue in this case. We have a special rule for “expert witnesses.” These witnesses have, by education, skill, knowledge, training and experience, become expert in some field. They are permitted to use facts made known to them to form their opinions in the fields in which they are experts, and give their reasons for those opinions. You should consider each expert opinion received into evidence, and give it whatever value you may think it deserves. In deciding the value of the opinion, you may consider :
1) whether it is based upon enough education, skill, knowledge, training and experience, or
2) whether it is based on the actual facts of this case, or
3) whether the reasons given to support the opinion are sound, or
4) whether it is supported or contradicted by other evidence.
You are not required to decide any fact according to the number of witnesses presented on that point. The test is not which side brings the greater number of witnesses, or presents the greater quantity of evidence, but rather which witnesses and which evidence appeals to you as being the most accurate and the most convincing.
(Plaintiff’s name) is seeking damages for injury caused by the fault of (Defendant’s name). (Defendant’s name) admitted that he was at fault. (Defendant’s name) is responsible for injuries caused by the collision. So, you must decide what injuries, if any, were caused by the collision.
When you consider the question of what caused (Plaintiff’s name)’s loss keep in mind that many factors or things may operate at the same time, either independently or together, to cause a loss. You should decide the question in this way:
1) If a person probably would not have suffered a claimed loss without particular conduct, then you must conclude that the conduct did play a part in the loss.
2) On the other hand, if a person probably would have suffered the injury regardless of particular conduct, then you must conclude that the loss was not caused by that conduct.
If you decide that more than one person or agency engaged in substandard conduct which caused (Plaintiff’s name)’s loss, you must assign a percentage of fault to each one. In assigning percentages of fault, you consider the nature of each party’s substandard conduct and the extent to which that conduct contributed to the injury. In making the first assessment, you should consider:
1) whether a party’s conduct resulted from inadvertance or involved an awareness of the danger;
2) how great a risk did the party’s conduct create;
3) the significance of what was sought by the party’s conduct;
4) the capacities of the party’s, whether inferior or superior; and
5) any extenuating circumstances which might have required a party to proceed in haste, without proper thought.
In making the second assessment, you may consider the extent to which a party’s conduct contributed to the loss.
Our law requires simple restoration, a just and adequate compensation for losses. It allows no idea of revenge or punishment. Your award should be designed to fully and fairly compensate a person for his/her loss, if you find one has occurred, and should not go beyond that. We fully realize the difficulty of translating personal losses into a dollars and cents figure, but that is what must be done. You must arrive at a figure that will fairly and adequately compensate a party for the losses s/he has already suffered, and that s/he will in all likelihood suffer in the future. In estimating damages, you may consider the following things:
(1) Medical and lifecare expenses, past and future;
(2) Physical pain and suffering, past and future;
(3) Mental pain and suffering, past and future;
(4) Loss of earnings, past and future;
(5) Loss of enjoyment of life, past and future.
Loss of earnings includes the loss of future income. A loss of future income is based not only on the difference between plaintiff’s earnings before and after her injury. It also includes the loss of earning potential; that is, the loss or reduction of ability to do what s/he is equipped to do by nature, training and experience for pay. You cannot accurately calculate the loss of future income. So, you must use your sensible judgment in deciding on an amount that is fair to all parties. Like in other parts of their case, (Plaintiff’s name) must prove that more likely than not they suffered these damages. This means, on the one hand, that you are not entitled to award speculative damages for injuries which you think (Plaintiff’s name) might have suffered or might suffer in the future; on the other hand, it means that you may make an effort to reasonably approximate the damages which he proved are more likely than not, even though they cannot be computed with mathematical certainty. Finally, let me say that the fact that I have given you these statements about the law of damages does not in any way suggest that I feel or do not feel that any damages are due in this case. Whether or not damages are due is solely for you to determine.
