{"id":1855,"date":"2021-10-25T03:55:30","date_gmt":"2021-10-25T03:55:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/?page_id=1855"},"modified":"2022-05-09T18:41:56","modified_gmt":"2022-05-09T18:41:56","slug":"caci-3949-punitive-damages-individual-and-corporate-defendants-corporate-liability-based-on-acts-of-named-individual-bifurcated-trial-second-phase","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3949-punitive-damages-individual-and-corporate-defendants-corporate-liability-based-on-acts-of-named-individual-bifurcated-trial-second-phase\/","title":{"rendered":"CACI 3949 Punitive Damages\u2014Individual and Corporate Defendants (Corporate Liability Based on Acts of Named Individual)\u2014Bifurcated Trial (Second Phase)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-kv28t548-fb530fe57b37f61797b492304a5bc117\">\n#top .av-special-heading.av-kv28t548-fb530fe57b37f61797b492304a5bc117{\npadding-bottom:10px;\n}\nbody .av-special-heading.av-kv28t548-fb530fe57b37f61797b492304a5bc117 .av-special-heading-tag .heading-char{\nfont-size:25px;\n}\n.av-special-heading.av-kv28t548-fb530fe57b37f61797b492304a5bc117 .av-subheading{\nfont-size:15px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<div  class='av-special-heading av-kv28t548-fb530fe57b37f61797b492304a5bc117 av-special-heading-h1 blockquote modern-quote  avia-builder-el-0  el_before_av_hr  avia-builder-el-first '><h1 class='av-special-heading-tag '  itemprop=\"headline\"  >CACI 3949 Punitive Damages\u2014Individual and Corporate Defendants (Corporate Liability Based on Acts of Named Individual)\u2014Bifurcated Trial (Second Phase)<\/h1><div class='av-subheading av-subheading_below'><p>California Civil Jury Instructions CACI<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"special-heading-border\"><div class=\"special-heading-inner-border\"><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n<div  class='hr av-av_hr-91d7ccd583a503147498e120fee2ff9b hr-default  avia-builder-el-1  el_after_av_heading  el_before_avia_sc_search '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7\">\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 .av_searchform_wrapper{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\nborder-color:#edae44;\nbackground-color:#edae44;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 #s.av-input-field{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 #searchsubmit{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 .av_searchsubmit_wrapper{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n.ajax_search_response.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7{\npadding:0px 0px 0px 0px;\nmargin:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<div  class='avia_search_element av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7  avia-builder-el-2  el_after_av_hr  el_before_av_textblock '><search><form action='https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/' id='searchform_element' method='get' class='' data-element_id='av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7' ><div class='av_searchform_wrapper'><input type='search' value='' id='s' name='s' placeholder='Search CACI' aria-label='Search CACI' class='av-input-field ' required \/><div class='av_searchsubmit_wrapper '><input type='submit' value='Find' id='searchsubmit' class='button ' title='View results on search page' aria-label='View results on search page' \/><\/div><input type='hidden' name='numberposts' value='8' \/><input type='hidden' name='post_type' value='page' \/><input type='hidden' name='results_hide_fields' value='post_titles,meta,image' \/><\/div><\/form><\/search><\/div>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-av_textblock-e878f05c31dff72941bf1e49a00d9ff5 '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/\">CACI Jury Instructions Index<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/caci-fillable-forms.crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">App: CACI Jury Instructions Fillable Forms Word Format<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<div  class='hr av-av_hr-91d7ccd583a503147498e120fee2ff9b hr-default  avia-builder-el-4  el_after_av_textblock  el_before_av_textblock '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-kv28ukdn-9f2d9cc1ffd8bff47d43c931240b2da8\">\n#top .av_textblock_section.av-kv28ukdn-9f2d9cc1ffd8bff47d43c931240b2da8 .avia_textblock{\nfont-size:20px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-kv28ukdn-9f2d9cc1ffd8bff47d43c931240b2da8 '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><h2 class=\"SS_Banner\">3949\u00a0Punitive Damages\u2014Individual and Corporate Defendants (Corporate Liability Based on Acts of Named Individual)\u2014Bifurcated Trial (Second Phase)<\/h2>\n<hr \/>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">You must now decide the amount, if any, that you should award [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] in punitive damages. The purposes of punitive damages are to punish a wrongdoer for the conduct that harmed the plaintiff and to discourage similar conduct in the future.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">There is no fixed formula for determining the amount of punitive damages, and you are not required to award any punitive damages. If you decide to award punitive damages, you should consider all of the following factors separately for each defendant in determining the amount:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">(a)<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">How reprehensible was that defendant\u2019s conduct? In deciding how reprehensible a defendant\u2019s conduct was, you may consider, among other factors:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">1.