Page 1 of 36

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

WILLIAM WAYMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

3M COMPANY, 3M 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, 

AEARO HOLDING LLC, 

AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, 

AEARO LLC, and

AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC,

Defendants.

Case No. 7:20cv149-MCR-GRJ

COURT’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY

I will now instruct you on the claims brought by Mr. William Wayman, 3M’s 

defense, and the applicable law. Colorado law applies to his case, and you should 

consider these instructions only in deciding Mr. Wayman’s case. 

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 1 of 36
Page 2 of 36

Mr. Wayman raises the following separate legal claims against 3M, for which 

he seeks compensatory damages for his hearing injuries:

(1) strict liability based on design defect,

(2) strict liability based on failure to warn and/or instruct,

(3) strict liability based on misrepresentation,

(4) negligence,

(5) negligence per se,

(6) fraudulent misrepresentation,

(7) fraudulent concealment, 

(8) negligent misrepresentation, and

(9) deceptive trade practices.

To prevail, Mr. Wayman must establish all of the elements of at least one of 

these claims by a preponderance of the evidence, or where I’ve instructed, by clear 

and convincing evidence. In addition, Mr. Wayman contends that 3M should be 

punished by the imposition of punitive damages, which must be proven beyond a 

reasonable doubt.

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 2 of 36
Page 3 of 36

3M denies the claims made by Mr. Wayman and contends that its conduct did 

not cause Mr. Wayman’s hearing injuries. Also, 3M asserts the following 

affirmative defense, on which it bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the 

evidence:

(1) comparative negligence.

Mr. Wayman denies the affirmative defense.

I will now instruct you separately on each of the claims and affirmative 

defense, and you must decide each claim and defense separately. 

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 3 of 36
Page 4 of 36

A certain presumption applies in this case. A “presumption” is a legal rule 

based on experience or public policy. A presumption is established in the law to 

assist the jury in determining the truth. It is not definitive or conclusive but should 

be considered by the jury in deciding whether Mr. Wayman has proven his product 

liability claims of design defect, failure to warn and/or instruct, strict liability 

misrepresentation, and negligence. For each of these claims: 

If you find that at the time 3M sold the CAEv2 (1) the product did not comply 

with any applicable regulation with a government code, standard, or regulation 

existing and in effect at the time of sale, and (2) that the lack of compliance was a 

cause of Mr. Wayman’s claimed injuries, then the law presumes that the CAEv2 

was defective. 

You must consider this presumption together with all the other evidence in 

the case in deciding whether the CAEv2 was defective.

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 4 of 36
Page 5 of 36

Mr. Wayman first contends he was injured because the CAEv2 was defective 

and unreasonably dangerous in its design.

A product is defective in its design, even if it is manufactured and performs 

exactly as intended, if any aspect of its design makes the product unreasonably 

dangerous.

A product is unreasonably dangerous because of a defect in its design if it 

creates a risk of harm to persons or property that is not outweighed by the benefits 

to be achieved from such design.

The fact that the plaintiff may have been injured, without more, does not 

establish that the product was defective or unreasonably dangerous. 

You should consider the presumption on page 4, together with all the other 

evidence in the case, in deciding whether the CAEv2 was defective in its design.

For Mr. Wayman to recover from 3M on his claim of product design defect, 

you must find all of the following have been proved by a preponderance of the 

evidence:

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 5 of 36
Page 6 of 36

(1) The CAEv2 was defective and, because of the defect, the CAEv2 was 

unreasonably dangerous to a person who might reasonably be expected 

to use or be affected by the CAEv2;

(2) Mr. Wayman was injured; and

(3) The defect in the CAEv2 was a cause (as defined on page 29) of Mr. 

Wayman’s injuries. 

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these 

statements has been proven, then 3M is at fault, your verdict should be for Mr. 

Wayman on the claim of strict liability based on a design defect, and you should 

consider damages and apportionment of fault (if any). 

Otherwise, you should find for 3M on the claim.

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 6 of 36
Page 7 of 36

Mr. Wayman also contends 3M is strictly liable for his injuries because of its 

failure to provide adequate warnings and/or instructions for safe and effective use 

with the CAEv2. 

A product not otherwise defective in its design becomes defective and 

unreasonably dangerous if adequate warnings or instructions for safe and effective 

use are not provided. To be adequate, the warnings or instructions for safe and 

effective use must inform the ordinary user of any specific risk of harm that may be 

involved in any intended or reasonably expected use or any failure to properly follow 

instructions when using the product for any intended or reasonably expected use.