This completes my remarks on the law to be applied in this case. You will remember that I told you at the beginning of the trial that you were not to discuss the case among yourselves. I now remove that restriction. It is now your duty to consult with one another and to discuss the evidence, with the idea of reaching agreement, if you can without giving up to your individual judgment. You each must decide the case for yourself, but only after considering the case with your fellow jurors. Don’t hesitate to change an opinion when you are convinced that you are wrong. However, do not change your decision simply because a majority of your fellow jurors disagree with you or for the sole purpose of returning a verdict. To assist you in deciding this case, I have prepared a verdict form. You should simply answer the questions on the form. Nine of you must agree on an answer for each question. When nine of you are of the same opinion about an answer, that ends your deliberation on that question. In deciding on an amount to award, at least nine of you must agree on an amount. You may not average your various opinions about the amount to be awarded.
[EXPLAIN VERDICT FORM]
The first thing you should do when you retire to the jury room is to choose a foreperson to preside over your deliberations and represent you in returning the verdict. When nine or more of you agree on an answer, your foreperson will record that answer on the verdict form. When the form is completed, the foreperson will sign it. Members of the Jury, you will now retire to consider your verdict.
HIGHWAY DEFECT
The state is required to keep its highways in a reasonably safe condition for a reasonably careful driver. The failure to update a highway to current standards does not establish the existence of a unreasonably dangerous condition. The state is required to operate is highways in a reasonably safe manner for a reasonably safe driver. If an unreasonably dangerous condition or operation causes a loss, the state is responsible for the loss if it knew or should have known of the unreasonably dangerous condition or operation.
CURVE SIGN
A reasonably safe condition includes adequate signs to warn of a dangerous curve. Whether a warning is required is determined by the nature of the curve, the nature of the road, and the situation and circumstances surrounding the curve. The purpose of requiring a warning is to give a motorist the opportunity to take the action necessary to safely negotiate the curve. The failure to update a highway to current standards does not establish the existence of a unreasonably dangerous condition.
INTENTIONAL ACTS
(Defendant’s name) must refrain from intentional invasions of, or interference with, the physical integrity of (Plaintiff’s Name). “Intent” is the purpose or state of mind with which a person acts. Ordinarily, it is reasonable to conclude that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of the acts which he does knowingly. You may find intent was present if (defendant’s name)desired to cause the consequences of his act, or you may also find intent present if you conclude that (defendant’s name) must have known that the consequences of his act were substantially certain to result.
JONES ACT – UNSEAWORTHINESS
(Plaintiff’s name) claims two bases for recovery. His first basis concerns fault. A person is responsible for damages caused by his fault. To be successful (Plaintiff’s name) must prove more likely than not that (employer’s name)’s fault caused his losses. A company is at fault if one or more of its employees engage in conduct below the standard which the law applies to his activities. Generally, a person is required to act with the degree of care which we might reasonably expect from an ordinary person. As (Plaintiff’s name)’s employer, (employer’s name) must provide a reasonably safe workplace. It must supervise and instruct seaman about safe work methods. It must provide adequate and proper equipment. A company is at fault if its employees engage in conduct below the standard which the law applies to its activities.
In deciding if (employer’s name)’s substandard conduct caused (Plaintiff’s name) a loss, you should ask the question: “Did (employer’s name)’s substandard conduct play any slight part or contribute in some way to produce a loss?”
(Plaintiff’s name)’s second basis concerns unseaworthiness. As the owner of the (vessel’s name), (employer’s name) must keep the (vessel’s name) seaworthy. To be seaworthy the (vessel’s name) must be reasonably suited for its intended use. Its crew must be adequately trained. It must be adequately equipped.
To recover based on an unseaworthy condition, (Plaintiff’s name) must prove more likely than not that the (vessel’s name) was unseaworthy and the unseaworthy condition played substantial part in causing an injury.
LEFT TURN
A motorist intending to make a left turn off a highway:
1) must signal his intention continuously for at least 100 feet before turning;
2) must look ahead and to the rear; and
3) must not turn until he can do so with reasonable safety.
A motorist overtaking and passing on the left must do so at a safe distance; shall not overtake and pass unless the left side is clearly visible and free of oncoming traffic; and, shall not pass when approaching an intersection.
LEFT TURNING MOTORIST
A driver, making a left turn, must give the proper signal, must take great care to determine that she can turn without danger to normal oncoming traffic, and must yield to that traffic.