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">Whether the conduct caused physical harm;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">2.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">Whether the defendant disregarded the health or safety of others;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">3.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">Whether [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was financially weak or vulnerable and the defendant knew [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was financially weak or vulnerable and took advantage of [him\/her\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">\/it];<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">4.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">Whether the defendant\u2019s conduct involved a pattern or practice; and<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">5.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">Whether the defendant acted with trickery or deceit.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">(b)<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">Is there a reasonable relationship between the amount of punitive damages and [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s harm [or between the amount of punitive damages and potential harm to [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] that the defendant knew was likely to occur because of [his\/her\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">\/its] conduct]?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">(c)<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">In view of that defendant\u2019s financial condition, what amount is necessary to punish [him\/her\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">\/it] and discourage future wrongful conduct? You may not increase the punitive award above an amount that is otherwise appropriate merely because a defendant has substantial financial resources. [Any award you impose may not exceed that defendant\u2019s ability to pay.]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[Punitive damages may not be used to punish a defendant for the impact of [his\/her\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">\/its] alleged misconduct on persons other than [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">].] <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\"><\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_1\">\n<p><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">New September 2003; Revised April 2004, October 2004, June 2006, April 2007, August 2007, October 2008 <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">Crowdsource Lawyers<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\">https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci<\/a><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\"><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\">Directions for Use<\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_2\">\n<p>Read the bracketed language at the end of the first sentence of factor (b) only if there is evidence that the conduct of defendant that allegedly gives rise to liability and punitive damages either caused or foreseeably threatened to cause harm to plaintiff that would not be included in an award of compensatory damages. (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Simon v. San Paolo U.S. Holding Co., Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2005) 35 Cal.4th 1159 [29 Cal.Rptr.3d 379, 113 P.3d 63].) The bracketed phrase concerning \u201cpotential harm\u201d might be appropriate, for example, if damages actually caused by the defendant\u2019s acts are not recoverable because they are barred by statute (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">id.<\/span>\u00a0at p. 1176, citing\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exchange<\/span>\u00a0(1978) 21 Cal.3d 910, 929 [148 Cal.Rptr. 389, 582 P.2d 980]\u00a0[in a bad faith insurance case, plaintiff died before judgment, precluding her estate\u2019s recovery of emotional distress damages]), or if the harm caused by defendant\u2019s acts could have been great, but by chance only slight harm was inflicted. (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Simon, supra,<\/span>\u00a035 Cal.4th at p. 1177, citing\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp.<\/span>\u00a0(1993) 509 U.S. 443, 459 [113 S.Ct. 2711, 125 L.Ed.2d 366]\u00a0[considering the hypothetical of a person wildly firing a gun into a crowd but by chance only damaging a pair of glasses].) The bracketed phrase should not be given if an award of compensatory damages is the \u201ctrue measure\u201d of the harm or potential harm caused by defendant\u2019s wrongful acts. (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Simon, supra<\/span>, 35 Cal.4th at pp. 1178\u20131179\u00a0[rejecting consideration for purposes of assessing punitive damages of the plaintiff\u2019s loss of the benefit of the bargain if the jury had found that there was no binding contract].)