{"id":449,"date":"2021-10-25T03:56:38","date_gmt":"2021-10-25T03:56:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/?page_id=449"},"modified":"2022-05-02T21:36:15","modified_gmt":"2022-05-02T21:36:15","slug":"caci-435-causation-for-asbestos-related-cancer-claims","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-435-causation-for-asbestos-related-cancer-claims\/","title":{"rendered":"CACI 435 Causation for Asbestos-Related Cancer Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-ku5ecf5c-67b1725af04b65150a658e6724e81f41\">\n#top .av-special-heading.av-ku5ecf5c-67b1725af04b65150a658e6724e81f41{\npadding-bottom:10px;\n}\nbody .av-special-heading.av-ku5ecf5c-67b1725af04b65150a658e6724e81f41 .av-special-heading-tag .heading-char{\nfont-size:25px;\n}\n.av-special-heading.av-ku5ecf5c-67b1725af04b65150a658e6724e81f41 .av-subheading{\nfont-size:15px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<div  class='av-special-heading av-ku5ecf5c-67b1725af04b65150a658e6724e81f41 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 435 Causation for Asbestos-Related Cancer Claims<\/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-ku5edmm9-837c21cb643a6b8eebb0365f9b2c8c38\">\n#top .av_textblock_section.av-ku5edmm9-837c21cb643a6b8eebb0365f9b2c8c38 .avia_textblock{\nfont-size:20px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-ku5edmm9-837c21cb643a6b8eebb0365f9b2c8c38 '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><h2 class=\"SS_Banner\">435\u00a0Causation for Asbestos-Related Cancer Claims<\/h2>\n<hr \/>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">A substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the harm. It does not have to be the only cause of the harm.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] may prove that exposure to asbestos from [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s [product\/ [,\/or] activities\/ [,\/or] property\/ [,\/or] operations]\u00a0was a substantial factor causing [his\/her\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">\/[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of decedent<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s] illness by showing, through expert testimony, that there is a reasonable medical probability that the exposure was a substantial factor contributing to [his\/her\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] risk of developing cancer. <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 December 2007, May 2018, November 2018, May 2020, November 2020 <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>This instruction is to be given in a case in which the plaintiff\u2019s claim is that the plaintiff contracted an asbestos-related disease from exposure to the defendant\u2019s asbestos-containing product or asbestos-related activities. (See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 982\u2013983 [67 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 941 P.2d 1203];\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Lopez v. The Hillshire Brands Co.<\/span>\u00a0(2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 679, 688 [254 Cal.Rptr.3d 377]\u00a0[addressing causation standard for exposure to asbestos from a defendant\u2019s property or operation when the defendant is not a manufacturer or supplier of asbestos-containing products]; but see\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Petitpas v. Ford Motor Co.<\/span>\u00a0(2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 261, 290 [220 Cal.Rptr.3d 185]\u00a0[court gave\u00a0CACI No. 435\u00a0with regard to premises liability defendant].) If the plaintiff\u2019s claim is based on anything other than disease resulting from asbestos exposure, then this instruction is not to be given.<\/p>\n<p>If the issue of medical causation is tried separately, revise this instruction to focus on that issue.<\/p>\n<p>If necessary,\u00a0CACI No. 431,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Causation: Multiple Causes<\/span>, may also be given. <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\">\u201cIn the context of a cause of action for asbestos-related latent injuries, the plaintiff must first establish some threshold\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">exposure<\/span>\u00a0to the defendant\u2019s defective asbestos-containing products, and must further establish in reasonable medical probability that a particular exposure or series of exposures was a \u2018legal cause\u2019 of his injury, i.e., a\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">substantial factor<\/span>\u00a0in bringing about the injury. In an asbestos-related cancer case, the plaintiff need\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">not<\/span>\u00a0prove that fibers from the defendant\u2019s product were the ones, or among the ones, that actually began the process of malignant cellular growth. Instead, the plaintiff may meet the burden of proving that exposure to defendant\u2019s product was a substantial factor causing the illness by showing that in reasonable medical probability it was a substantial factor contributing to the plaintiff\u2019s or decedent\u2019s\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">risk<\/span>\u00a0of developing cancer. The jury should be so instructed. The standard instructions on substantial factor and concurrent causation remain correct in this context and should also be given.