LOSS OF INCOME
Loss of earnings includes the loss of future income. A loss of future income is based not only on the difference between plaintiff’s earnings before and after her injury. It also includes the loss of her earning potential; that is, the loss or reduction of her ability to do what she is equipped to do by nature, training and experience for pay. You cannot accurately calculate the loss of future income. So, you must use your sensible judgment in deciding on an amount that is fair to all parties.
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
In this suit (Plaintiff’s name) is seeking to recover for injuries caused by the fault of Dr. (Defendant’s name). A doctor is responsible for damages caused by his fault. Dr.(defendant’s name) is at fault if he failed to exercise the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by doctors who practice (name of speciality). In deciding the proper degree of care and skill, you must be guided by the opinion of experts and members of the medical profession.
To be successful (plaintifff’s name) must prove more likely than not that Dr. (defendant’s name) was at fault and his fault caused her injuries.
or
(Plaintiff’s names) are seeking damages for the death of (decedent’s name &relationship), which they claim was caused by the fault of Dr. (defendant’s name). A doctor is responsible for damages caused by his fault. To be successful (Plaintiff’s name) must prove more likely than not that Dr. (defendant’s name)’s fault caused (decedent’s name) death or a loss of her chance of survival.
To prove a doctor’s fault, (plaintiff’s name) must prove more likely than not:
1) the standard of care expected of the doctor in his medical speciality; and
2) that the doctor’s treatment fell below that standard.
MINIMAL COLLISION
If medical and lay testimony convinces you that (plaintiff’s name) more likely that not sustained some injuries, the minimal force of the collision causing the injuries is not materially important.
MINIMIZE LOSS
nother thing you must consider is this. An injured person must do the things that an ordinarily cautious person would do to minimize his damages, such as, returning to work for which he is suited by education, experience and physical capacity, as soon as possible. If he fails to do these things and as a result his damages are greater, he cannot collect for this increase in damages.
OVERSIZED VEHICLES
The driver of an escort vehicle is responsible for the movement of the escorted vehicle. He must ensure that the escorted vehicle is operated according to all provisions of the permit and “Louisiana’s Regulations for Trucks, Vehicles and Loads”. These regulations include:
1) An oversize load shall travel as near to the right side of the roadway as is safely possible to insure that traffic will be able to pass safely. The escort and oversize load shall not infringe upon the opposite bound lane whenever possible.
2) The escort and oversize load shall be equipped with radios to provide communication between them. The escort is responsible for advising the oversize load of any conditions that may require cautionary action, such as reducing speed, pulling off the roadway, etc.
3) Escort movements shall not impede the normal flow of traffic whenever possible.
OVERTAKING VEHICLE & OTHER AUTO RULES
Motorists are required to maintain a sharp lookout ahead to discover those who might be in danger. This becomes more important when visibility is poor. In that case the motorist should slow down and keep his vehicle under control, so that he can bring it to a stop within his range of vision.
Motorists must use ordinary and reasonable caution to discover and avoid hitting any stalled vehicle or other obstruction on the highway. This rule applies even if the stalled vehicle or other obstruction is illegally there.
In a rear-end collision you may assume that the conduct of the driver who ran into the rear of the car ahead of him was below the standard expected of him.
Generally, a driver of an overtaking car, approaching another car from the rear must use great care in keeping a lookout for any indication that the car ahead may change its course; 4) a driver must drive at a speed which will allow him to stop within his range of vision;
No driver may drive on the left side of a highway within 100 hundred feet of an intersection.
No driver may drive on the left side of a highway where a solid yellow line is marked to the right of the center line of the highway;
A person must drive his vehicle at a reasonable and prudent speed. What is reasonable and prudent is determined by the conditions and potential hazards existing at the time. Conditions you should consider are other traffic on the highway, the highway surface and width, and the weather conditions.
During inclement weather, a person must drive his vehicle at a speed which will allow him to stop within his range of vision.
A driver must use reasonable care to observe and avoid striking a stationary vehicle, obstructing his lane. In deciding what is reasonable, you should consider all the facts and circumstances surrounding the collision, including the locality of the collision, the lighting conditions, the respective positions of the vehicles, visibility and presence and operation of lighting or warning equipment.