However, if a specific risk of harm would be apparent to an ordinary user from 

the product itself, a warning of or instructions concerning that specific risk of harm 

are not required. 

A manufacturer’s obligation to provide an adequate warning and instruction 

is non-delegable. That is, if warnings and/or instructions are required in order to 

make a product safe and effective for use, then the manufacturer cannot avoid 

liability by asserting that another party was responsible for providing those warnings 

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 7 of 36
Page 8 of 36

and/or instructions. So, in deciding whether 3M fulfilled this non-delegable duty to 

warn and/or instruct on the safe and effective use of the CAEv2, you may not 

consider any preference expressed by the United States Army as to whether 

instructions should have been provided with the product.

Again, the fact that the plaintiff may have been injured, without more, does 

not establish that the product was defective or unreasonably dangerous.

And again, you should consider the presumption stated on page 4, together 

with all the other evidence in the case, in deciding whether the CAEv2 was defective

for a failure to adequately warn and/or instruct. 

To prevail on his strict liability failure to warn and/or instruct claim, Mr. 

Wayman must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that:

(1) The CAEv2 was defective because adequate warnings or instructions 

for safe and effective use were not provided, and, because of the lack 

of adequate warnings or instructions for safe and effective use, the 

CAEv2 was unreasonably dangerous to a person who might reasonably 

be expected to use or be affected by the CAEv2;

(2) Mr. Wayman was injured; and

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 8 of 36
Page 9 of 36

(3) The absence of adequate warnings or instructions for safe and effective

use was a cause (as defined on page 29) of Mr. Wayman’s injuries.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these 

statements has been proven, then 3M is at fault, your verdict should be for Mr. 

Wayman on the claim of strict liability based on the failure to warn and/or instruct, 

and you should consider damages and apportionment of fault (if any). 

Otherwise, you should find for 3M on the claim.

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 9 of 36
Page 10 of 36

Mr. Wayman also contends that 3M is strictly liable for his injuries because it 

misrepresented material facts about the CAEv2’s character or quality.

A misrepresentation of a material fact concerning the character or quality of a 

product is:

1. Any oral or written words, conduct, or combination of words and 

conduct that create an untrue or mistaken impression in the mind of 

another about the character or quality of a product; and

2. The untrue or mistaken impression is of a fact that would be important 

to a purchaser or user in determining his or her course of action.

A person relies on a misrepresentation if that person takes action that he or 

she otherwise would not take or decides not to take action that he or she would 

otherwise take because he or she believes the misrepresented information is true.

A person’s reliance on a misrepresentation is reasonable if that person 

believes the information to be true and a reasonable person with the same

intelligence, education and experience would also have believed it to be true under 

the same or similar circumstances.

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 10 of 36
Page 11 of 36

You should also consider the presumption on page 4, together with all the 

other evidence in the case, in deciding whether 3M misrepresented the character or 

quality of the CAEv2.

To recover on his claim of misrepresentation of a product, Mr. Wayman must 

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

(1) 3M misrepresented a fact concerning the character or quality of the 

CAEv2 that would be material to potential purchasers or users of the 

product;

(2) The misrepresentation was made to potential purchasers or users as 

members of the public at large;

(3) As a purchaser or user, the United States Army or Mr. Wayman 

reasonably relied on the misrepresentation;

(4) Mr. Wayman was a person who would reasonably be expected to use 

the CAEv2; and

(5) Mr. Wayman had injuries caused (as defined on page 29) by the 

reasonable reliance of the United States Army or Mr. Wayman on the 

misrepresentation.

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 11 of 36
Page 12 of 36

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these 

statements has been proven, then 3M is at fault, your verdict should be for Mr. 

Wayman on the claim of strict liability misrepresentation, and you should consider 

damages and apportionment of fault (if any). 

Otherwise, you should find for 3M on the claim.

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 12 of 36
Page 13 of 36

Mr. Wayman contends that 3M was negligent in designing the CAEv2 and 

warning and/or instructing about the CAEv2’s dangers, meaning it failed to exercise 

reasonable care.

Negligence means a failure to do an act which a reasonably careful person 

would do, or the doing of an act which a reasonably careful person would not do, 

under the same or similar circumstances to protect oneself or others from injury.

Reasonable care is that degree of care which a reasonably careful person 

would use under the same or similar circumstances.

