Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00930/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00930-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TESORO REFINING & MARKETING 

COMPANY LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-00930-JCS 

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Dated: January 28, 2016

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 1 of 45
1

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 1

DUTY OF JURY

Members of the Jury: Now that you have heard all of the evidence and the arguments of 

the attorneys, it is my duty to instruct you as to the law of the case. Each of you has received a 

copy of these instructions that you may take with you to the jury room to consult during your 

deliberations.

You must not infer from these instructions or from anything I may say or do as indicating 

that I have an opinion regarding the evidence or what your verdict should be.

It is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence in the case. To those facts you will 

apply the law as I give it to you. You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree 

with it or not. And you must not be influenced by any personal likes or dislikes, opinions, 

prejudices, or sympathy. That means that you must decide the case solely on the evidence before 

you. You will recall that you took an oath to do so. 

In following my instructions, you must follow all of them and not single out some and 

ignore others; they are all important.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 2 of 45
2

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 2

CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company LLC is the plaintiff in this case. Tesoro owns 

and operates a refinery in Martinez, California, where it processes crude oil that the company has 

purchased, and then converts into gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. 

Tesoro’s primary source of power is a cogeneration plant, which is located on the 

refinery’s premises and which is owned by a third party, Foster Wheeler. Foster Wheeler is not a 

party in this lawsuit but supplies power to the refinery under a separate contract between Tesoro 

and Foster Wheeler. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company is the defendant in this case. PG&E is an electric and 

gas utility regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission. Tesoro has a contract with 

PG&E to supply electrical power on a standby basis during times of shutdown or failure of the 

Foster Wheeler Cogeneration Plant. 

In this case, Tesoro has sued PG&E for negligence and breach of contract. Tesoro 

contends that PG&E acted negligently and caused a total outage at the refinery on November 10, 

2010. Tesoro contends it was damaged in the amount of approximately $10 million dollars. 

PG&E admits that two of its transmission lines lost power on November 10, 2010, but 

denies it was negligent toward Tesoro or that PG&E breached its contract with Tesoro. PG&E 

contends that Tesoro was negligent for failing to protect the refinery from problems on the PG&E 

system or grid. PG&E also contends that Tesoro has overstated the amount of damages and lost 

profits it claims from the November 10 outage.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 3 of 45
3

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 3

BURDEN OF PROOF—PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE

When a party has the burden of proof on any claim or affirmative defense by a 

preponderance of the evidence, it means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim or 

affirmative defense is more probably true than not true.

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

it.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 4 of 45
4

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 4

WHAT IS EVIDENCE

The evidence you are to consider in deciding what the facts are consists of: 

(1) The sworn testimony of any witness; 

(2) The exhibits which are received into evidence; and 

(3) Any facts to which the parties have agreed.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 5 of 45
5

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 5

WHAT IS NOT EVIDENCE

In reaching your verdict, you may consider only the testimony and exhibits received into 

evidence. Certain things are not evidence, and you may not consider them in deciding what the 

facts are. I will list them for you:

(1) Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not witnesses. 

What they have said in their opening statements, closing arguments, and at other times is intended 

to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence. If the facts as you remember them differ 

from the way the lawyers have stated them, your memory of them controls.

(2) Questions and objections by lawyers are not evidence. Attorneys have a duty to their 

clients to object when they believe a question is improper under the rules of evidence. You should 

not be influenced by the objection or by the court’s ruling on it.

(3) Testimony that has been excluded or stricken, or that you have been instructed to 

disregard, is not evidence and must not be considered. 

(4) Anything you may have seen or heard when the court was not in session is not 

evidence. You are to decide the case solely on the evidence received at the trial.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 6 of 45
6

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 6

DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as 

testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial 

evidence is proof of one or more facts from which you could find another fact. You should 

consider both kinds of evidence. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to 

either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is for you to decide how much weight to give to any 

evidence.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 7 of 45
7

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 7

RULING ON OBJECTIONS

As I instructed you at the outset of the case, there are rules of evidence that control what 

can be received into evidence. When a lawyer asks a question or offers an exhibit into evidence 

and a lawyer on the other side thinks that it is not permitted by the rules of evidence, that lawyer 

may object. Whenever I sustained an objection to a question, you must ignore the question and 

must not guess what the answer might have been. Similarly, if I ordered that evidence be stricken 

from the record and that you disregard or ignore the evidence, you must not consider the evidence 

that I told you to disregard.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 8 of 45
8

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 8

CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES

In deciding the facts in this case, you may have to decide which testimony to believe and 

which testimony not to believe. You may believe everything a witness has said, or part of it, or 

none of it. Proof of a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of witnesses who testify 

about it.

