Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05296/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05296-39/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

NATHALIE THUY VAN, 

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

 Defendant.

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY 

INSTRUCTIONS

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 43
2 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1. DUTY TO DELIBERATE

When you begin your deliberations, you should elect one member of the jury as your presiding 

juror. That person will preside over the deliberations and speak for you here in court. 

You will then discuss the case with your fellow jurors to reach agreement if you can do so. Your 

verdict must be unanimous. 

Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but you should do so only after you have considered 

all of the evidence, discussed it fully with the other jurors, and listened to the views of your fellow 

jurors.

Do not hesitate to change your opinion if the discussion persuades you that you should. Do not 

come to a decision simply because other jurors think it is right. 

It is important that you attempt to reach a unanimous verdict but, of course, only if each of you can 

do so after having made your own conscientious decision. Do not change an honest belief about 

the weight and effect of the evidence simply to reach a verdict. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 2 of 43
3 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

2. COMMUNICATION WITH COURT

If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to communicate with me, you may send a note 

through Mr. Rivera, signed by your presiding juror or by one or more members of the jury. No 

member of the jury should ever attempt to communicate with me except by a signed writing; I will 

communicate with any member of the jury on anything concerning the case only in writing, or here 

in open court. If you send out a question, I will consult with the parties before answering it, which 

may take some time. You may continue your deliberations while waiting for the answer to any 

question. Remember that you are not to tell anyone—including me—how the jury stands, 

numerically or otherwise, until after you have reached a unanimous verdict or have been 

discharged. Do not disclose any vote count in any note to the court. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 3 of 43
4 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

3. RETURN OF VERDICT

A verdict form has been prepared for you. After you have reached unanimous agreement on a 

verdict, your presiding juror will fill in the form that has been given to you, sign and date it, and 

advise the court that you are ready to return to the courtroom. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 4 of 43
5 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

4. BURDEN OF PROOF – PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE

When a party has the burden of proof on any claim by a preponderance of the evidence, it means 

you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim is more probably true than not true. 

You should base your decision on all of the evidence, regardless of which party presented it. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 5 of 43
6 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

5. BURDEN OF PROOF – CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE

When a party has a burden of proving any claim or defense by clear and convincing evidence, it 

means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim or defense is highly probable. This is 

a higher standard of proof than proof by a preponderance of the evidence. 

You should base your decision on all of the evidence, regardless of which party presented it. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 6 of 43
7 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

6. BIAS

Each one of us has biases about or certain perceptions or stereotypes of other people. We may be 

aware of some of our biases, though we may not share them with others. We may not be fully 

aware of some of our other biases. 

Our biases often affect how we act, favorably or unfavorably, toward someone. Bias can affect our 

thoughts, how we remember, what we see and hear, whom we believe or disbelieve, and how we 

make important decisions. 

As jurors you are being asked to make very important decisions in this case. You must not let bias, 

prejudice, or public opinion influence your decision. You must not be biased in favor of or against 

any party or witness because of his or her disability, gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual 

orientation, age, national origin, or socioeconomic status. 

Your verdict must be based solely on the evidence presented. You must carefully evaluate the 

evidence and resist any urge to reach a verdict that is influenced by bias for or against any party or 

witness.

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 7 of 43
8 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

7. CORPORATIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS

All parties are equal before the law and a corporation is entitled to the same fair and conscientious 

consideration by you as any party. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 8 of 43
9 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8. INSURANCE

You must not consider whether any of the parties in this case has insurance. The presence or 

absence of insurance is totally irrelevant. You must decide this case based only on the law and the 

evidence. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 9 of 43
10 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9. STIPULATIONS OF FACT

The parties have agreed to the following facts:

1. Plaintiff Nathalie Thuy Van is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Milpitas, 

California.

2. Van is the mother of Rainier Nguyen-Phuoc. 

3. Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a corporation doing business in Milpitas, California. 

4. Wal-Mart store no. 2119 is located at 301 Ranch Drive, Milpitas, CA 95035. 

5. November 24, 2007 was a Saturday, two days after Thanksgiving. 

6. On November 24, 2007, Van dropped Rainier, who was 12-years old at the time, at WalMart store no. 2119 and went to another store across the street. Rainier entered the store 

and went to the toys section. 

7. Wal-Mart’s asset protection associates, Noe Leon and Michael Salanoa, Jr., followed 

Rainier from the toys section to the men’s restroom.

8. Leon and Salanoa apprehended Rainier while he was still physically inside Wal-Mart 

store no. 2119. 