A state police officer is authorized to direct, control and regulate traffic. Drivers must comply with the lawful orders and directions of a state police officer.
A driver approaching a flashing yellow light must proceed cautiously, paying keen attention to determine if he can cross safely.
PEDESTRIAN
Specifically, a motorist must keep a sharp lookout ahead to discover any person in danger. However, a motorist, particularly at night, is not required to guard against an unusual or unexpected obstruction which she has no reason to anticipate and which is difficult to discover. If a motorist on the alert could have avoided striking a person, the motorists who strikes that person has engaged in substandard conduct. Before moving out of her lane, a motorist must determine that she can do so safely. A pedestrian walking along a highway shall walk only on the left side of the shoulder, facing traffic approaching from the opposite direction. Before crossing a roadway, a pedestrian must yield to all traffic on the roadway. The pedestrian must not move into the path of a vehicle when the motorist is too close to avoid a collision.
PRESUMED CAUSE
You may, but are not required to, presume that the accident caused an injury, if (Plaintiff’s Name) has proven more likely than not that:
1) She was in good health before the accident; and
2) she experienced pain following the accident; and
3) there is a reasonable medical possibility that the accident caused the injury
This presumption can be rebutted by other evidence.
PRODUCTS LIABILITY
(Plaintiff’s name) claims that he was injured by a defective (describe product) manufactured by (manufacturer’s name). To be successful he must prove four things are more likely than not:
1) the (describe product) was being used as intended or foreseeable;
2) it was defective, when (manufacturer’s name) sold it;
3) the defect caused an injury to him; and
4) his injury resulted in the damages, he claims.
To determine whether the (describe product) was defective you must decide whether the (describe product) was unreasonably dangerous when used or misused as intended or forseeable. Just because an accident happened does not mean the (describe product) was defective. Likewise, just because this type of accident did not happen before, does not mean that the (describe product) was not defective. To decide whether the (describe product) was defective you can ask four questions. If you answer all four questions no, the (describe product) is not unreasonably dangerous. If you answer any one yes, the (describe product) is unreasonably dangerous.
1. Was the danger involved in this accident beyond the kind of danger an ordinary user of the (describe product) would contemplate ?
2. Did (manufacturer’s name) provide inadequate guards against unreasonable dangers?
3. Did (manufacturer’s name) provide users with inadequate warnings of potential dangers, unknown to ordinary users of this type of thing?
4. Did (manufacturer’s name) fail to provide reasonably foreseeable users with instructions for the safe operation of the (describe product)?
If (defendant’s name) have proven more likely than not that the (describe product) is unreasonably dangerous when used as intended or foreseeable, you must then decide if the defect caused (defendant’s name) injuries.
RAILROAD CROSSING
A railroad and the State both have a duty to maintain highway/railroad crossings so that they can be safely crossed by motorists using reasonable care. If a crossing needs automatic signals and the railroad knows about the need, it shall not unreasonably delay the installation of a flashing signal. If a crossing needs automatic signals and the State knows about the need, it shall not unreasonably delay the installation of a flashing signal. The (name of railroad company) and the State must comply with the Master Agreement between them. A train locomotive must be equipped with a speed indicator clearly readable from the engineer’s normal position. The speed limit for the train on this track is (?) m.p.h. An engineer is not required to operate his train so that he can stop it within his field of vision. The speed limit for automobiles on this highway is (?) m.p.h. As a motorist approaches a railroad track, he must look and listen for oncoming trains. If a motorist’s view of the track is obstructed, he must be more careful in determining that there are no trains in the vicinity. For nine hundred feet before a highway crossing, a train is required to sound its horn continuously through the crossing or sound its horn two long blasts, one short blast and one long blast, which shall continue through the crossing. If a train sounds its horn as required and it is an immediate hazard because of its speed and nearness, a motorist shall stop within fifty feet but not less than fifteen feet from the nearest rail and not cross until it is safe. A train crew may assume that a motorist will stop unless his approach is so unusual that it would notify a ordinarily cautious person that the car cannot be stopped in time to avoid a collision.
