Civil Jury Instructions Resource Center
Plain English Examples
BAJI 2.00 reads:
|
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that, if found to be true,
proves a fact from which an inference of the existence of
another fact may be drawn. A factual inference is a deduction
that may logically and reasonably be drawn from one or more
facts established by the evidence.
|
The comparable Judicial Council instruction (number 202) reads:
|
Some evidence proves a fact directly, such as testimony of a
witness who saw a jet plane flying across the sky. Some evidence
proves a fact indirectly, such as testimony of a witness who saw
only the white trail that jet planes often leave. This indirect
evidence is sometimes referred to as “circumstantial
evidence.” In either instance, the witness’s testimony
is evidence that a jet plane flew across the sky.
|
BAJI 2.21 reads:
|
Failure of recollection is common. Innocent misrecollection is
not uncommon.
|
The latter sentence is stated in triple negatives. The comparable
Judicial Council instruction (number 107) reads:
|
People often forget things or make mistakes in what they
remember.
|
This is an example of the use of basic English language principles to
make instructions simpler.
BAJI 2.60 reads:
|
“Preponderance of the evidence” means evidence that
has more convincing force than that opposed to it. If the
evidence is so evenly balanced that you are unable to say that
the evidence on either side of an issue preponderates, your
finding on that issue must be against the party who had the
burden of proving it.
|
These are familiar words to lawyers. But the task force had to ask
whether the average juror ever used the noun “preponderance”
and, more pointedly, the verb “preponderates.” The
comparable Judicial Council instruction (number 200) reads:
|
A party must persuade you, by the evidence presented in court, that what he or she is required to prove is more likely to be true than not true. This is referred to as "the burden of proof."
|
BAJI 3.36 reads:
|
The amount of caution required of a person whose physical
faculties are impaired is the care which a person of ordinary
prudence with similarly impaired faculties would use under
circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence.
|
Most judges and attorneys understand that sentence. But the phrase
“person of ordinary prudence” is not normally in the
vocabulary of a tenth grader. Nor does the same tenth grader speak of
people whose “physical faculties are impaired.” The
comparable Judicial Council instruction (number 403) reads:
|
A person with a physical disability is required to use the
amount of care that a reasonably careful person who has the same
physical disability would use in the same situation.
|
BAJI 6.00.2 reads:
|
A psychotherapist has no duty to warn third persons of a
patient’s threatened violent behavior, nor any duty to
predict such behavior or to protect third persons from such
behavior, unless the patient has communicated to the
psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against
[a] reasonably identifiable potential victim[s]. If a patient
has communicated such a threat to a psychotherapist, the
psychotherapist then has a duty to warn and to protect the
reasonably identifiable potential victim[s]. If you find a
psychotherapist had this duty, it is satisfied and there is no
liability if the psychotherapist made reasonable efforts to
communicate the threat to the victim or victims and to a law
enforcement agency.
|
The comparable Judicial Council instruction (number 503 A) breaks the
cause of action into clear elements and identifies the parties by
name:
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of
defendant]’s failure to protect [name of plaintiff/decedent]
was a substantial factor in causing [injury to [name of plaintiff]/the death
of [name of decedent]]. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff]
must prove all of the following:
- That [
name of defendant] was a psychotherapist;
That [name of patient] was [name of
defendant]’s patient;
That [name of patient] communicated to [name of defendant] a serious
threat of physical violence;
That [name of plaintiff/decedent] was a reasonably
identifiable victim of [name of patient]’s threat;
That [name of patient] [injured [name of plaintiff]/killed [name of decedent]];
That [name of defendant] failed to make reasonable
efforts to protect [name of plaintiff/decedent]; and
That [name of defendant]'s failure was a substantial factor in causing [[name of plaintiff
’s injury/the death of [name of decedent]].
|
<< back