If a manufacturer of a product knows or in the exercise of reasonable care 

should know that (1) the use of the product may be harmful or injurious to a user, 

and (2) that risk of harm or injury is not obvious to a reasonable user, then the 

manufacturer must use reasonable care to warn the user of the risk of harm or injury

if a reasonably careful person would do so under the same or similar circumstances. 

The failure to do so is negligence.

Also, as noted earlier, a manufacturer’s obligation to provide an adequate 

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 13 of 36
Page 14 of 36

warning and instruction is non-delegable. That is, if warnings and/or instructions 

are required in order to make a product safe and effective for use, then the 

manufacturer cannot avoid liability by asserting that another party was responsible 

for providing those warnings and/or instructions. So, in deciding whether 3M 

fulfilled this non-delegable duty to warn and/or instruct on the safe and effective use 

of the CAEv2, you may not consider any preference expressed by the United States 

Army as to whether instructions should have been provided with the product. 

You should also consider the presumption on page 4, together with all the 

other evidence in the case, in deciding whether the CAEv2 was defective.

To recover on his claim of negligence, Mr. Wayman must prove all of the 

following by a preponderance of the evidence:

(1) 3M was negligent by failing to exercise reasonable care to prevent the 

CAEv2 from creating an unreasonable risk of harm to the person or 

property of one who might reasonably be expected to use the CAEv2 

while it was being used in the manner 3M might have reasonably 

expected;

(2) Mr. Wayman was one of those persons 3M should reasonably have 

expected to use the CAEv2; and

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 14 of 36
Page 15 of 36

(3) Mr. Wayman had injuries that were caused (as defined on page 29) by 

3M’s negligence, while the CAEv2 was being used in a manner 3M 

should reasonably have expected.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these 

statements has been proven, then 3M is at fault, your verdict should be for Mr. 

Wayman on the claim of negligent design and failure to warn and/or instruct, and 

you should consider damages and apportionment of fault (if any). 

Otherwise, you should find for 3M on the claim.

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 15 of 36
Page 16 of 36

Mr. Wayman also contends that 3M was negligent per se because 3M violated 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. Such a violation, if proven, is 

called negligence per se, which means negligence as a matter of law.

Specifically, Mr. Wayman contends that 3M violated certain EPA regulations 

that apply to the testing and labeling of all hearing protection devices sold 

commercially or to the military, including the CAEv2. These regulations provide 

that certain information must be included with each device sold, whether packaged 

individually or in bulk, and require:

The value of sound attenuation to be used in the calculation of the Noise 

Reduction Rating must be determined according to the “Method for the 

Measurement of Real-Ear Protection of Hearing Protectors and 

Physical Attenuation of Earmuffs.” This standard is approved as the 

American National Standards Institute Standard (ANSI STD) S3.19-

1974. 40 CFR § 211.206-1(a).

All hearing protective devices . . . must be labeled according to this 

subpart, and must comply with the Labeled Values of mean attenuation. 

A manufacturer must take into account both product variability and 

test-to-test variability when labeling his devices . . . . 40 CFR

§ 211.211.

The information to appear on the primary label must . . . state the value 

of the Noise Reduction Rating (NRR) in decibels for that model hearing 

protector. The value stated on the label must be no greater than the NRR 

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 16 of 36
Page 17 of 36

value determined by using the [ANSI S3.19-1974] computation method 

. . . . 40 CFR § 211.204-1(b)(1).

The following minimum supporting information must accompany the 

device in a manner that insures its availability to the prospective user. . 

. . . Instructions as to the proper insertion or placement of the device. 

40 CFR § 211.204-4(e).

Mr. Wayman claims that 3M violated the EPA regulations by, for example:

1. Failing to label the CAEv2 with an accurate Noise Reduction Rating 

(NRR), on either the individual or bulk package;

2. Failing to test the CAEv2 in conformance with ANSI S3.19; and

3. Failing to provide instructions as to the proper insertion or placement 

of the CAEv2, on either the individual or bulk package.

The violation of these regulations constitutes negligence per se. It is your duty 

to decide whether or not such a violation took place. 

To recover damages for this claim, Mr. Wayman must prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the negligence per se of 3M was a cause (as 

defined on page 29) of his injuries. 

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 17 of 36
Page 18 of 36

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the claim is proven,

then 3M is at fault, your verdict should be for Mr. Wayman on the claim of 

negligence per se, and you should consider damages and apportionment of fault (if 

any). 

Otherwise, you should find for 3M on the claim.

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 18 of 36
Page 19 of 36

Mr. Wayman asserts two claims based on fraud – (1) fraudulent 

misrepresentation and (2) fraudulent concealment. 