REDHIBITION BURDEN OF PROOF; PRESUMPTION
The buyer must prove that the redhibitory defect existed before the sale was made to him. But if the vice has made its appearance within three days immediately following the sale, it is presumed to have existed before the sale.
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
This is a suit seeking damages for injury. A company is responsible for damages caused by its fault. A company is at fault if its employee engages in conduct below the standard which the law applies to its activities. Generally, a company’s employee is required to act with the degree of care which we might reasonably expect from an ordinarily cautious person under the same or similar circumstances. As part of your consideration of whether someone acted with the required degree of care, you may ask: “How would an ordinarily cautious person have acted or what precautions would he have taken if faced with similar conditions or circumstances?”
SEAMAN
(Plaintiff’s name) was a seaman if:
1) he has a connection with a vessel in navigation;
2) his connection was substantial in duration and nature; and
3) his duties contributed to the function of the vessel or the accomplishment of its mission.
A seaman does not lose his status when he is temporarily assigned by his employer to duties off the vessel. You must determine whether (plaintiff’s name) lost his seaman status. Factors you may consider are the duration of the assignment, its relationship to (Defendant’s name)’s business, whether (Plaintiff’s name) was free to accept or reject the assignment without endangering his employment, and any other relevant factors. A factor that you may consider in determining whether (Plaintiff’s name) was a seaman is the payment of maintenance.
SELLER AS MANUFACTURER
A seller who puts out as his own product, a product manufactured by another is subject to the same standard of behavior as the manufacturer of the product.
SLIP & FALL
(Plaintiff’s name) claims that a condition on (Defendant’s name)’s premise cause him to fall. (Defendant’s name) must keep his aisles, passageways and floors in a reasonably safe condition, free of hazardous conditions which reasonably might cause damage. To succeed (plaintiff’s name) must prove that:
(1 ) The condition presented to him an unreasonable risk of harm that was reasonably foreseeable;
(2 ) Before the fall (Defendant’s name) created, or had actual notice of the condition or the condition existed for a period of time that (Defendant’s name) would have discovered the condition if he had been reasonably careful; and
(3 ) (Defendant’s name) failed to exercise reasonable care.
SPEED
A person must drive his vehicle at a reasonable and prudent speed. What is reasonable and prudent is determined by the conditions and potential hazards existing at the time. Conditions you should consider are other traffic on the highway, the highway surface and width, and the weather conditions. During inclement weather, a person must drive his vehicle at a speed which will allow him to stop within his range of vision.
STIPULATED LIABILITY
(Plaintiff’s name) is seeking damages for injury caused by the fault of (defendant’s name). (Defendant’s name) has admitted that he was at fault. (Defendant’s name) is responsible for injuries caused by the collision. So, you must decide what injuries, if any, were caused by the collision.
STOP SIGN
A driver must drive prudently which includes maintaining control of his vehicle and maintaining a proper lookout for hazards. A driver approaching a stop sign must stop before entering the intersection and yield to all vehicles on the intersecting road which are approaching so closely that entering would create an immediate hazard.
A driver on a favored highway has the right to assume that a driver approaching the intersection from the less favored highway will stop at the stop sign and yield the right-of-way. If a driver on a favored highway sees that another driver has failed to yield the right of way, he must take reasonable steps to avoid an accident if reasonably possible. However, if a person suddenly finds himself in a position of immediate danger without time to consider and weigh all the circumstances and best means to avoid the danger, he is not required act in a way that upon later reflection may appear to have been better. A person cannot take advantage of this rule when he or she creates the danger through his or her own fault. Before a driver changes lanes on a multiple lane highway, he must determine that he can do it safely.
STOP SIGN
A driver must drive prudently which includes maintaining control of his vehicle and maintaining a proper lookout for hazards. A driver approaching a stop sign must stop before entering the intersection and yield to all vehicles on the intersecting road which are approaching so closely that entering would create an immediate hazard.
