CACI 3702 Affirmative Defense—Comparative Fault of Plaintiff’s Agent
California Civil Jury Instructions CACI
3702 Affirmative Defense—Comparative Fault of Plaintiff’s Agent
[Name of defendant] claims that the negligence of [name of plaintiff’s agent] contributed to [name of plaintiff principal]’s harm. To succeed on this claim, [name of defendant] must prove all of the following:
1.That [name of plaintiff’s agent] was acting as [name of plaintiff principal]’s [agent/employee/[insert other relationship, e.g., “partner”]];
2.That [name of plaintiff’s agent] was acting within the scope of [his/her/nonbinary pronoun] [agency/employment/[insert other relationship]] when the incident occurred; and
3.That the negligence of [name of plaintiff’s agent] was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff principal]’s harm.
If [name of defendant] proves the above, [name of plaintiff principal]’s claim is reduced by your determination of the percentage of [name of plaintiff’s agent]’s responsibility. I will calculate the actual reduction.
New September 2003; Revised December 2009
https://crowdsourcelawyers.com/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci
Directions for Use
This instruction may be used by a defendant against a principal/employer to assert the comparative fault of an agent/employee. For example, in an automobile accident lawsuit brought by a corporate plaintiff, the defendant may use this instruction to assert that the negligence of the plaintiff’s employee/driver contributed to causing the accident.
Sources and Authority
•The doctrine of respondeat superior is not limited to the principal’s responsibility for injuries to third parties. A defendant also can use the doctrine to support a claim of contributory negligence against a plaintiff principal if the plaintiff’s agent was contributorily negligent. (See 6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (11th ed. 2017) Torts, § 1481.)