CACI 2905 Compliance With Employer’s Requests or Directions
California Civil Jury Instructions CACI
2905 Compliance With Employer’s Requests or Directions
[Name of plaintiff/decedent] was not negligent simply because [he/she/nonbinary pronoun], at the request or direction of [name of defendant], worked at a dangerous job, or in a dangerous place, or under dangerous conditions.
Sources and Authority
•“In Joyce v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 651 F.2d 676, 683 (10th Cir. 1981), this court held that when the evidence could support either contributory negligence or assumption of the risk, instructions which only define contributory negligence are not sufficient to prevent the jury from applying assumption of the risk. The court held the jury instructions should also include the following admonition: ‘You may not find contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, however, simply because he acceded to the request or direction of the responsible representatives of his employer that he work at a dangerous job, or in a dangerous place, or under unsafe conditions.’ The same instruction has been held sufficient by other circuits.” (Sauer v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co. (10th Cir. 1996) 106 F.3d 1490, 1493, internal citation omitted.)
•“[I]f no evidence of impermissible assumption of risk has reached the jury, a correct instruction on contributory negligence will do. However, if, either because of evidence introduced at trial or because of statements made by counsel in opening or closing arguments, there is a risk that the implied consent theory of assumption of the risk seeped its way into the case, the jury should be instructed that it ‘may not find contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff … simply because he acceded to the request or direction of the responsible representatives of his employer that he work at a dangerous job, or in a dangerous place, or under unsafe conditions.’ ” (Fashauer v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. (3d Cir. 1995) 57 F.3d 1269, 1280.)