9. Rainier was detained in a Wal-Mart asset protection office.

10. Wal-Mart paged Van over Wal-Mart’s loud speaker system.

11. While in the asset protection office, Van was given two documents: “Notification of 

Restriction from Property” and “California Penal Code Section 490.5.” 

12. While in the asset protection office, Van was told that she had to sign the 

acknowledgment on the document entitled “Notification of Restriction from Property.”

You should therefore treat these facts as having been proved. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 10 of 43
11 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10. DEPOSITION IN LIEU OF LIVE TESTIMONY

A deposition is the sworn testimony of a witness taken before trial. The witness is placed under 

oath to tell the truth and lawyers for each party may ask questions. The questions and answers are 

recorded. When a person is unavailable to testify at trial, the deposition of that person may be used 

at the trial. 

You should consider deposition testimony, presented to you in court in lieu of live testimony, 

insofar as possible, in the same way as if the witness had been present to testify. 

Do not place any significance on the behavior or tone of voice of any person reading the questions 

or answers.

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 11 of 43
12 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

11. EXPERT OPINION

Some witnesses, because of education or experience, are permitted to state opinions and the 

reasons for those opinions. 

Opinion testimony should be judged just like any other testimony. You may accept it or reject it, 

and give it as much weight as you think it deserves, considering the witness’s education and 

experience, the reasons given for the opinion, and all the other evidence in the case. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 12 of 43
13 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

12. IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE—WITNESS

The evidence that a witness testified differently on a prior occasion may be considered, along with 

all other evidence, in deciding whether or not to believe the witness and how much weight to give 

to the testimony of the witness and for no other purpose. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 13 of 43
14 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

13. FAILURE TO EXPLAIN OR DENY EVIDENCE

If a party failed to explain or deny evidence against him/her/it when he/she/it could reasonably be 

expected to have done so based on what he/she/it knew, you may consider his/her/its failure to 

explain or deny in evaluating that evidence. 

It is up to you to decide the meaning and importance of the failure to explain or deny evidence 

against the party.

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 14 of 43
15 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

14. LIABILITY OF CORPORATIONS

Under the law, a corporation is considered to be a person. It can only act through its employees, 

agents, directors, or officers. Therefore, a corporation is responsible for the acts of its employees, 

agents, directors, and officers performed within the scope of authority. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 15 of 43
16 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

15. CUSTOM OR PRACTICE

You may consider customs or practices in the community in deciding whether Wal-Mart acted 

reasonably. Customs and practices do not necessarily determine what a reasonable person would 

have done in Wal-Mart’s situation. They are only factors for you to consider. 

Following a custom or practice does not excuse conduct that is unreasonable. You should consider 

whether the custom or practice itself is reasonable.

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 16 of 43
17 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

16. “SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR”

Van alleges several claims against Wal-Mart that require there be a “substantial factor.” 

A substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have 

contributed to the harm. It must be more than a remote or trivial factor. It does not have to be the 

only cause of the harm. 

Conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred without 

that conduct. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 17 of 43
18 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

17. FALSE IMPRISONMENT

Van claims that she was wrongfully confined and detained by Wal-Mart. To establish this claim, 

Van must prove all of the following: 

1. That Wal-Mart intentionally deprived Van of her freedom of movement by use of 

physical barriers, threats of force, menace, fraud, deceit, or unreasonably duress; 

2. That the confinement and detention compelled Van to stay somewhere for some 

appreciable time, however short; 

3. That Van did not knowingly or voluntarily consent; 

4. That Van was actually harmed; and

5. That Wal-Mart’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Van’s harm.

If you find elements 1, 2, and 3 above, but you find that Van was not actually harmed, she is still 

entitled to a nominal sum, such as one dollar. 

Van need not have been aware that she was being confined and detained at the time.

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 18 of 43
19 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

18. UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

Van claims that Wal-Mart denied her full and equal facilities, privileges, or services 

because of her race, ancestry or national origin. To establish this claim, Van must prove all 

of the following: 

1. That Wal-Mart denied and discriminated full and equal facilities, privileges, or services 

to Van; 

2. That a substantial motivating reason for Wal-Mart’s conduct was its perception of Van’s 

race, ancestry, or national origin; 

3. That Van was harmed; and

4. That Wal-Mart’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Van’s harm.

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 19 of 43
20 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

19. NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, SUPERVISION, OR RETENTION OF 

EMPLOYEE

Van claims that she was harmed by Security Guards Noe Leon and Michael Salanoa, and 

that Wal-Mart is responsible for that harm because Wal-Mart negligently hired, trained, 

supervised, or retained Leon and Salanoa. To establish this claim, Van must prove all of the 

following: 