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Rutherford, supra,<\/span>\u00a016 Cal.4th at pp. 982\u2013983, original italics, internal citation and footnotes omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cSquarely faced with the issue of\u00a0CACI No. 435\u2019s correctness for a non-manufacturer\/non-supplier, we conclude that\u00a0CACI No. 435\u00a0applied to plaintiffs\u2019 asbestos-related claim, even though [defendant] is not a manufacturer or supplier of asbestos. [\u00b6]\u00a0CACI No. 435\u00a0was developed to address the special considerations that apply when the injury was allegedly caused by asbestos exposure. These include the long latency period, the occupational settings that often expose workers to multiple forms and brands of asbestos, and, in a case of exposure to asbestos from multiple sources, the difficulty of proving that a plaintiff\u2019s or decedent\u2019s illness was caused by particular asbestos fibers traceable to the defendant. These considerations are similar whether the defendant was a manufacturer\/supplier or otherwise created the exposure to asbestos.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Lopez, supra,<\/span>\u00a041 Cal.App.5th at p. 687, internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe term \u2018substantial factor\u2019 has not been judicially defined with specificity, and indeed it has been observed that it is \u2018neither possible nor desirable to reduce it to any lower terms.\u2019 This court has suggested that a force which plays only an \u2018infinitesimal\u2019 or \u2018theoretical\u2019 part in bringing about injury, damage, or loss is not a substantial factor. Undue emphasis should not be placed on the term \u2018substantial.\u2019 For example, the substantial factor standard, formulated to aid plaintiffs as a broader rule of causality than the \u2018but for\u2019 test, has been invoked by defendants whose conduct is clearly a \u2018but for\u2019 cause of plaintiff\u2019s injury but is nevertheless urged as an insubstantial contribution to the injury. Misused in this way, the substantial factor test \u2018undermines the principles of comparative negligence, under which a party is responsible for his or her share of negligence and the harm caused thereby.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Rutherford, supra<\/span>, 16 Cal.4th at p. 969, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[A] very minor force that does cause harm is a substantial factor. This rule honors the principle of comparative fault.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Bockrath v. Aldrich Chem. Co.<\/span>\u00a0(1999) 21 Cal.4th 71, 79 [86 Cal.Rptr.2d 846, 980 P.2d 398], internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cContrary to defendant\u2019s assertion, the California Supreme Court\u2019s decision in\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Viner v. Sweet<\/span>\u00a0(2003) 30 Cal.4th 1232 [135 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 70 P.3d 1046]\u00a0(<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Viner<\/span>) did not alter the causation requirement in asbestos-related cases. In\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Viner<\/span>, the court noted that subsection (1) of\u00a0section 432 of the Restatement Second of Torts, which provides that \u2018the actor\u2019s negligent conduct is not a substantial factor in bringing about harm to another if the harm would have been sustained even if the actor had not been negligent,\u2019\u2009\u2018demonstrates how the \u201csubstantial factor\u201d test subsumes the traditional \u201cbut for\u201d test of causation.\u2019 Defendant argues that\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Viner<\/span>\u00a0required plaintiffs to show that defendant\u2019s product \u2018independently caused [plaintiff\u2019s] injury or that, but for that exposure, [plaintiff] would not have contracted lung cancer.\u2019\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Viner<\/span>, however, is a legal malpractice case. It does not address the explicit holding in\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Rutherford<\/span>\u00a0that \u2018plaintiffs may prove causation in asbestos-related cancer cases by demonstrating that the plaintiff\u2019s exposure to defendant\u2019s asbestos-containing product in reasonable medical probability was a substantial factor in contributing to the aggregate dose of asbestos the plaintiff or decedent inhaled or ingested, and hence to the risk of developing asbestos-related cancer, without the need to demonstrate that fibers from the defendant\u2019s particular product were the ones, or among the ones, that actually produced the malignant growth.\u2019\u2009\u201d\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Viner<\/span>\u00a0is consistent with\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Rutherford<\/span>\u00a0insofar as\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Rutherford<\/span>\u00a0requires proof that an individual asbestos-containing product is a substantial factor contributing to the plaintiff\u2019s risk or probability of developing cancer.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Jones v. John Crane, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 990, 998, fn. 3 [35 Cal.Rptr.3d 144], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018A threshold issue in asbestos litigation is exposure to the defendant\u2019s product.\u2009\u2026 If there has been no exposure, there is no causation.\u2019 Plaintiffs bear the burden of \u2018demonstrating that exposure to [defendant\u2019s] asbestos products was, in reasonable medical probability, a substantial factor in causing or contributing to [plaintiff\u2019s] risk of developing cancer.\u2019\u2009\u2018Factors relevant to assessing whether such a medical probability exists include frequency of exposure, regularity of exposure and proximity of the asbestos product to [plaintiff].