<\/p>\n<p>Read the optional final sentence of factor (c) only if the defendant has presented relevant evidence regarding that issue.<\/p>\n<p>Read the optional final sentence if there is a possibility that in arriving at an amount of punitive damages, the jury might consider harm that the defendant\u2019s conduct may have caused to nonparties. (See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Philip Morris USA v. Williams<\/span>\u00a0(2007) 549 U.S. 346, 353\u2013354 [127 S.Ct. 1057, 166 L.Ed.2d 940].) Harm to others may be relevant to determining reprehensibility based on factors (a)(2) (disregard of health or safety of others) and (a)(4) (pattern or practice). (See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell<\/span>\u00a0(2003) 538 U.S. 408, 419 [123 S.Ct. 1513, 155 L.Ed.2d 585].)<\/p>\n<p>\u201cA jury must be instructed \u2026 that it may not use evidence of out-of-state conduct to punish a defendant for action that was lawful in the jurisdiction where it occurred.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., supra,<\/span>\u00a0538 U.S. at p. 422.) An instruction on this point should be included within this instruction if appropriate to the facts.<\/p>\n<p>Courts have stated that \u201c[p]unitive damages previously imposed for the same conduct are relevant in determining the amount of punitive damages required to sufficiently punish and deter. The likelihood of future punitive damage awards may also be considered, although it is entitled to considerably less weight.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Stevens v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.<\/span>\u00a0(1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1645, 1661 [57 Cal.Rptr.2d 525], internal citations omitted.) The court in\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Stevens<\/span>\u00a0suggested that the following instruction be given if evidence of other punitive damage awards is introduced into evidence:<\/p>\n<p>If you determine that a defendant has already been assessed with punitive damages based on the same conduct for which punitive damages are requested in this case, you may consider whether punitive damages awarded in other cases have sufficiently punished and made an example of the defendant. You must not use the amount of punitive damages awarded in other cases to determine the amount of the punitive damage award in this case, except to the extent you determine that a lesser award, or no award at all, is justified in light of the penalties already imposed. (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Stevens, supra,<\/span>\u00a049 Cal.App.4th at p. 1663, fn. 7.) <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\">Sources and Authority<\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_3\">\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">When Punitive Damages Permitted.\u00a0Civil Code section 3294.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">Evidence of Profits or Financial Condition.\u00a0Civil Code section 3295(d).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[Section 3295(d)] affects the order of proof at trial, precluding the admission of evidence of defendants\u2019 financial condition until after the jury has returned a verdict for plaintiffs awarding actual damages and found that one or more defendants were guilty of \u2018oppression, fraud or malice,\u2019 in accordance with\u00a0Civil Code section 3294.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">City of El Monte v. Superior Court<\/span>\u00a0(1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 272, 274\u2013275 [34 Cal.Rptr.2d 490], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cEvidence of the defendant\u2019s financial condition is a prerequisite to an award of punitive damages. In order to protect defendants from the premature disclosure of their financial position when punitive damages are sought, the Legislature enacted\u00a0Civil Code section 3295.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">City of El Monte, supra,<\/span>\u00a029 Cal.App.4th at p. 276, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[C]ourts have held it is reversible error to try the punitive damages issue to a new jury after the jury which found liability has been excused.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Rivera v. Sassoon<\/span>\u00a0(1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1048 [46 Cal.Rptr.2d 144], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe purpose of punitive damages is to punish wrongdoers and thereby deter the commission of wrongful acts.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Neal, supra,<\/span>\u00a021 Cal.3d at p. 928, fn. 13.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cPunitive damages are to be assessed in an amount which, depending upon the defendant\u2019s financial worth and other factors, will deter him and others from committing similar misdeeds. Because compensatory damages are designed to make the plaintiff \u2018whole,\u2019 punitive damages are a \u2018windfall\u2019 form of recovery.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court<\/span>\u00a0(1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 712 [34 Cal.Rptr.2d 898, 882 P.2d 894], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cIt follows that the wealthier the wrongdoing defendant, the larger the award of exemplary damages need be in order to accomplish the statutory objective.