Mitchell?v.?Gonzales?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?1041?,?1?Cal.Rptr.2d?913;?819?P.2d?872
[No.?S018678.?Dec?9,?1991.]JAMES?MITCHELL?et?al.,?Plaintiffs?and?Appellants,?v.?JOSE?L.?GONZALES?et?al.,?Defendants?and?Respondents.
(Superior?Court?of?San?Bernardino?County,?No.?SCV?237329,?Don?A.?Turner,?Judge.fn.?*?)
(Opinion?by?Lucas,?C.?J.,?with?Mosk,?Panelli,?Arabian,?Baxter?and?George,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?dissenting?opinion?by?Kennard,?J.)
COUNSEL
Edward?J.?Horowitz,?Greenberg?&?Panish?and?David?Greenberg?for?Plaintiffs?and?Appellants.
Bodkin,?McCarthy,?Sargent?&?Smith?and?Richard?P.?Kinnan?for?Defendants?and?Respondents.
Rogers,?Joseph,?O’Donnell?&?Quinn,?Joseph?W.?Rogers,?Susan?M.?Popik,?Richard?D.?Shively,?Thelen,?Marrin,?Johnson?&?Bridges,?Lee?A.?McCoy?and?Curtis?A.?Cole?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Defendants?and?Respondents.
OPINION
LUCAS,?C.?J.
In?this?case?we?decide?whether?BAJI?No.?3.75,fn.?1?the?so-called?proximate?cause?instruction,?which?contains?a?”but?for”?test?of?cause?in?fact,?should?continue?to?be?given?in?this?state,?or?whether?it?should?be?disapproved?in?favor?of?BAJI?No.?3.76,?the?so-called?legal?cause?instruction,?which?employs?the?”substantial?factor”?test?of?cause?in?fact.fn.?2
Plaintiffs?James?and?Joyce?Mitchell,?the?parents?of?12-year-old?Damechie?Mitchell,?who?drowned?in?Lake?Gregory?on?July?4,?1985,?sued?defendants?Jose?L.?Gonzales,?Matilde?Gonzales,?and?Mrs.?Gonzales’s?son?Luis?(hereafter?defendants)?for?damages,?claiming?defendants’?negligence?caused?Damechie’s?death.?By?special?verdict,?the?jury?found?that?defendants?were?negligent,?i.e.,?they?had?breached?a?duty,?but?that?the?negligence?was?not?a?proximate?cause?of?the?death.
The?Court?of?Appeal?concluded?that,?under?the?facts,?the?trial?court?erred?when?it?denied?plaintiffs’?request?to?instruct?the?jury?pursuant?to?BAJI?No.?[54?Cal.3d?1045]?3.76?and?instead?instructed?under?BAJI?No.?3.75.?After?reviewing?both?instructions,?the?Court?of?Appeal?concluded?that?BAJI?No.?3.75?is?potentially?misleading?and?should?not?have?been?given,?and?that?the?trial?court?committed?prejudicial?error?when?it?refused?to?give?BAJI?No.?3.76.
We?granted?review?in?this?case?to?determine?whether?courts?should?continue?to?instruct?juries?on?cause?in?fact?using?BAJI?No.?3.75?in?light?of?the?frequent?criticism?of?that?instruction.?We?conclude?that?the?Court?of?Appeal?was?correct?and?that?BAJI?No.?3.75?should?be?disapproved.
- Facts
Damechie,?12?years?old,?standing?4?feet?11?inches?tall,?and?weighing?90?pounds,?had?a?tag-along?little-brother?relationship?with?his?friend?Luis,?who?was?14?years?old,?5?feet?4?inches?tall,?and?weighed?190?pounds.?The?Gonzales?invited?Damechie?to?accompany?them?to?Lake?Gregory?for?the?Fourth?of?July.?According?to?Mrs.?Mitchell’s?testimony,?when?Mrs.?Gonzales?called?her?to?ask?whether?Damechie?could?accompany?them,?she?informed?Mrs.?Gonzales?that?Damechie?could?not?swim.?After?Mrs.?Gonzales?suggested?that?the?boys?would?play?in?the?shallow?edge?of?the?lake,?the?Mitchells?agreed?that?Damechie?could?go,?as?long?as?he?was?restricted?to?the?edge?of?the?lake.