\u2019 Therefore, \u2018[plaintiffs] cannot prevail against [defendant] without evidence that [plaintiff] was exposed to asbestos-containing materials manufactured or furnished by [defendant] with enough frequency and regularity as to show a reasonable medical probability that this exposure was a factor in causing the plaintiff\u2019s injuries.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Whitmire v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.<\/span>\u00a0(2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1078, 1084 [109 Cal.Rptr.3d 371], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[G]iving\u00a0CACI No. 430, which states that a factor is not substantial when it is \u2018remote or trivial,\u2019 could be misleading in an asbestos case, where the long latency period necessitates exposures will have been several years earlier. Jury instructions therefore should not suggest that a long latency period, in which the exposure was temporally \u2018remote,\u2019 precludes an otherwise sufficient asbestos claim. \u2018 \u201cRemote\u201d often connotes a time limitation. Nothing in\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Rutherford<\/span>\u00a0suggests such a limitation; indeed, asbestos cases are brought long after exposure due to the long-term latent nature of asbestos-related diseases.\u2019 It was not error for the court to give\u00a0CACI No. 435\u00a0alone instead of\u00a0CACI No. 430.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Lopez, supra,<\/span>\u00a041 Cal.App.5th at p. 688, internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThat the Use Notes caution against giving the more general\u00a0CACI No. 430\u00a0in a mesothelioma case, when the more specific instruction\u00a0CACI No. 435\u00a0is more applicable, does not support a conclusion that it was error to give both instructions.\u00a0CACI No. 430\u00a0is a correct statement of the law relating to substantial factor causation, even though, as\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Rutherford<\/span>\u00a0noted, more specific instructions\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">also<\/span>\u00a0must be given in a mesothelioma case. Because the more specific\u00a0CACI No. 435\u00a0also was given, we do not find that the trial court erred by giving both instructions.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Petitpas, supra,<\/span>\u00a013 Cal.App.5th at p. 299, original italics.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cFurther, \u2018[t]he mere \u201cpossibility\u201d of exposure\u2019 is insufficient to establish causation. \u2018[P]roof that raises mere speculation, suspicion, surmise, guess or conjecture is not enough to sustain [the plaintiff\u2019s] burden\u2019 of persuasion.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Izell v. Union Carbide Corp.<\/span>\u00a0(2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 962, 969 [180 Cal.Rptr.3d 382], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[T]here is no requirement that plaintiffs show that [defendant] was the exclusive, or even the primary, supplier of asbestos-containing gaskets to PG&amp;E.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Turley v. Familian Corp.<\/span>\u00a0(2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 969, 981 [227 Cal.Rptr.3d 321].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[T]o establish exposure in an asbestos case a plaintiff has no obligation to prove a specific exposure to a specific product on a specific date or time. Rather, it is sufficient to establish \u2018that defendant\u2019s product was definitely at his work site and that it was sufficiently prevalent to warrant an inference that plaintiff was exposed to it\u2019 during his work there.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Turley<\/span>,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">supra<\/span>, 18 Cal.App.5th at p. 985.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cTo support an allocation of liability to another party in an asbestos case, a defendant must \u2018present evidence that the aggregate dose of asbestos particles arising from\u2019 exposure to that party\u2019s asbestos \u2018constituted a substantial factor in the causation of [the decedent\u2019s] cancer.\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, 205 [191 Cal.Rptr.3d 263].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018[G]iven the long latency period of asbestos-related disease, and the occupational settings that commonly exposed the worker to multiple forms and brands of asbestos products with varying degrees of toxicity,\u2019 our Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff \u2018need\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">not<\/span>\u00a0prove with medical exactitude that fibers from a particular defendant\u2019s asbestos-containing products were those, or among those, that actually began the cellular process of malignancy.\u2019 Rather, a \u2018plaintiff may meet the burden of proving that exposure to defendant\u2019s product was a substantial factor causing the illness by showing that in reasonable medical probability it was a substantial factor contributing to the plaintiff\u2019s or decedent\u2019s\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">risk<\/span>\u00a0of developing cancer.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Izell, supra<\/span>, 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 975, original italics, internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cMany factors are relevant in assessing the medical probability that an exposure contributed to plaintiff\u2019s asbestos disease. Frequency of exposure, regularity of exposure, and proximity of the asbestos product to plaintiff are certainly relevant, although these considerations should not be determinative in every case. [Citation.] Additional factors may also be significant in individual cases, such as the type of asbestos product to which plaintiff was exposed, the type of injury suffered by plaintiff, and other possible sources of plaintiff\u2019s injury. [Citations.] \u2018Ultimately, the sufficiency of the evidence of causation will depend on the unique circumstances of each case.