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Bertero v. National General Corp.<\/span>\u00a0(1974) 13 Cal.3d 43, 65 [118 Cal.Rptr. 184, 529 P.2d 608].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018A plaintiff, upon establishing his case, is always entitled of right to compensatory damages. But even after establishing a case where punitive damages are permissible, he is never entitled to them. The granting or withholding of the award of punitive damages is wholly within the control of the jury, and may not legally be influenced by any direction of the court that in any case a plaintiff is entitled to them. Upon the clearest proof of malice in fact, it is still the exclusive province of the jury to say whether or not punitive damages shall be awarded. A plaintiff is entitled to such damages only after the jury, in the exercise of its untrammeled discretion, has made the award.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Brewer v. Second Baptist Church of Los Angeles<\/span>\u00a0(1948) 32 Cal.2d 791, 801 [197 P.2d 713], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cIn light of our holding that evidence of a defendant\u2019s financial condition is essential to support an award of punitive damages,\u00a0Evidence Code section 500\u00a0mandates that the plaintiff bear the burden of proof on the issue. A plaintiff seeking punitive damages is not seeking a mere declaration by the jury that he is entitled to punitive damages in the abstract. The plaintiff is seeking an award of real money in a specific amount to be set by the jury. Because the award, whatever its amount, cannot be sustained absent evidence of the defendant\u2019s financial condition, such evidence is \u2018essential to the claim for relief.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Adams v. Murakami<\/span>\u00a0(1991) 54 Cal.3d 105, 119 [284 Cal.Rptr. 318, 813 P.2d 1348], internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cA defendant is in the best position to know his or her financial condition, and cannot avoid a punitive damage award by failing to cooperate with discovery orders. [\u00b6] A number of cases have held that noncompliance with a court order to disclose financial condition precludes a defendant from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence of a punitive damages award on appeal.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Fernandes v. Singh<\/span>\u00a0(2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 932, 942 [224 Cal.Rptr.3d 751].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[T]he purpose of punitive damages is not served by financially destroying a defendant. The purpose is to deter, not to destroy.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Adams, supra,<\/span>\u00a054 Cal.3d at p. 112.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[A] punitive damages award is excessive if it is disproportionate to the defendant\u2019s ability to pay.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Adams, supra,<\/span>\u00a054 Cal.3d at p. 112, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cIt has been recognized that punitive damages awards generally are not permitted to exceed 10 percent of the defendant\u2019s net worth.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Weeks v. Baker &amp; McKenzie<\/span>\u00a0(1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1166 [74 Cal.Rptr.2d 510].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWhile \u2018there is no rigid formula and other factors may be dispositive especially when net worth is manipulated and fails to reflect actual wealth,\u2019 net worth is often described as \u2018the critical determinant of financial condition.\u2019 [\u00b6] A plaintiff seeking punitive damages must provide a balanced overview of the defendant\u2019s financial condition; a selective presentation of financial condition evidence will not survive scrutiny.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Farmers &amp; Merchants Trust Co. v. Vanetik<\/span>\u00a0(2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 638, 648 [245 Cal.Rptr.3d 608], internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[N]et worth is not the only measure of a defendant\u2019s wealth for punitive damages purposes that is recognized by the California courts. \u2018Indeed, it is likely that blind adherence to any one standard [of determining wealth] could sometimes result in awards which neither deter nor punish or which deter or punish too much.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Bankhead v. ArvinMeritor, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 68, 79 [139 Cal.Rptr.3d 849].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[T]he \u2018net\u2019 concept of the net worth metric remains critical. \u2018In most cases, evidence of earnings or profit alone are not sufficient \u201cwithout examining the liabilities side of the balance sheet.\u201d [Citations.]