In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account:

(1) the opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear or know the things testified to;

(2) the witness’s memory; 

(3) the witness’s manner while testifying; 

(4) the witness’s interest in the outcome of the case and any bias or prejudice; 

(5) whether other evidence contradicted the witness’s testimony; 

(6) the reasonableness of the witness’s testimony in light of all the evidence; and 

(7) any other factors that bear on believability. 

The weight of the evidence as to a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of witnesses 

who testify about it.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 9 of 45
9

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 9

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.

The deposition of Michael Van Remoortere was taken on June 3, 2015. Videotaped 

testimony from that deposition was played during 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. 

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 10 of 45
10

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 10

CHARTS AND SUMMARIES

Certain charts and summaries not received in evidence have been shown to you in order to 

help explain the contents of books, records, documents, or other evidence in the case. They are 

not themselves evidence or proof of any facts. If they do not correctly reflect the facts or figures 

shown by the evidence in the case, you should disregard these charts and summaries and 

determine the facts from the underlying evidence

Other charts and summaries have been received into evidence to illustrate information 

brought out in the trial. Charts and summaries are only as good as the underlying evidence that 

supports them. You should, therefore, give them only such weight as you think the underlying 

evidence deserves.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 11 of 45
11

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 11

EVIDENCE—FAILURE TO EXPLAIN OR DENY EVIDENCE

If a party failed to explain or deny evidence against it when it could reasonably be 

expected to have done so based on what it knew, you may consider 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 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 12 of 45
12

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 12

EVIDENCE—EXPERT OPINIONS

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 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 13 of 45
13

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 13

EVIDENCE—EXPERT QUESTIONS CONTAINING ASSUMED FACTS

The law allows expert witnesses to be asked questions that are based on assumed facts. 

These are sometimes called “hypothetical questions.” 

In determining the weight to give to the expert’s opinion that is based on the assumed 

facts, you should consider whether the assumed facts are true.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 14 of 45
14

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 14

EVIDENCE—CONFLICTING EXPERT TESTIMONY

If the expert witnesses disagreed with one another, you should weigh each opinion against 

the others. You should examine the reasons given for each opinion and the facts or other matters 

that each witness relied on. You may also compare the experts’ qualifications.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 15 of 45
15

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 15

EVIDENCE—OPINION TESTIMONY OF LAY WITNESSES

Witnesses who were not testifying as experts gave opinions during the trial. You may, but 

are not required to, accept those opinions. You may give the opinions whatever weight you think 

is appropriate. 

Consider the extent of the witness’s opportunity to perceive the matters on which the 

opinion is based, the reasons the witness gave for the opinion, and the facts or information on 

which the witness relied in forming that opinion. You must decide whether information on which 

the witness relied was true and accurate. You may disregard all or any part of an opinion that you 

find unbelievable, unreasonable, or unsupported by that evidence.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 16 of 45
16

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 16

RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY

PG&E must exercise reasonable diligence and care to provide and deliver a continuous 

supply of electric energy to its customers. However, PG&E does not guarantee a continuous 

supply of electricity, and is not responsible for an interruption of supply unless the interruption is 

caused by PG&E’s failure to exercise reasonable diligence.

This rule is created by law and is also a part of the parties’ contract. It applies to both the 

negligence claim and the contract claim in this case. You might have heard this rule referenced as 

Tariff Rule 14 during the trial.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 17 of 45
17

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 17

RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROTECTIVE DEVICES

Tesoro is responsible for providing, installing, inspecting, and maintaining at its own risk 

and expense all appropriate protective devices that are required to properly protect its facilities.

PG&E is not responsible for any loss or damage caused by the negligence of Tesoro or its 

agents or employees in omitting, installing, maintaining, using, operating, or interfering with any 

such protective devices. If you determine that any such negligence occurred, and that PG&E was 

also negligent, you must determine each party’s percentage share of responsibility for the harm.

This rule is created by law and is also a part of the parties’ contract. It applies to both the 

negligence claim and the contract claim in this case. You might have heard this rule referenced as 

Tariff Rule 2 during the trial.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 18 of 45
18

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 18

EXISTENCE OF “AGENCY” RELATIONSHIP DISPUTED

PG&E claims that Foster Wheeler was Tesoro’s agent for the purpose of Tesoro fulfilling 

its obligations as described in Instruction 17, and that Tesoro is therefore responsible for Foster 

Wheeler’s conduct.