Mr. Wayman contends he was injured because 3M made a fraudulent 

misrepresentation in connection with the CAEv2. A false representation is any 

oral or written words, conduct, or combination of words and conduct that creates an 

untrue or misleading impression in the mind of another.

A fact is material if a reasonable person under the circumstances would regard 

it as important in deciding what to do.

A fact may also be material even though a reasonable person might not regard 

it as important, if the person stating it knows that the person receiving the 

information would regard it as important in deciding what to do.

Mr. Wayman relied on the claimed representation if he believed it was true, 

and based on that representation: 

1. Took action he otherwise would not have taken; or

2. Decided not to take action he otherwise would have taken.

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 19 of 36
Page 20 of 36

A person is justified in assuming that a representation is true if a person of the 

same or similar intelligence, education, or experience would rely on that 

representation.

A person’s reliance is justified even though he did not make an investigation 

that would have revealed the facts unless:

1. He knew specific facts that would have caused a person of the same or 

similar intelligence, education or experience to be suspicious and 

investigate; and

2. He had a reasonable opportunity to investigate.

To recover on his fraudulent misrepresentation claim, Mr. Wayman must 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that:

(1) 3M made a false representation of a past or present fact;

(2) The fact was material;

(3) At the time the representation was made, 3M 

(a) knew the representation was false, or 

(b) was aware that it did not know whether the representation was 

true or false;

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 20 of 36
Page 21 of 36

(4) 3M made the representation with the intent that the United States

Army, servicemembers, and/or Mr. Wayman would rely on the 

representation; 

(5) Mr. Wayman relied on the representation;

(6) Mr. Wayman’s reliance was justified; and

(7) This reliance caused (as defined on page 29) injuries to Mr. Wayman.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these 

statements has been proven, then your verdict should be for Mr. Wayman on the 

fraudulent misrepresentation claim, and you should consider the issue of damages.

Otherwise, you should find for 3M on the claim.

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 21 of 36
Page 22 of 36

Mr. Wayman also contends that 3M fraudulently concealed at least one 

material fact concerning the CAEv2.

3M had a duty to disclose material facts if it knew about them and if:

1. 3M stated some facts, but not all material facts, knowing that they 

would create a false impression in the mind of the United States Army 

or Mr. Wayman; or

2. 3M knew that by its own unclear or deceptive words or conduct that it 

created a false impression of the actual facts in the mind of the United 

States Army or Mr. Wayman; or

3. 3M knew that the United States Army or Mr. Wayman were not in a 

position to discover the facts.

A fact is material if a reasonable person under the circumstances would regard 

it as important in deciding what to do.

A fact may also be material even though a reasonable person might not regard 

it as important, if the person concealing it knows that the person receiving the 

information would regard it as important in deciding what to do.

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 22 of 36
Page 23 of 36

3M concealed a fact that it knew, if, by conduct, or by written or oral words, 

or by a combination of conduct and words, it created a false impression of the actual 

fact in the mind of the United States Army or Mr. Wayman:

1. By covering up the truth or

2. By preventing the United States Army or Mr. Wayman from 

discovering the actual fact.

When dealing with another party, a person is justified in assuming that party 

will not intentionally fail to disclose a past or present material fact which the other 

person knows and has a duty to disclose or conceal a material fact.

However, a person is not justified in relying on this assumption when someone 

of the same or similar intelligence, education, or experience would not rely on it.

A person’s reliance is justified even though he did not make an investigation 

that would have revealed the facts unless:

1. He knew specific facts that would have caused a person of the same or 

similar intelligence, education or experience to be suspicious and 

investigate; and

2. He had a reasonable opportunity to investigate.

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 23 of 36
Page 24 of 36

To prevail on this claim, Mr. Wayman must prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that:

(1) 3M concealed a past or present fact or failed to disclose a past or present 

fact which it had a duty to disclose;

(2) The fact was material;

(3) 3M intended to create a false impression of the actual facts in the mind 

of the United States Army or Mr. Wayman;

(4) 3M intended that the Army or Mr. Wayman take a course of action that 

might not have been taken if they knew the actual facts;

(5) Mr. Wayman used the CAEv2 relying on the assumption that the 

concealed or undisclosed fact did not exist or was different from what 

it actually was;

(6) Mr. Wayman’s reliance was justified; and

(7) This reliance caused (as defined on page 29) injuries to Mr. Wayman

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these 

statements has been proven, then your verdict should be for Mr. Wayman on the 

fraudulent concealment claim, and you should consider the issue of damages.