Mrs.?Gonzales?denied?that?she?had?told?Mrs.?Mitchell?the?children?would?be?swimming?or?that?Mrs.?Mitchell?had?told?her?Damechie?could?not?swim.
According?to?Mrs.?Mitchell,?while?Damechie?was?packing,?he,?Luis,?and?Luis’s?sister,?Yoshi,?talked?about?swimming.?Mrs.?Mitchell?told?the?children?Damechie?could?not?swim?and?should?not?go?swimming.?Luis?and?Yoshi?said?they?would?watch?Damechie.
Luis?testified?that?Mrs.?Mitchell?did?not?tell?him?that?Damechie?could?not?swim.?He?did?remember?telling?her?they?were?going?swimming,?but?he?did?not?remember?what?she?said?about?it.?He?also?remembered?that?Mrs.?Mitchell?told?him?to?watch?out?for?Damechie?because?Luis?was?bigger?and?older?than?Damechie.
At?the?lake,?the?Gonzales?family?was?joined?by?Mr.?and?Mrs.?Reyes?and?their?young?children.?Luis?asked?his?parents?for?money?to?rent?a?paddleboard.?Mrs.?Gonzales?told?him,?as?she?always?did,?not?to?go?into?water?over?his?head.?Both?Luis?and?Yoshi?knew?how?to?swim.
The?three?children?rented?two?paddleboards,?replying?affirmatively?when?asked?by?the?employee?in?charge?of?rentals?whether?they?knew?how?to?swim.?[54?Cal.3d?1046]?During?the?morning,?the?children?stayed?within?30?feet?of?shore,?in?water?that?was?not?over?their?heads.?Mr.?and?Mrs.?Gonzales?admittedly?did?not?watch?the?children?during?some?of?the?time?the?children?were?in?the?water.
Mrs.?Gonzales?testified?that?had?she?known?the?children?were?going?into?deep?water,?she?probably?would?not?have?allowed?it?because?she?believed?it?would?be?dangerous.?Apparently,?because?of?her?vantage?point,?it?was?difficult?for?her?to?watch?the?children?in?the?water,?and?there?was?a?long?period?when?she?did?not?have?them?in?sight.?She?assumed?Luis?would?obey?her,?although?she?acknowledged?that?he?had?disobeyed?her?on?other?occasions.
Mr.?Gonzales?testified?that?he?relied?on?the?lifeguards?to?watch?the?children?and?that?he?neither?knew?nor?asked?whether?Damechie?could?swim.
After?lunch,?Mrs.?Gonzales?told?the?children?not?to?leave?the?picnic?area?and?went?to?the?restroom.?Nevertheless,?the?children?left?and?rented?another?paddleboard.?When?she?returned?to?the?picnic?site?15?minutes?later,?the?children?were?gone?and?Mr.?Gonzales?was?asleep.?She?did?not?know?where?they?had?gone,?nor?did?she?ask?Mr.?Reyes,?who?was?awake?and?at?the?site,?of?their?whereabouts.
The?children?had?entered?the?water?and,?on?their?paddleboard,?crossed?the?lake.?When?Luis?started?to?push?Damechie?and?Yoshi,?who?were?on?the?paddleboard,?back?across?the?lake,?Damechie?told?Luis?he?could?not?swim.
Luis,?nevertheless,?pushed?them?100?feet?out?onto?the?lake,?into?water?over?their?heads.?He?then?told?Damechie?to?let?him?get?on?the?paddleboard?because?he?was?tired.?Damechie?again?told?Luis?he?was?unable?to?swim?and?asked?him?to?be?careful.?Luis?promised?to?be?careful.?After?Luis?got?on?board,?Damechie?asked?Luis?whether?Luis?would?save?him?if?he?fell?off.?Luis?said?he?would?do?so.
Shortly?before?the?accident,?the?children?were?five?to?ten?feet?from?three?women,?apparently?on?a?nearby?paddleboard,?who?testified?that?the?children?made?a?lot?of?noise?and?engaged?in?horseplay.?They?each?testified?that?Luis?was?the?rowdiest.