1. That Leon or Salanoa was unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which either was 

hired; 

2. That Wal-Mart knew or should have known that Leon or Salanoa was unfit or 

incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence created a particular risk to others; 

3. That Leon’s or Salanoa’s unfitness or incompetence harmed Van; and

4. That Wal-Mart’s negligence in hiring, training, supervising, or retaining Leon or Salanoa 

was a substantial factor in causing Van’s harm. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 20 of 43
21 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

20. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Van claims that Wal-Mart’s conduct caused her to suffer severe emotional distress. To establish 

this claim, Van must prove all of the following:

1. That Wal-Mart’s conduct was outrageous; 

2. That Wal-Mart acted with reckless disregard of the probability that Van would suffer 

emotional distress, knowing that Van was present when the conduct occurred; 

3. That Van suffered severe emotional distress; and

4. That Wal-Mart’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Van’s severe emotional 

distress.

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 21 of 43
22 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

21. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS— “OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT” DEFINED

“Outrageous conduct” is conduct so extreme that it goes beyond all possible bounds of decency. 

Conduct is outrageous if a reasonable person would regard the conduct as intolerable in a civilized 

community. Outrageous conduct does not include trivialities such as indignities, annoyances, hurt 

feelings, or bad manners that a reasonable person is expected to endure.

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 22 of 43
23 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

22. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTION DISTRESS— “RECKLESS DISREGARD” DEFINED

Wal-Mart acted with reckless disregard in causing Van’s emotional distress if:

1. Wal-Mart knew that emotional distress would probably result from its conduct; or 

2. Wal-Mart gave little or no thought to the probably effects of its conduct. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 23 of 43
24 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

23. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTION DISTRESS— “SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS” DEFINED 

Emotional distress includes suffering, anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, 

shock, humiliation, and shame. 

“Severe emotional distress” is not mild or brief; it must be so substantial or long lasting that no 

reasonable person in a civilized society should be expected to bear it. Van is not required to prove 

physical injury to recover damages for severe emotional distress.

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 24 of 43
25 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

24. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

Van claims she was harmed because Wal-Mart negligently misrepresented a fact. To establish this 

claim, Van must prove all of the following: 

1. That Wal-Mart represented to Van that a fact was true; 

2. That Wal-Mart’s representation was not true; 

3. That Wal-Mart has no reasonable grounds for believing the representation was true when 

it made it; 

4. That Wal-Mart intended that Van rely on this representation; 

5. That Van reasonably relied on Wal-Mart’s representation;

6. That Van was harmed; and 

7. That Van’s reliance on Wal-Mart’s representation was a substantial factor in causing her 

harm.

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 25 of 43
26 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

25. OPINIONS AS STATEMENTS OF FACT

Ordinarily, an opinion is not considered a representation of fact. An opinion is a person’s belief 

that a fact exists, a statement regarding a future event, or a judgment about quality, value, 

authenticity, or similar matters. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 26 of 43
27 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

26. REASONABLE RELIANCE

In determining whether Van’s reliance on the misrepresentation was reasonable, she must first 

prove that the matter was material. A matter is material if a reasonable person would find it 

important in determining his or her choice of action. 

If you decide that the matter is material, you must then decide whether it was reasonable for Van to 

rely on the misrepresentation. In making this decision, take into consideration Van’s intelligence, 

knowledge, education, and experience. 

However, it is not reasonable for anyone to rely on a misrepresentation that is preposterous. It is 

also not reasonable for anyone to rely on a misrepresentation if facts that are within her observation 

show that it is obviously false. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 27 of 43
28 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

27. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 

Van claims that Wal-Mart’s conduct caused her to suffer serious emotional distress. To establish 

this claim, Van must prove all of the following:

1. That Wal-Mart was negligent; 

2. That Van suffered serious emotional distress; and

3. That Wal-Mart’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing Van’s serious emotional 

distress.

Alternatively, Van can establish this claim by proving all of the following:

1. That Wal-Mart negligently caused injury or harm to Rainier Ngyuen-Phuoc; 

2. That when the incident on November 24, 2007 that caused injury or harm to Rainier 

occurred, Van was present at the scene;

3. That Van was then aware that the incident on November 24, 2007 was causing injury to 

Rainier;

4. That Van suffered serious emotional distress; and 

5. That Wal-Mart’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Van’s serious emotional 

distress.