Otherwise, you should find for 3M on the claim.

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 24 of 36
Page 25 of 36

Mr. Wayman contends that 3M made negligent misrepresentations regarding 

the CAEv2. Again, negligence means a failure to do an act which a reasonably 

careful person would do, or the doing of an act which a reasonably careful person 

would not do, under the same or similar circumstances to protect oneself or others 

from injury.

For Mr. Wayman to prevail on this claim, he must prove by a preponderance 

of the evidence that:

(1) 3M negligently gave false information to the United States Army or to 

Mr. Wayman;

(2) Mr. Wayman relied on the information; and

(3) This reliance was a cause (as defined on page 29) of injuries to Mr. 

Wayman.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these 

statements has been proven, then your verdict should be for Mr. Wayman on the 

negligent misrepresentation claim, and you should consider the issue of damages.

Otherwise, you should find for 3M on the claim.

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 25 of 36
Page 26 of 36

Mr. Wayman also contends that 3M violated the Colorado Consumer 

Protection Act by engaging in deceptive trade practices.

3M engaged in a deceptive trade practice if, in the course of its business, 3M:

1. Either knowingly or recklessly made a false representation as to the 

characteristics of the CAEv2;

2. Represented that the CAEv2 is of a particular standard, quality, or grade 

knowing that it is of another; or

3. Failed to disclose material information concerning the CAEv2 which 

information was known at the time of an advertisement or sale if such 

failure to disclose such information was intended to induce the 

consumer to enter into a transaction.

A “misrepresentation” or “false representation” is a false statement that 

induces the person to whom it is made to act or to refrain from acting or has the 

capacity to deceive the recipient even if it did not.

To recover on this claim, Mr. Wayman must prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that:

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 26 of 36
Page 27 of 36

(1) 3M engaged in a deceptive trade practice;

(2) The deceptive trade practice occurred in the course of 3M’s business;

(3) The deceptive trade practice significantly impacted the public as actual 

or potential consumers of the CAEv2;

(4) Mr. Wayman was an actual or potential consumer of the CAEv2; and

(5) The deceptive trade practice caused (as defined on page 29) actual 

damages or losses to Mr. Wayman.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these 

statements has been proven, then your verdict should be for Mr. Wayman on the 

deceptive trade practices claim, and you should consider the issue of damages.

Otherwise, you should find for 3M on the claim.

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 27 of 36
Page 28 of 36

In determining whether the challenged trade practices significantly impacted 

the public as actual or potential consumers of the CAEv2, you must consider all of 

the following:

1. The number of consumers directly affected by the challenged trade 

practices;

2. The relative sophistication of the consumers directly affected by the 

challenged trade practices;

3. The bargaining power of the consumers directly affected by the 

challenged trade practices;

4. Evidence that the challenged trade practices have previously impacted 

other consumers; and

5. Evidence that the challenged trade practices have a significant potential 

to impact other consumers in the future.

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 28 of 36
Page 29 of 36

In considering Mr. Wayman’s claims, you must decide whether 3M’s conduct 

caused his injuries.

The word “cause” as used in these instructions means an act or failure to act 

which in natural and probable sequence produced the claimed injury. It is a cause 

without which the claimed injury would not have happened.

If more than one act or failure to act contributed to the claimed injury, then 

each act or failure to act may have been a cause of the injury. A cause does not have 

to be the only cause or the last or nearest cause. It is enough if the act or failure to 

act joins in a natural and probable way with some other act or failure to act to cause 

some or all of the claimed injury.

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 29 of 36
Page 30 of 36

3M has raised an affirmative defense of comparative negligence, which you 

must consider before rendering a verdict in favor of Mr. Wayman. More 

specifically, 3M asserts that fault should be apportioned to Mr. Wayman to lessen or 

eliminate 3M’s liability.

An affirmative defense applies when a claim is proven but other facts are 

found that defeat a finding of liability or lessen that party’s damages. Although a 

defendant is not required to disprove the claim for the affirmative defense to apply, 

to prevail on a specific affirmative defense, the defendants—in this case, 3M—must 

prove the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 30 of 36
Page 31 of 36

A form of comparative fault is the negligence, if any, of the plaintiff. 3M 

asserts as an affirmative defense that the negligence of Mr. Wayman was the cause 

of his injuries. Specifically, 3M alleges that Mr. Wayman negligently used the 

CAEv2. 