\u2019 [Citation.]\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Paulus v. Crane Co.<\/span>\u00a0(2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1357, 1363\u20131364 [169 Cal.Rptr.3d 373].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cIn this case, [defendant] argues the trial court\u2019s refusal to give its proposed instruction was error because the instruction set forth \u2018the requirement in\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Rutherford<\/span>\u00a0that causation be decided by taking into account \u201cthe length, frequency, proximity and intensity of exposure, the peculiar properties of the individual product, [and] any other potential causes to which the disease could be attributed.\u201d\u2009\u2019 But\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Rutherford<\/span>\u00a0does not require the jury to take these factors into account when deciding whether a plaintiff\u2019s exposure to an asbestos-containing product was a substantial factor in causing mesothelioma. Instead, those factors are ones that a medical expert may rely upon in forming his or her expert medical opinion.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Davis v. Honeywell Internat. Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 477, 495 [199 Cal.Rptr.3d 583], internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cMere presence at a site where asbestos was present is insufficient to establish legally significant asbestos exposure.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Shiffer v. CBS Corp.<\/span>\u00a0(2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 246, 252 [192 Cal.Rptr.3d 346].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWe disagree with the trial court\u2019s view that\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Rutherford<\/span>\u00a0mandates that a medical doctor must expressly link together the evidence of substantial factor causation. The\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Rutherford<\/span>\u00a0court did not create a requirement that specific words must be recited by appellant\u2019s expert. Nor did the\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Rutherford<\/span>\u00a0court specify that the testifying expert in asbestos cases must always be \u2018somebody with an M.D. after his name.\u2019 The\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Rutherford<\/span>\u00a0court agreed with the\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Lineaweaver<\/span>\u00a0court that \u2018the reference to \u201cmedical probability\u201d in the standard \u201cis no more than a recognition that asbestos injury cases (like medical malpractice cases) involve the use of medical evidence.\u201d [Citation.]\u2019 The Supreme Court has since clarified that medical evidence does not necessarily have to be provided by a medical doctor.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Hernandez v. Amcord, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 659, 675 [156 Cal.Rptr.3d 90], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cNothing in\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Rutherford<\/span>\u00a0precludes a plaintiff from establishing legal causation through opinion testimony by a competent medical expert to the effect that every exposure to respirable asbestos contributes to the risk of developing mesothelioma. On the contrary,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Rutherford<\/span>\u00a0acknowledges the scientific debate between the \u2018every exposure\u2019 and \u2018insignificant exposure\u2019 camps, and recognizes that the conflict is one for the jury to resolve.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Izell, supra<\/span>, 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 977.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[T]he identified-exposure theory is a more rigorous standard of causation than the every-exposure theory. As a single example of the difference, we note [expert]\u2019s statement that it \u2018takes significant exposures\u2019 to increase the risk of disease. This statement uses the plural \u2018exposures\u2019 and also requires that those exposures be \u2018significant.\u2019 The use of \u2018significant\u2019 as a limiting modifier appears to be connected to [expert]\u2019s earlier testimony about the concentrations of airborne asbestos created by particular activities done by [plaintiff], such as filing, sanding and using an airhose to clean a brake drum.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Phillips v. Honeywell Internat. Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1061, 1088 [217 Cal.Rptr.3d 147].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cNor is there a requirement that \u2018specific words must be recited by [plaintiffs\u2019] expert.\u2019 [\u00b6] The connection, however, must be made between the defendant\u2019s asbestos products and the risk of developing mesothelioma suffered by the decedent.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Paulus, supra<\/span>, 224 Cal.App.4th at p. 1364.