Emotional distress includes suffering, anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, 

shock, humiliation, and shame. Serious emotional distress exists if an ordinary, reasonable person 

would be unable to cope with it. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 28 of 43
29 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

28. NEGLIGENCE

Van claims that she was harmed by Wal-Mart’s negligence. To establish this claim, Van must 

prove all of the following: 

1. That Wal-Mart was negligent;

2. That Van was harmed; and 

3. That Wal-Mart’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing Van’s harm.

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 29 of 43
30 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

29. APPORTIONMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY

Wal-Mart claims that the fault of Rainier contributed to Van’s harm. To succeed on this claim, 

Wal-Mart must prove both of the following: 

1. That Rainier was at fault; and 

2. That the fault of Rainier was a substantial factor in Van’s harm. 

If you find that the fault of more than one person including Wal-Mart and Rainier was a substantial 

factor in causing Van’s harm, you must then decide how much responsibility each has by assigning 

percentages of responsibility to each person listed on the verdict form. The percentages must total 

100 percent. 

You will make a separate finding of Van’s total damages, if any. In determining an amount of 

damages, you should not consider any person’s assigned percentage of responsibility. 

“Person” can mean an individual or a business entity. 

This instruction does not apply to Van’s claims of false imprisonment, intentional infliction of 

emotional distress, California’s Unruh Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 30 of 43
31 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

30. NEGLIGENCE—BASIC STANDARD OF CARE

Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care to prevent harm to oneself or to others. 

A person or company can be negligent by acting or failing to act. A person or company is negligent 

if he or it does something a reasonably careful person or company would not do in the same 

situation or fails to do something that a reasonably careful person or company would do in the 

same situation. 

You must decide how a reasonably careful person would have acted in Wal-Mart’s situation.

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 31 of 43
32 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

31. NEGLIGENCE—STANDARD OF CARE FOR MINORS

Rainier is a child who was 12 years old at the time of the incident. Children are not held to the 

same standards of behavior as adults. A child is required to use the amount of care that a 

reasonably careful child of the same age, intelligence, knowledge, and experience would use in that 

same situation. 

You must decide how a reasonably careful person would have acted in Van and Wal-Mart’s 

situation and how a reasonably careful child of the same age, intelligence, knowledge, and 

experience as Rainier would have acted in that same situation. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 32 of 43
33 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

32. RELIANCE ON GOOD CONDUCT OF OTHERS

Every person has a right to expect that every other person will use reasonable care and will not 

violate the law, unless he or she knows, or should know, that the other person will not use 

reasonable care or will violate the law. 

“Person” can mean an individual or a business entity. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 33 of 43
34 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

33. VIOLATION OF FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS—42 U.S.C. § 1981

Van claims that she was harmed in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. To prevail on her 1981 claim, 

Van has to prove all of the following: 

1. Van attempted to contract for services with Wal-Mart;

2. Van was denied the right to contract for those services by Wal-Mart;

3. That Van’s race or national origin was a motivating factor in Wal-Mart’s denial of the 

right to contract for services with Wal-Mart; and 

4. That such services remained available to others outside the protected class. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 34 of 43
35 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

34. MOTIVATING FACTOR

As to Van’s claim that her race, national origin, and ancestry was a motivating factor for the Wal- Mart’s decision to detain her, Van has the burden of proving both the following elements by a 

preponderance of evidence: 

1. Van was detained by Wal-Mart; and

2. Van’s race, national origin, or ancestry was a motivating factor in Wal-Mart’s decision to 

detain Van.

If you find that Van has proved both of these elements, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. If, 

on the other hand, Van has failed to prove either of these elements, your verdict should be for the 

defendant. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 35 of 43
36 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

35. LIMITED CAPACITY OF A MINOR TO CONTRACT 

A minor has limited capacity to entire into contracts and a contract of a minor may be disaffirmed 

by the minor before majority. A disaffirmance of an agreement by a minor does not operate to 

terminate the contractual obligations of the parent who signed the agreement.

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 36 of 43
37 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

36. DAMAGES

It is the duty of the Court to instruct you about the measure of damages. By instructing you on 

damages, the Court does not mean to suggest for which party your verdict should be rendered. 

If you find for any one of Van’s claims, you must determine her damages. Van has the burden of 

proving damages by a preponderance of the evidence. Damages means the amount of money that 

will reasonably and fairly compensate Van for any injury you find was caused by Wal-Mart. You 

should consider the following: 

1. The nature and extent of the injuries; and

2. The mental and emotional pain and suffering experienced.

It is for you to determine what damages, if any, have been proved. 