\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Soto v. BorgWarner Morse TEC Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 165, 194 [191 Cal.Rptr.3d 263], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[W]e are afforded guidance by certain established principles, all of which are grounded in the purpose and function of punitive damages. One factor is the particular nature of the defendant\u2019s acts in light of the whole record; clearly, different acts may be of varying degrees of reprehensibility, and the more reprehensible the act, the greater the appropriate punishment, assuming all other factors are equal. Another relevant yardstick is the amount of compensatory damages awarded; in general, even an act of considerable reprehensibility will not be seen to justify a proportionally high amount of punitive damages if the actual harm suffered thereby is small. Also to be considered is the wealth of the particular defendant; obviously, the function of deterrence will not be served if the wealth of the defendant allows him to absorb the award with little or no discomfort. By the same token, of course, the function of punitive damages is not served by an award which, in light of the defendant\u2019s wealth and the gravity of the particular act, exceeds the level necessary to properly punish and deter.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Neal, supra,<\/span>\u00a021 Cal.3d at p. 928, internal citations and footnote omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[T]he Constitution\u2019s Due Process Clause forbids a State to use a punitive damages award to punish a defendant for injury that it inflicts upon nonparties or those whom they directly represent,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">i.e.<\/span>, injury that it inflicts upon those who are, essentially, strangers to the litigation.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Philip Morris USA, supra,<\/span>\u00a0549 U.S. at p. 353.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cEvidence of actual harm to nonparties can help to show that the conduct that harmed the plaintiff also posed a substantial risk of harm to the general public, and so was particularly reprehensible\u2014although counsel may argue in a particular case that conduct resulting in no harm to others nonetheless posed a grave risk to the public, or the converse. Yet for the reasons given above, a jury may not go further than this and use a punitive damages verdict to punish a defendant directly on account of harms it is alleged to have visited on nonparties.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Philip Morris USA, supra,<\/span>\u00a0549 U.S. at p. 355.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018Due process does not permit courts, in the calculation of punitive damages, to adjudicate the merits of other parties\u2019 hypothetical claims against a defendant under the guise of the reprehensibility analysis\u2009\u2026\u2009. Punishment on these bases creates the possibility of multiple punitive damages awards for the same conduct\u2009\u2026\u2009.\u2019 This does not mean, however, that the defendant\u2019s similar wrongful conduct toward others should not be considered in determining the amount of punitive damages.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 543, 560 [131 Cal.Rptr.3d 382].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThough due process does not permit courts or juries, in the calculation of punitive damages, to adjudicate the merits of other parties\u2019 hypothetical claims against a defendant under the guise of the reprehensibility analysis, this does not mean that the defendant\u2019s similar wrongful conduct toward others should not be considered in determining the amount of punitive damages.\u2009\u2026 \u2018[T]o consider the defendant\u2019s entire course of conduct in setting or reviewing a punitive damages award, even in an individual plaintiff\u2019s lawsuit, is not to punish the defendant for its conduct toward others. An enhanced punishment for recidivism does not directly punish the earlier offense; it is, rather, \u201c\u2009\u2018\u2009\u201ca stiffened penalty for the last crime, which is considered to be an aggravated offense because a repetitive one.\u201d\u2009\u2019\u2009\u201d \u2026 By placing the defendant\u2019s conduct on one occasion into the context of a business practice or policy, an individual plaintiff can demonstrate that the conduct toward him or her was more blameworthy and warrants a stronger penalty to deter continued or repeated conduct of the same nature.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Izell v. Union Carbide Corp.<\/span>\u00a0(2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 962, 986, fn. 10 [180 Cal.Rptr.3d 382], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[A] specific instruction encompassing both the permitted and prohibited uses of evidence of harm caused to others would be appropriate in the new trial if requested by the parties. We believe that an instruction on these issues should clearly distinguish between the permitted and prohibited uses of such evidence and thus make clear to the jury the purposes for which it can and cannot consider that evidence. A jury may consider evidence of harm caused to others for the purpose of determining the degree of reprehensibility of a defendant\u2019s conduct toward the plaintiff in deciding the amount of punitive damages, but it may not consider that evidence for the purpose of punishing the defendant directly for harm caused to others. In our view, Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (Aug. 2007 rev.)\u00a0CACI Nos. 3940,\u00a03942,\u00a03943,\u00a03945,\u00a03947, and\u00a03949\u00a0could convey this distinction better by stating more explicitly that evidence of harm caused to others may be considered for the one purpose but not for the other, and by providing that explanation together with the reprehensibility factors rather than in connection with the reasonable relationship issue.