One?of?the?women?testified?that?the?paddleboard?tipped?over?and?that?the?noise?and?roughhousing?stopped?for?five?to?ten?minutes.?Immediately?before?the?board?tipped?over,?Luis?was?on?the?center?of?the?board?and?Damechie?and?Yoshi?were?draped?over?it.?During?the?quiet?period,?neither?Luis?nor?Yoshi?called?or?gestured?for?help,?but?they?appeared?to?be?whispering.?[54?Cal.3d?1047]
The?second?woman?testified?that?the?quiet?period?lasted?from?one?to?five?minutes,?during?which?time?she?glanced?over?and?saw?only?Luis?and?Yoshi.?She?did?not?hear?any?cries?for?help.
The?third?woman?thought?three?minutes?of?quiet?elapsed?before?she?notice?only?two?children?where?there?had?previously?been?three.?She?never?heard?any?call?for?help.
After?the?women?noticed?one?of?the?children?was?missing,?Luis?said,?”Lady,?my?friend’s?down?there,”?indicating?the?lake.?One?of?the?women?yelled?for?a?lifeguard?and?asked?Luis?why?he?had?not?signalled?for?help?sooner.?He?replied?that?neither?he?nor?his?sister?could?swim.?He?also?said?that?Damechie?had?grabbed?Luis?in?an?effort?to?save?himself?and?that?he,?Luis,?had?kicked?Damechie?to?get?him?off?and?to?avoid?being?pulled?under.
Luis?testified?that?the?board?tipped?over?when?Damechie?put?his?hands?on?Luis’s?shoulder.?He?admitted?he?rocked?the?board?before?it?tipped?over?and?that?Damechie’s?movement?had?not?caused?the?board?to?tip.?The?employee?in?charge?of?the?paddleboard?rentals?testified?that?”You?have?to?work?at?it”?to?get?a?board?to?tip.?Yoshi?testified?that?the?board?tipped?when?Luis?attempted?to?climb?on.
Luis?testified?that?Damechie?was?very?scared?while?the?board?was?rocking?and?that?he?asked?Luis?not?to?rock?the?board?because?he?did?not?want?to?fall?off.?Additionally,?Luis?admitted?that?at?the?time,?he?was?being?very?rowdy?and?that?when?he?tipped?the?board,?he?and?Damechie?fell?off.?Damechie?panicked?and?grabbed?Luis’s?shorts,?pulling?them?down.?Luis?pulled?them?up,?and?Damechie?grabbed?Luis’s?ankles.?Luis?shook?free?of?Damechie,?got?to?the?surface,?and?climbed?onto?the?board.?He?looked?into?the?water?and?could?see?Damechie’s?fingers,?which?he?tried?to?grab.?Yoshi?remained?on?the?board.?Luis?testified?inconsistently,?one?time?stating?that?he?waited?two?or?three?minutes?before?calling?a?lifeguard?and?another?time?stating?that?he?immediately?called?for?a?lifeguard.
Later?that?day,?Luis?told?the?lifeguards?that?Damechie?had?rocked?the?board,?causing?it?to?flip.?He?asked?them?whether?he?and?his?family?would?be?sued.?Mrs.?Gonzales?asked?him,?”Why?didn’t?you?stay?where?I?told?you?to?stay?”
Damechie’s?body?was?not?recovered?for?several?days?because?of?the?opacity?of?the?water?and?bottom?vegetation.?The?body?was?about?120?feet?from?shore?in?8?feet?of?water.
The?Mitchells?sued?the?Gonzaleses,?including?Luis,?and?others?not?party?to?this?appeal.?The?complaint?alleged?causes?of?action?for?negligence?and?[54?Cal.3d?1048]?wrongful?death.?Defendants?asserted?comparative?negligence?on?the?part?of?Damechie?and?his?parents.
As?noted?above,?the?court?refused?plaintiffs’?proffered?instruction?on?causation?in?fact?(i.e.,?BAJI?No.?3.76)?and?instead?gave?the?causation?in?fact?instruction?requested?by?defendants,?BAJI?No.?3.75.
The?jury,?by?special?verdict,?concluded?that?defendants?were?negligent?but?that?the?negligence?was?not?a?cause?of?the?death.?The?jury?therefore?did?not?reach?a?special?verdict?on?comparative?negligence.