Your award must be based upon evidence and not upon speculation, guesswork or conjecture. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 37 of 43
38 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

37. DAMAGES ON MULTIPLE LEGAL THEORIES

Van seeks damages from Wal-Mart under more than one legal theory. However, each item of 

damages may be awarded only once, regardless of the number of legal theories alleged. 

You will be asked to decide whether Wal-Mart is liable to Van under the following legal theories:

1. False Imprisonment; 

2. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 

3. California’s Unruh Act 

4. 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 

5. Negligence; 

6. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress;

7. Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision, and Retention of Employee; 

8. Negligent Misrepresentation. 

Damages for pain and suffering or emotional distress are recoverable only once under all of the 

above legal theories.

Nominal damages are recoverable only once for false imprisonment. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 38 of 43
39 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

38. DISTRESS FROM BRINGING A LAWSUIT IS NOT COMPENSABLE

Van cannot recover emotional distress damages for anxiety caused by other life stressors, including 

anxiety caused by litigating this case.

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 39 of 43
40 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

39. A WRONGDOER TAKES ITS VICTIM AS IT FINDS HER

A wrongdoer takes its victim as it finds her, meaning that the wrongdoer is liable for any injury it 

causes, no matter how unforeseeable, unlikely, or improbable, and the wrongdoer is liable for all 

consequences of the victim’s injury. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 40 of 43
41 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

40. MENTAL SUFFERING AND EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

When considering past mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, grief, anxiety, humiliation, and 

emotional distress, no fixed standard exists for deciding the amount of these noneconomic 

damages. You must use your judgment to decide a reasonable amount based on the evidence and 

your common sense. 

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 41 of 43
42 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05296-PSG

SECOND AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

41. PUNITIVE DAMAGES

If you decide that Wal-Mart’s conduct caused Van harm, you must decide whether that conduct 

justifies an award of punitive damages. The purposes of punitive damages are to punish a 

wrongdoer for the conduct that harmed the plaintiff and to discourage similar conduct in the future. 

You may award punitive damages against Wal-Mart only if Van proves that Wal-Mart engaged in 

that conduct with malice, oppression, or fraud. To do this, Van must prove one of the following by 

clear and convincing evidence:

1. That the conduct constituting malice, oppression, or fraud was committed by one or more 

officers, directors, or managing agents of Wal-Mart, who acted on behalf of Wal-Mart;

2. That the conduct constituting malice, oppression, or fraud was authorized by one or more 

officers, directors, or managing agents of Wal-Mart; or 

3. That one or more officers, directors, or managing agents of Wal-Mart knew of the 

conduct constituting malice, oppression, or fraud and adopted or approved that conduct 

after it occurred.

“Malice” means that Wal-Mart acted with intent to cause injury or that Wal-Mart’s conduct was 

despicable and was done with a willful and knowing disregard of the rights or safety of another. A 

person acts with knowing disregard when he or she is aware of the probable dangerous 

consequences of his or her conduct and deliberately fails to avoid those consequences. 

“Oppression” means that Wal-Mart’s conduct was despicable and subjected Van to cruel and 

unjust hardship in knowing disregard of her rights. 

“Despicable conduct” is conduct that is so vile, base, or contemptible that it would be looked down 

on and despised by reasonable people. 

“Fraud” means that Wal-Mart intentionally misrepresented or concealed a material fact and did so 

intending to harm Van. 

An employee is a “managing agent” if he exercises substantial independent authority and judgment 

in his corporate decision making such that his or her decisions ultimately determine corporate 

policy. 

There is no fixed standard for determining the amount of punitive damages, and you are not 

required to award any punitive damages. If you decide to award punitive damages, you should 

consider all of the following in determining the amount:

(a) How reprehensible was Wal-Mart’s conduct? 

1. Whether the conduct caused physical harm; 

2. Whether Wal-Mart disregarded the health and safety of others; 

3. Whether Wal-Mart’s conduct involved a pattern or practice; and

4. Whether Wal-Mart acted with trickery or deceit.

 (b) Is there a reasonable relationship between the amount of punitive damages and Van’s harm?

(c) In view of Wal-Mart’s financial condition, what amount is necessary to punish it and 

discourage future wrongful conduct? You may not increase the punitive award above an 

amount that is otherwise appropriate merely because Wal-Mart has substantial financial 

resources.

Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 42 of 43
Case 5:08-cv-05296-NC Document 593 Filed 01/12/15 Page 43 of 43