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWe hold that the duty of employers and premises owners to exercise ordinary care in their use of asbestos includes preventing exposure to asbestos carried by the bodies and clothing of on-site workers. Where it is reasonably foreseeable that workers, their clothing, or personal effects will act as vectors carrying asbestos from the premises to household members, employers have a duty to take reasonable care to prevent this means of transmission. This duty also applies to premises owners who use asbestos on their property, subject to any exceptions and affirmative defenses generally applicable to premises owners, such as the rules of contractor liability. Importantly, we hold that this duty extends only to members of a worker\u2019s household. Because the duty is premised on the foreseeability of both the regularity and intensity of contact that occurs in a worker\u2019s home, it does not extend beyond this circumscribed category of potential plaintiffs.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Kesner v. Superior Court<\/span>\u00a0(2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1140 [210 Cal.Rptr.3d 283, 384 P.3d 283].) <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>3 Witkin, California Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Actions, \u00a7\u2009570<\/div>\n<div>Haning et al., California Practice Guide: Personal Injury, Ch. 2(II)-D, Theories of Recovery\u2014Strict Liability For Defective Products, \u00b6\u20092:1259 (The Rutter Group)<\/div>\n<div>Haning et al., California Practice Guide: Personal Injury, Ch. 2(II)-O, Theories of Recovery\u2014Causation Issues, \u00b6\u20092:2409 (The Rutter Group)<\/div>\n<div>1 Levy et al.,\u00a0California Torts, Ch. 2,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Causation<\/span>, \u00a7\u20092.03\u00a0(Matthew Bender)<\/div>\n<div>California Products Liability Actions, Ch. 2,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Liability for Defective Products<\/span>, \u00a7\u20092.22,\u00a0Ch. 7,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Proof<\/span>, \u00a7\u20097.06\u00a0(Matthew Bender)<\/div>\n<div>33\u00a0California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 380,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Negligence<\/span>, \u00a7\u2009380.72\u00a0(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-tk3g1-590b52c3e83c89c8fd015c896eb1270f 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-naw6x-15669f15c1c0db533e736ef4df92ffab\">\n#top .av_textblock_section.av-naw6x-15669f15c1c0db533e736ef4df92ffab .avia_textblock{\nfont-size:22px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-naw6x-15669f15c1c0db533e736ef4df92ffab '   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-449","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 435 Causation for Asbestos-Related Cancer Claims - 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-435-causation-for-asbestos-related-cancer-claims\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"CACI 435 Causation for Asbestos-Related Cancer Claims - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-435-causation-for-asbestos-related-cancer-claims\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-05-02T21:36:15+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=\"13 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-435-causation-for-asbestos-related-cancer-claims\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-435-causation-for-asbestos-related-cancer-claims\\\/\",\"name\":\"CACI 435 Causation for Asbestos-Related Cancer Claims - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-10-25T03:56:38+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-05-02T21:36:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-435-causation-for-asbestos-related-cancer-claims\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-435-causation-for-asbestos-related-cancer-claims\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-435-causation-for-asbestos-related-cancer-claims\\\/#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 435 Causation for Asbestos-Related Cancer Claims\"}]},{\"@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 435 Causation for Asbestos-Related Cancer Claims - 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-435-causation-for-asbestos-related-cancer-claims\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"CACI 435 Causation for Asbestos-Related Cancer Claims - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","og_url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-435-causation-for-asbestos-related-cancer-claims\/","og_site_name":"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","article_modified_time":"2022-05-02T21:36:15+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-435-causation-for-asbestos-related-cancer-claims\/","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-435-causation-for-asbestos-related-cancer-claims\/","name":"CACI 435 Causation for Asbestos-Related Cancer Claims - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-10-25T03:56:38+00:00","dateModified":"2022-05-02T21:36:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-435-causation-for-asbestos-related-cancer-claims\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-435-causation-for-asbestos-related-cancer-claims\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-435-causation-for-asbestos-related-cancer-claims\/#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 435 Causation for Asbestos-Related Cancer Claims"}]},{"@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\/449","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=449"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/449\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2947,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/449\/revisions\/2947"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=449"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}