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 695, fn. 21 [71 Cal.Rptr.3d 775], internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018[T]he most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive damages award is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant\u2019s conduct.\u2019 We have instructed courts to determine the reprehensibility of a defendant by considering whether: the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic; the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others; the target of the conduct had financial vulnerability; the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident; and the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit, or mere accident. The existence of any one of these factors weighing in favor of a plaintiff may not be sufficient to sustain a punitive damages award; and the absence of all of them renders any award suspect.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., supra,<\/span>\u00a0538 U.S. at p. 419, internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[I]n a case involving physical harm, the physical or physiological vulnerability of the target of the defendant\u2019s conduct is an appropriate factor to consider in determining the degree of reprehensibility, particularly if the defendant deliberately exploited that vulnerability.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Bullock, supra<\/span>, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 562, internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[W]e have been reluctant to identify concrete constitutional limits on the ratio between harm, or potential harm, to the plaintiff and the punitive damages award. We decline again to impose a bright-line ratio which a punitive damages award cannot exceed. Our jurisprudence and the principles it has now established demonstrate, however, that, in practice, few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process.\u2009\u2026\u2009[A]n award of more than four times the amount of compensatory damages might be close to the line of constitutional impropriety.\u2009\u2026 While these ratios are not binding, they are instructive. They demonstrate what should be obvious: Single-digit multipliers are more likely to comport with due process, while still achieving the State\u2019s goals of deterrence and retribution, than awards with ratios in range of 500 to 1\u2009\u2026\u2009.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., supra<\/span>, 538 U.S. at pp. 424\u2013425, internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cNonetheless, because there are no rigid benchmarks that a punitive damages award may not surpass, ratios greater than those we have previously upheld may comport with due process where \u2018a particularly egregious act has resulted in only a small amount of economic damages.\u2019 The converse is also true, however. When compensatory damages are substantial, then a lesser ratio, perhaps only equal to compensatory damages, can reach the outermost limit of the due process guarantee. The precise award in any case, of course, must be based upon the facts and circumstances of the defendant\u2019s conduct and the harm to the plaintiff.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., supra,<\/span>\u00a0538 U.S. at p. 425, internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cIn determining whether a punitive damages award is unconstitutionally excessive,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Brandt<\/span>\u00a0fees may be included in the calculation of the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages, regardless of whether the fees are awarded by the trier of fact as part of its verdict or are determined by the trial court after the verdict has been rendered.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co.<\/span>\u00a0(2016) 63 Cal.4th 363, 368 [203 Cal.Rptr.3d 23, 371 P.3d 242].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe decision to award punitive damages is exclusively the function of the trier of fact. So too is the amount of any punitive damage award. The relevant considerations are the nature of the defendant\u2019s conduct, the defendant\u2019s wealth, and the plaintiff\u2019s actual damages.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Gagnon v. Continental Casualty Co.<\/span>\u00a0(1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1598, 1602 [260 Cal.Rptr. 305], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe wealth of a defendant cannot justify an otherwise unconstitutional punitive damages award.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., supra,<\/span>\u00a0538 U.S. at p. 427, internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[I]n some cases, the defendant\u2019s financial condition may combine with high reprehensibility and a low compensatory award to justify an extraordinary ratio between compensatory and punitive damages. [Citation.]\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co.<\/span>\u00a0(<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Nickerson II<\/span>) (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1, 26 [209 Cal.Rptr.3d 690].