US-CA9 · jury_instructions
9th Cir. Model Jury Instr. (Civil) 7.13
Integrated Product Manufacturer’s Duty to Warn
On the plaintiff [name]’s duty to warn claim, the plaintiff [name] has the burden of proving the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence:
First, the defendant [name] manufactured a product that required the incorporation of a part for the integrated product to function as intended;
Second, the defendant [name] knew or had reason to know that the integrated product was likely to be dangerous for its intended use[s];
Third, the defendant [name] had no reason to believe that the product’s users would realize that danger; and
Fourth, the product’s dangerous condition caused foreseeable injury to the plaintiff [name].
If you find the plaintiff [name] has proven the elements on which [he] [she] [other pronoun] has the burden of proof, your verdict should be for the plaintiff [name]. If, on the other hand, the plaintiff [name] has failed to prove any of these elements, your verdict should be for the defendant [name].
Provenance
- Source
- ce9.uscourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-20
- Edition
- 2026-08-20
- Content hash
251b4ad2d8f65fe3ca059bed720c05e2b905e07411d8866e48c004295ddfd379
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.