If PG&E proves by a preponderance of the evidence that Tesoro gave Foster Wheeler 

authority to act on Tesoro’s behalf, then Foster Wheeler was Tesoro’s agent. This authority may 

be shown by words or may be implied by the parties’ conduct. This authority cannot be shown by 

the words of Foster Wheeler alone.

If you determine that Foster Wheeler was Tesoro’s agent for the purpose of Tesoro 

fulfilling its obligations as described in Instruction 17, you should consider any negligence by 

Foster Wheeler, within the scope of the authority that Tesoro gave Foster Wheeler, to be 

negligence by Tesoro. This is true even if other jury instructions or questions in the verdict form 

do not specifically discuss Tesoro’s agents.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 19 of 45
19

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 19

NEGLIGENCE—ESSENTIAL FACTUAL ELEMENTS

Tesoro claims that it was harmed by PG&E’s negligence. To establish this claim, Tesoro 

must prove all of the following by a preponderance of the evidence: 

(1) That PG&E was negligent; 

(2) That Tesoro was harmed; and 

(3) That PG&E’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing Tesoro’s harm.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 20 of 45
20

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 20

NEGLIGENCE—BASIC STANDARD OF CARE

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

person can be negligent by acting or by failing to act. A person is negligent if he or she does 

something that a reasonably careful person would not do in the same situation or fails to do 

something that a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation. 

In this case, each party’s duties are further discussed in Instructions 16 and 17. You must 

decide how a reasonably careful person would have acted in each party’s situation. 

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 21 of 45
21

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 21

NEGLIGENCE—COMPARATIVE FAULT OF TESORO

PG&E claims that Tesoro’s own negligence contributed to Tesoro’s harm. To succeed on 

this claim, PG&E must prove both of the following by a preponderance of the evidence:

(1) That Tesoro was negligent; and

(2) That Tesoro’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing its harm.

Tesoro’s duties are further discussed in Instruction 17. If PG&E proves the above, 

Tesoro’s damages are reduced by your determination of the percentage of Tesoro’s responsibility. 

I will calculate the actual reduction.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 22 of 45
22

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 22

NEGLIGENCE—CAUSATION: 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 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 23 of 45
23

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 23

NEGLIGENCE—CAUSATION: MULTIPLE CAUSES

A person’s negligence may combine with another factor to cause harm. If you find that 

PG&E’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing Tesoro’s harm, then PG&E is responsible 

for the harm. PG&E cannot avoid responsibility just because some other person, condition, or 

event—other than the negligence of Tesoro or its agents or employees—was also a substantial 

factor in causing Tesoro’s harm.

This instruction does not mean that PG&E is responsible for harm caused by Tesoro’s 

negligence, or the negligence of Tesoro’s agents or employees. If you determine that PG&E’s 

negligence and Tesoro’s negligence (or Tesoro’s agents’ or employees’ negligence) were both 

substantial causes of harm to Tesoro, you must determine each party’s percentage of 

responsibility.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 24 of 45
24

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 24

NEGLIGENCE—RELIANCE ON GOOD CONDUCT OF OTHERS

Every person has a right to expect that every other person will use reasonable care, unless 

he or she knows, or should know, that the other person will not use reasonable care.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 25 of 45
25

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 25

NEGLIGENCE—CUSTOM OR PRACTICE

You may consider customs or practices in the community in deciding whether a party 

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

would have done in a situation. They are only factors for you to consider.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 26 of 45
26

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 26

BREACH OF CONTRACT—INTRODUCTION

Tesoro claims that it and PG&E entered into a Special Agreement for Electrical Standby 

Service (often referred to as the Standby Agreement) relating to provision of electrical services. 

Tesoro claims that PG&E breached this contract by: 

(a) failing to provide electrical power to Tesoro’s refinery during times of shutdown or 

failure of Foster Wheeler’s cogeneration plant; and

(b) failing to exercise reasonable diligence and care to furnish and deliver a continuous and 

sufficient supply of electric energy to the customer. 

Tesoro claims that PG&E’s breach of this contract caused harm to Tesoro for which PG&E 

should pay. 