A driver on a favored highway has the right to assume that a driver approaching the intersection from the less favored highway will stop at the stop sign and yield the right-of-way. If a driver on a favored highway sees that another driver has failed to yield the right of way, he must take reasonable steps to avoid an accident if reasonably possible. However, if a person suddenly finds himself in a position of immediate danger without time to consider and weigh all the circumstances and best means to avoid the danger, he is not required act in a way that upon later reflection may appear to have been better. A person cannot take advantage of this rule when he or she creates the danger through his or her own fault. Before a driver changes lanes on a multiple lane highway, he must determine that he can do it safely.
SUDDEN EMERGENCY
When a person suddenly finds himself in immediate danger without enough time to consider all the circumstances or the best way to get out of danger, he is not expected to react in the same way as a person who has time to consider the whole situation. Basically a person is not expected to anticipate sudden or unexpected events. This rule does not apply to the person who creates the immediate danger.
THING IN ONE’S CUSTODY
(Defendant’s name) is responsible for damages caused by the things in his custody, caused by its ruin (defect) if:
1) he knew about the ruin (defect) or with the exercise of reasonable care he should have known about it; and
2) he could have prevented the damage by exercising reasonable care; and
3) he failed to exercise that reasonable care.
TRAFFIC RULES
The following traffic rules should be considered in determining who was at fault in this collision:
Motor vehicles must be driven upon the right half of the roadway.
A driver of a vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, considering the speed of the vehicles.
A driver of a vehicle may pass another vehicle on the right when
1) the vehicle overtaken is making or is about to make a left turn;
2) the passing can be made safely; and
3) the passing can be made without driving off the main traveled portion of the highway.
Unless a special hazard exists, no person shall operate a motor vehicle on a highway at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
No driver shall turn a vehicle to enter a private driveway or otherwise turn a vehicle from a direct course or move to the right or left on a highway unless and until the movement can be made with reasonable safety.
No driver shall stop or suddenly decrease vehicle speed without first signaling with brake lights when there is an opportunity to do so.
A driver may assume that other drivers on the highway operate their vehicles in a reasonably cautious manner and obey the traffic rules. If a driver is faced with a sudden emergency, not of his or her making, the driver must react as a reasonable person would in a similar circumstance. He is not required to choose a reaction, which on calm reflection might appear to have been better than that chosen in this case.
A driver must drive prudently which includes maintaining control of his vehicle and maintaining a proper lookout for hazards.
On a two lane roadway a driver must operate his vehicle on the right side and shall not move into the left lane until the driver has first ascertained that the move can be made safely.
Drivers of vehicles proceeding in opposite directions shall pass each other to the right.
A driver must not operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
A driver approaching a stop sign must stop before entering the intersection. He must yield to all vehicles on the intersecting road which are approaching so closely that entering would create an immediate hazard. When the driver’s vision is obstructed, the driver must proceed with greater care.
A motorist on the favored street has the right to assume any driver approaching the intersection on the street controlled by a stop sign will yield the right of way.
A driver shall operate his vehicle as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not move from the lane until he first ascertains that he can move safely. A driver shall indicate his intention to change lanes with his signal lights.
A driver shall securely fasten his load to prevent it from becoming loose, detached or a hazard to other motorists.
A person must drive his vehicle at a reasonable and prudent speed. What is reasonable and prudent is determined by the conditions and potential hazards existing at the time. Conditions you should consider are other traffic on the highway, the highway surface and width, and the weather conditions. During inclement weather, a person must drive his vehicle at a speed which will allow him to stop within his range of vision.
If a vehicle becomes disabled in the traveled part of the highway and it is impossible to avoid stopping the vehicle there, the driver must move the vehicle as soon as possible. Until it is removed, the driver must protect traffic in a reasonable manner.
A driver must use reasonable care to observe and avoid striking a stationary vehicle, obstructing his lane. In deciding what is reasonable, you should consider all the facts and circumstances surrounding the collision, including the locality of the collision, the lighting conditions, the respective positions of the vehicles, visibility and presence and operation of lighting or warning equipment.
TURN FROM HIGHWAY
1) a driver intending to turn off a highway must signal his intention continuously for at least 100 feet before turning;
2) a driver intending to make a left turn from a highway must look to the rear and must not turn until he can do so with reasonable safety.