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cIn light of our discussion, we conclude that even where, as here, punitive but not compensatory damages are available to the plaintiff, the defendant is entitled to an instruction that punitive damages must bear a reasonable relation to the injury, harm, or damage actually suffered by the plaintiff and proved at trial. Consequently, the trial court erred in failing to so instruct the jury.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Gagnon, supra,<\/span>\u00a0211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1605.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWe conclude that the rule \u2026 that an award of exemplary damages must be accompanied by an award of compensatory damages [or its equivalent] is still sound. That rule cannot be deemed satisfied where the jury has made an express determination not to award compensatory damages.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Cheung v. Daley<\/span>\u00a0(1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1673, 1677 [42 Cal.Rptr.2d 164], footnote omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWith the focus on the plaintiff\u2019s injury rather than the amount of compensatory damages, the [\u2018reasonable relation\u2019] rule can be applied even in cases where only equitable relief is obtained or where nominal damages are awarded or, as here, where compensatory damages are unavailable.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Gagnon, supra,<\/span>\u00a0211 Cal.App.3d at p. 1605.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe high court in\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">TXO<\/span>\u00a0[<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">TXO Production Corp., supra<\/span>] and\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">BMW<\/span>\u00a0[<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore<\/span>\u00a0(1996) 517 U.S. 559 [116 S.Ct. 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d 809]]\u00a0has refined the disparity analysis to take into account the\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">potential<\/span>\u00a0loss to plaintiffs, as where a scheme worthy of punitive damages does not fully succeed. In such cases, the proper ratio would be the ratio of punitive damages to the potential harm to plaintiff.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Sierra Club Found. v. Graham<\/span>\u00a0(1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1162, fn. 15 [85 Cal.Rptr.2d 726], original italics.) <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"SS_Heading\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\"><span class=\"SS_ib\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_ib\">Secondary Sources<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n<div>6 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Torts, \u00a7\u00a7\u20091752\u20131756<\/div>\n<div>Haning et al., California Practice Guide: Personal Injury, Ch. 3-E,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Punitive Damages<\/span>, \u00b6\u00b6\u20093:1703\u20133:1708 (The Rutter Group)<\/div>\n<div>California Tort Damages (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed.) Punitive Damages, \u00a7\u00a7\u200914.1\u201314.12, 14.21, 14.39<\/div>\n<div>4 Levy et al.,\u00a0California Torts, Ch. 54,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Punitive Damages<\/span>, \u00a7\u00a7\u200954.07,\u00a054.24[4][d]\u00a0(Matthew Bender)<\/div>\n<div>15\u00a0California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 177,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Damages<\/span>, \u00a7\u2009177.51\u00a0(Matthew Bender)<\/div>\n<div>6\u00a0California Points and Authorities, Ch. 64,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Damages: Tort<\/span>, \u00a7\u00a7\u200964.141 et seq.,\u00a064.174\u00a0et seq. (Matthew Bender)<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_3\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<div  class='hr av-7hgee7-c5ca36cd247ffa7840a07d5ace1780e4 hr-default  avia-builder-el-6  el_after_av_textblock  el_before_av_textblock '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-6dj2kf-241d18944ee0caf3a239ff436145d81e\">\n#top .av_textblock_section.av-6dj2kf-241d18944ee0caf3a239ff436145d81e .avia_textblock{\nfont-size:22px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-6dj2kf-241d18944ee0caf3a239ff436145d81e '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">CrowdSourceLawyers.com<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1855","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>CACI 3949 Punitive Damages\u2014Individual and Corporate Defendants (Corporate Liability Based on Acts of Named Individual)\u2014Bifurcated Trial (Second Phase) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3949-punitive-damages-individual-and-corporate-defendants-corporate-liability-based-on-acts-of-named-individual-bifurcated-trial-second-phase\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"CACI 3949 Punitive Damages\u2014Individual and Corporate Defendants (Corporate Liability Based on Acts of Named Individual)\u2014Bifurcated Trial (Second