UT · jury_instructions
MUJI 2d CV1018
Negligence. Elements of claim for failure to adequately warn.
[If you find that a warning was required,] you must [next] determine whether:
(1) [name of defendant] failed to exercise reasonable care because [he] did not provide an adequate warning;
(2) the lack of an adequate warning made the product defective and unreasonably dangerous; and
(3) the lack of an adequate warning was a cause of [name of plaintiff]'s injuries.
I will now explain what the terms "adequate warning" and "unreasonably dangerous" mean.
Provenance
- Source
- legacy.utcourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-22
- Edition
- 2026-08-21
- Content hash
805a56e77a7b08ff13243ad2ede0600d1da02d776eedb9490ca41e8cfa2088b8
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.