PG&E denies that it breached the Standby Agreement. PG&E further denies that it caused 

any harm to Tesoro because PG&E did not cause the Refinery outage. PG&E asserts that Tesoro 

failed to do all of the significant things that the Standby Agreement required it to do, including 

furnishing, installing, inspecting and keeping in good and safe condition at its own risk and 

expense all appropriate protective devices to properly protect its facilities. PG&E further asserts 

that it is not responsible for any harm arising from the Refinery outage because the outage was not 

caused by an interruption, shortage, or insufficiency in supply arising from PG&E’s failure to 

exercise reasonable diligence. PG&E also asserts it is not responsible for any damages caused by 

the negligence of Tesoro or of any of its agents or employees in omitting, installing, maintaining, 

using, operating or interfering with any such protective devices.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 27 of 45
27

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 27

BREACH OF CONTRACT—ESSENTIAL FACTUAL ELEMENTS

Tesoro and PG&E agree that they were both parties to the Standby Agreement. To recover 

damages for breach of the Standby Agreement, Tesoro must prove all of the following by a 

preponderance of the evidence:

(1) That PG&E failed to do something that the Standby Agreement required it to do;

(2) That PG&E’s breach of the Standby Agreement was a substantial factor in causing the 

Refinery to lose power;

(3) That PG&E failed to exercise reasonable diligence and care to deliver a continuous 

supply of electric energy to its customers;

(4) That PG&E’s failure to exercise reasonable diligence and care was a substantial factor 

in causing the Refinery to lose power; and

(5) That Tesoro suffered harm as a result of the Refinery losing power.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 28 of 45
28

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 28

BREACH OF CONTRACT—CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT AS A WHOLE

In deciding what the words of a contract meant to the parties, you should consider the 

whole contract, not just isolated parts. You should use each part to help you interpret the others, 

so that all the parts make sense when taken together.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 29 of 45
29

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 29

BREACH OF CONTRACT—REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS OF THE PARTIES

In interpreting the written terms of a contract, you must look to the reasonable expectations 

of the parties. You may consider the circumstances under which the contract was made, the 

parties’ discussions, and the parties’ course of dealing.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 30 of 45
30

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 30

BREACH OF CONTRACT—

CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH CONTRACT WAS MADE

You may consider the meaning of a contract term based on the circumstances in which the 

contract was made, the matter to which it related, or the parties’ course of dealings.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 31 of 45
31

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 31

BREACH OF CONTRACT—ASSIGNMENT NOT CONTESTED

Tesoro was not a party to the original Standby Agreement. However, it may bring a claim 

for breach of contract because another party transferred its rights under the Standby Agreement to

Tesoro. This transfer is referred to as an “assignment.”

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 32 of 45
32

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 32

BREACH OF CONTRACT—COMPARATIVE FAULT OF TESORO

PG&E claims that Tesoro’s own negligence related to protective devices contributed to 

Tesoro’s harm. To succeed on this claim, PG&E must prove both of the following by a 

preponderance of the evidence:

(1) That Tesoro or its agents or employees were negligent in omitting, installing, 

maintaining, using, operating, or interfering with appropriate protective devices; and

(2) That Tesoro’s (or its agents’ or employees’) negligence was a substantial factor in 

causing its harm.

If PG&E proves the above, Tesoro’s damages are reduced by your determination of the 

percentage of Tesoro’s responsibility. I will calculate the actual reduction.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 33 of 45
33

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 33

DAMAGES—PROOF

Money that a party recovers to compensate it for harm caused by another party is called 

“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 Tesoro on a cause of action, you must determine Tesoro’s 

damages. Tesoro has the burden of proving damages by a preponderance of the evidence. 

Damages means the amount of money that will reasonably and fairly compensate Tesoro for any 

injury you find was caused by PG&E. Tesoro claims the following two categories of damages: 

(1) Lost profits; and

(2) Expenses due to the Refinery outage. 

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 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 34 of 45
34

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 34

DAMAGES—DAMAGES ON MULTIPLE LEGAL THEORIES

Tesoro seeks damages from PG&E 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 PG&E is liable to Tesoro under the following legal theories: 

(a) Breach of Contract; and 

(b) Negligence.

