CA · jury_instructions
CACI No. 3800
Comparative Fault Between and Among Tortfeasors
[Name of indemnitee] claims that [he/she/ nonbinary pronoun] [is/was]
required to pay [describe liability, e.g., “a court judgment in favor of [name
of plaintiff]”] and that [name of indemnitor] must reimburse [name of
indemnitee] based on [name of indemnitor]’s share of responsibility. In
order for [name of indemnitee] to recover from [name of indemnitor],
[name of indemnitee] must prove both of the following:
1. That [name of indemnitor] [was negligent/[describe underlying
tort]]; and
2. That [name of indemnitor]’s [negligence/[describe tortious conduct]]
contributed as a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s
harm.
[[Name of indemnitor] claims that [name of indemnitee] [and] [insert
identification of others] contributed as [a] substantial factor[s] in causing
[name of plaintiff]’s harm. To succeed, [name of indemnitor] must prove
both of the following:
1. That [name of indemnitee] [and] [insert identification of others]
[[was/were] negligent/[other basis of responsibility]]; and
2. That [name of indemnitee] [and] [insert identification of others]
contributed as [a] substantial factor[s] in causing [name of
plaintiff]’s harm.
Y ou will be asked to determine the percentages of responsibility of [name
of indemnitor] [,/ and] [[name of indemnitee][, and] all other persons
responsible] for [name of plaintiff]’s harm.]
New September 2003; Revised May 2020
Provenance
- Source
- courts.ca.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-20
- Edition
- caci-2025
- Content hash
135d36ef750916df96e81f635dfef9722007bb3faccab6b6ba0517739f981d1d
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.