CA · jury_instructions
CACI No. 554
Affirmative Defense—Emergency
[Name of defendant] claims that [he/she/ nonbinary pronoun] did not have
to obtain [name of patient/authorized person]’s informed consent to the
[insert medical procedure] because an emergency existed. To succeed,
[name of defendant] must prove both of the following:
1. That [name of defendant] reasonably believed the [insert medical
procedure] had to be done immediately in order to preserve the
life or health of [name of patient]; and
2. That [insert one or more of the following:]
2. [[name of patient] was unconscious] [or]
2. [there was not enough time to inform [name of patient]] [or]
2. [there was not enough time to get consent from an authorized
person].
New September 2003
Provenance
- Source
- courts.ca.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-20
- Edition
- caci-2025
- Content hash
3c386d032d7af246b497c125518cc709820e71555be8778f8f2df51960ae4fe6
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.