The following items of damages are recoverable only once under either of the above legal 

theories: 

(1) Lost profits; and

(2) Expenses due to the Refinery outage.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 35 of 45
35

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 35

DAMAGES—ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL ARE NOT EVIDENCE OF DAMAGES

The arguments of the attorneys are not evidence of damages. Your award must be based 

on your reasoned judgment applied to the testimony of the witnesses and the other evidence that 

has been admitted during trial.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 36 of 45
36

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 36

DAMAGES—JURORS NOT TO CONSIDER ATTORNEY FEES AND COURT COSTS

You must not consider, or include as part of any award, attorney fees or expenses that the 

parties incurred in bringing or defending this lawsuit.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 37 of 45
37

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 37

DAMAGES—NEGLIGENCE

If you decide that Tesoro has proved its negligence claim against PG&E, you also must 

decide how much money will reasonably compensate Tesoro for the harm. This compensation is 

called “damages.” 

The amount of damages must include an award for each item of harm that was caused by 

PG&E’s negligence, even if the particular harm could not have been anticipated. 

Tesoro does not have to prove the exact amount of damages that will provide reasonable 

compensation for the harm. However, you must not speculate or guess in awarding damages. 

The following are the specific items of damages claimed by Tesoro: 

(1) Lost profits; and

(2) Expenses due to the Refinery outage.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 38 of 45
38

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 38

DAMAGES—COMPARATIVE FAULT OF PLAINTIFF

If you decide that Tesoro’s negligence combined with PG&E’s negligence in causing 

Tesoro’s harm, then you must decide the percentage of responsibility for the harm that you 

attribute to each of them.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 39 of 45
39

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 39

DAMAGES—CONTRACT DAMAGES

If you decide that Tesoro has proved its claim against PG&E for breach of contract, you 

also must decide how much money will reasonably compensate Tesoro for the harm caused by the 

breach. This compensation is called “damages.” The purpose of such damages is to put Tesoro in 

as good a position as it would have been if PG&E had performed as promised: 

To recover damages for any harm, Tesoro must prove that when the Standby Agreement 

was made, both parties knew or could reasonably have foreseen that the harm was likely to occur 

in the ordinary course of events as result of the breach of the Standby Agreement. 

Tesoro also must prove the amount of its damages according to the following instructions. 

It does not have to prove the exact amount of damages. You must not speculate or guess in 

awarding damages. 

Tesoro claims, as general damages, lost profits and expenses incurred, due to the Refinery 

outage. 

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 40 of 45
40

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 40

DAMAGES—LOSS OF PROFITS—CERTAINTY AND CALCULATION 

To recover damages for lost profits, Tesoro must prove that it is reasonably certain it 

would have earned profits but for PG&E’s breach of contract. 

To decide the amount of damages for lost profits, you must determine the gross, or total, 

amount Tesoro would have received if the contract had been performed and then subtract from 

that amount the costs, including the value of the expenses, materials, and labor, Tesoro would 

have had if the contract had been performed. 

You do not have to calculate the amount of the lost profits damages with mathematical 

precision, but there must be a reasonable basis for computing the loss.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 41 of 45
41

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 41

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 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 42 of 45
42

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 42

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE—CONDUCT OF THE JURY

Because you must base your verdict only on the evidence received in the case and on these 

instructions, I remind you that you must not be exposed to any other information about the case or 

to the issues it involves. Except for discussing the case with your fellow jurors during your 

deliberations:

Do not communicate with anyone in any way and do not let anyone else communicate with 

you in any way about the merits of the case or anything to do with it. This includes discussing the 

case in person, in writing, by phone or electronic means, via email, text messaging, or any Internet 

chat room, blog, website, or other feature. This applies to communicating with your family 

members, your employer, the media or press, and the people involved in the trial. If you are asked 

or approached in any way about your jury service or anything about this case, you must respond 

that you have been ordered not to discuss the matter and to report the contact to the court.

Do not read, watch, or listen to any news or media accounts or commentary about the case 

or anything to do with it; do not do any research, such as consulting dictionaries, searching the 

Internet or using other reference materials; and do not make any investigation or in any other way 

try to learn about the case on your own.

The law requires these restrictions to ensure the parties have a fair trial based on the same 

evidence that each party has had an opportunity to address. A juror who violates these restrictions 

jeopardizes the fairness of these proceedings, and a mistrial could result that would require the 

entire trial process to start over. If any juror is exposed to any outside information, please notify 

the court immediately.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 43 of 45
43

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 43

COMMUNICATION WITH COURT

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

a note through the Courtroom Deputy, Ms. Karen Hom, 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 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 44 of 45
44

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

Northern District of California

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 44

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 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 212 Filed 01/28/16 Page 45 of 45