If you find that Mr. Wayman had injuries and that these injuries were caused 

by the negligence or fault of the 3M, you must then determine whether Mr. Wayman 

was also negligent or at fault, and whether any such negligence or fault of Mr. 

Wayman contributed to his own injuries.

Comparative negligence means a failure to do an act which a reasonably 

careful person would do, or the doing of an act which a reasonably careful person 

would not do, under the same or similar circumstances to protect oneself from bodily 

injury. Reasonable care is that degree of care which a reasonably careful person 

would use under the same or similar circumstances.

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 31 of 36
Page 32 of 36

To find Mr. Wayman at fault based on his own negligence, 3M must prove all 

of the following by a preponderance of the evidence: 

(1) Mr. Wayman failed to do something that a reasonably careful person 

would do, or did something that a reasonably careful person would not 

do, under the same or similar circumstances to protect himself from the 

claimed defect in the CAEv2; and

(2) The conduct by Mr. Wayman was a cause (as defined on page 29) of

his claimed injuries.

If you find that 3M has proven both statements, you will be instructed on the 

verdict form to determine the percent of fault, expressed as a percentage of 100 

percent, attributable to Mr. Wayman’s negligence.

Otherwise, you should find for Mr. Wayman on this defense.

I caution you that if you allocate a percentage of fault to Mr. Wayman, you 

should not make any reduction in the total damages awarded because of his 

negligence or fault. The Court in entering judgment will take into account your 

allocation of fault among the parties.

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 32 of 36
Page 33 of 36

Mr. Wayman has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, 

the nature and extent of his damages. If you find in favor of Mr. Wayman you must 

determine the total dollar amount of Mr. Wayman’s damages. In determining such 

damages, you must consider the following:

1. Any noneconomic losses or injuries which Mr. Wayman has had to the 

present time or which Mr. Wayman will probably have in the future, 

including: physical and mental pain and suffering, inconvenience, 

emotional stress, and impairment of the quality of life.

2. Any physical impairment. In considering damages in this category, you 

must not include damages again for losses or injuries already 

determined under numbered paragraph 1 above.

In determining the amount of Mr. Wayman’s actual damages, you cannot 

reduce the amount of or refuse to award any such damages because of any physical

frailties or mental condition of Mr. Wayman that may have made him more 

susceptible to injury, disability, or impairment than an average or normal person.

At the beginning of this trial Mr. Wayman had a life expectancy of 33 more 

years (79 years old). This expectancy is taken from the United States social security 

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 33 of 36
Page 34 of 36

mortality table. This table is not conclusive but may be considered together with 

other evidence relating to the plaintiff’s health, habits, and occupation.

Difficulty or uncertainty in determining the precise amount of any damages 

does not prevent you from deciding an amount. You should use your best judgment 

based on the evidence.

The fact that an instruction on measure of damages has been given to you does 

not mean that the Court is instructing the jury to award or not to award damages. 

The question of whether or not damages are to be awarded is a question for the jury’s 

consideration. 

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 34 of 36
Page 35 of 36

If you find in favor of Mr. Wayman and award him actual damages on his 

claim of deceptive trade practices, then you must consider whether Mr. Wayman has 

proven by clear and convincing evidence that 3M engaged in bad faith conduct.

“Bad faith conduct” means fraudulent, willful, knowing, or intentional 

conduct that causes injuries.

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 35 of 36
Page 36 of 36

If you find in favor Mr. Wayman on one or more of his claims then you must

consider whether Mr. Wayman should recover punitive damages against 3M. If you 

find beyond a reasonable doubt that 3M acted in a fraudulent, malicious, or willful 

and wanton manner, in causing Mr. Wayman’s injuries you shall determine the 

amount of punitive damages, if any, that Mr. Wayman should recover.

Punitive damages, if awarded, are to punish the defendant and to serve as an 

example to others.

“Willful and wanton conduct” means an act or omission purposefully 

committed by a person who must have realized that the conduct was dangerous, and 

which conduct was done heedlessly and recklessly, either without regard to the 

consequences, or without regard to the rights and safety of others, particularly the 

plaintiff.

As I previously instructed you, reasonable doubt means a doubt based upon 

reason and common sense which arises from a fair and rational consideration of all 

of the evidence, or the lack of evidence, in the case. It is a doubt which is not a 

vague, speculative, or imaginary doubt, but such a doubt as would cause reasonable 

people to hesitate to act in matters of importance to themselves.

Case 7:20-cv-00149-MCR-GRJ Document 184-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 36 of 36