Phase) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3949-punitive-damages-individual-and-corporate-defendants-corporate-liability-based-on-acts-of-named-individual-bifurcated-trial-second-phase\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-05-09T18:41:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-3949-punitive-damages-individual-and-corporate-defendants-corporate-liability-based-on-acts-of-named-individual-bifurcated-trial-second-phase\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-3949-punitive-damages-individual-and-corporate-defendants-corporate-liability-based-on-acts-of-named-individual-bifurcated-trial-second-phase\\\/\",\"name\":\"CACI 3949 Punitive Damages\u2014Individual and Corporate Defendants (Corporate Liability Based on Acts of Named Individual)\u2014Bifurcated Trial (Second Phase) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-10-25T03:55:30+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-05-09T18:41:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-3949-punitive-damages-individual-and-corporate-defendants-corporate-liability-based-on-acts-of-named-individual-bifurcated-trial-second-phase\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-3949-punitive-damages-individual-and-corporate-defendants-corporate-liability-based-on-acts-of-named-individual-bifurcated-trial-second-phase\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-3949-punitive-damages-individual-and-corporate-defendants-corporate-liability-based-on-acts-of-named-individual-bifurcated-trial-second-phase\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/home\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"CACI 3949 Punitive Damages\u2014Individual and Corporate Defendants (Corporate Liability Based on Acts of Named Individual)\u2014Bifurcated Trial (Second Phase)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/\",\"name\":\"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\",\"description\":\"California Civil Jury Instructions CACI site\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"CrowdSource Lawyers\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/CrowdSource-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/CrowdSource-Logo.png\",\"width\":453,\"height\":208,\"caption\":\"CrowdSource Lawyers\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"CACI 3949 Punitive Damages\u2014Individual and Corporate Defendants (Corporate Liability Based on Acts of Named Individual)\u2014Bifurcated Trial (Second Phase) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3949-punitive-damages-individual-and-corporate-defendants-corporate-liability-based-on-acts-of-named-individual-bifurcated-trial-second-phase\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"CACI 3949 Punitive Damages\u2014Individual and Corporate Defendants (Corporate Liability Based on Acts of Named Individual)\u2014Bifurcated Trial (Second Phase) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","og_url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3949-punitive-damages-individual-and-corporate-defendants-corporate-liability-based-on-acts-of-named-individual-bifurcated-trial-second-phase\/","og_site_name":"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","article_modified_time":"2022-05-09T18:41:56+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3949-punitive-damages-individual-and-corporate-defendants-corporate-liability-based-on-acts-of-named-individual-bifurcated-trial-second-phase\/","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3949-punitive-damages-individual-and-corporate-defendants-corporate-liability-based-on-acts-of-named-individual-bifurcated-trial-second-phase\/","name":"CACI 3949 Punitive Damages\u2014Individual and Corporate Defendants (Corporate Liability Based on Acts of Named Individual)\u2014Bifurcated Trial (Second Phase) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-10-25T03:55:30+00:00","dateModified":"2022-05-09T18:41:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3949-punitive-damages-individual-and-corporate-defendants-corporate-liability-based-on-acts-of-named-individual-bifurcated-trial-second-phase\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3949-punitive-damages-individual-and-corporate-defendants-corporate-liability-based-on-acts-of-named-individual-bifurcated-trial-second-phase\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3949-punitive-damages-individual-and-corporate-defendants-corporate-liability-based-on-acts-of-named-individual-bifurcated-trial-second-phase\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/home\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"CACI 3949 Punitive Damages\u2014Individual and Corporate Defendants (Corporate Liability Based on Acts of Named Individual)\u2014Bifurcated Trial (Second Phase)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#website","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/","name":"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","description":"California Civil Jury Instructions CACI site","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#organization","name":"CrowdSource Lawyers","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/09\/CrowdSource-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/09\/CrowdSource-Logo.png","width":453,"height":208,"caption":"CrowdSource Lawyers"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1855","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1855"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1855\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4581,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1855\/revisions\/4581"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1855"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}