The?trial?court?denied?plaintiffs’?motions?for?a?new?trial?or?a?judgment?notwithstanding?the?verdict.?The?Court?of?Appeal?reversed.
- Discussion
As?explained?below,?we?conclude?the?Court?of?Appeal?correctly?determined?that?the?trial?court?prejudicially?erred?when?it?refused?BAJI?No.?3.76?and?instead?gave?BAJI?No.?3.75.?Our?discussion?proceeds?in?two?steps.?[1a]?We?begin?by?determining?whether?instructional?error?occurred.?Our?analysis?focuses?on?whether?conceptual?and?grammatical?flaws?in?BAJI?No.?3.75?may?confuse?jurors?and?lead?them?to?improperly?limit?their?findings?on?causation,?and?whether?BAJI?No.?3.76?is?a?superior?alternative?instruction.?[2a]?Because?we?find?error,?we?next?analyze?prejudice?and?conclude?that?there?is?a?reasonable?probability?that?BAJI?No.?3.75?misled?the?jurors?into?finding?that?defendants’?negligence?was?not?a?”proximate?cause”?of?Damechie’s?death?and?that?a?result?more?favorable?to?plaintiffs?would?have?occurred?if?the?jury?had?been?instructed?under?BAJI?No.?3.76.?Accordingly,?we?affirm?the?Court?of?Appeal’s?decision?reversing?the?judgment?of?the?trial?court.
- Alleged?Instructional?Error
As?Dean?Prosser?observed?over?40?years?ago,?”Proximate?cause?remains?a?tangle?and?a?jungle,?a?palace?of?mirrors?and?a?maze?….”?Cases?”indicate?that?’proximate?cause’?covers?a?multitude?of?sins,?that?it?is?a?complex?term?of?highly?uncertain?meaning?under?which?other?rules,?doctrines?and?reasons?lie?buried?….”?(Prosser,?Proximate?Cause?in?California?(1950)?38?Cal.L.Rev.?369,?375.)?[54?Cal.3d?1049] [3]?One?of?the?concepts?included?in?the?term?proximate?cause?is?cause?in?fact,?also?referred?to?as?actual?cause.fn.?3?Indeed,?for?purposes?of?BAJI?No.?3.75,?”so?far?as?a?jury?is?concerned?’proximate?cause’?only?relates?to?causation?in?fact.”?(Com.?to?BAJI?No.?3.75,?italics?added.)fn.?4?”There?are?two?widely?recognized?tests?for?establishing?cause?in?fact.?The?’but?for’?or?’sine?qua?non’?rule,?unfortunately?labeled?’proximate?cause’?in?BAJI?No.?3.75,?asks?whether?the?injury?would?not?have?occurred?but?for?the?defendant’s?conduct.?The?other?test,?labeled?’legal?cause’?in?BAJI?No.?3.76,?asks?whether?the?defendant’s?conduct?was?a?substantial?factor?in?bringing?about?the?injury.”?(Maupin?v.?Widling?(1987)?192?Cal.App.3d?568,?574?[237?Cal.Rptr.?521].)
BAJI?Nos.?3.75?and?3.76?are?alternative?instructions?that?should?not?jointly?be?given?in?a?single?lawsuit.?(See?Maupin?v.?Widling,?supra,?192?Cal.App.3d?568,?575-579?[error?to?give?both?BAJI?No.?3.79,?which?instructs?on?supervening?causes?in?substantial?factor?terms,?and?BAJI?No.?3.75].)?Several?Court?of?Appeal?opinions?have?discussed?the?propriety?of?giving?one?or?the?other?instruction?in?particular?circumstances.?It?has?generally?been?recognized?that?the?”but?for”?test?contained?in?BAJI?No.?3.75?should?not?be?used?when?two?”causes?concur?to?bring?about?an?event?and?either?one?of?them?operating?alone?could?have?been?sufficient?to?cause?the?result?(Thomsen?v.?Rexall?Drug?&?Chemical?Co.?[(1965)]?235?Cal.App.2d?775?[45?Cal.Rptr.?642]).?In?those?few?situations,?where?there?are?concurrent?[independent]?causes,?our?law?provides?one?cannot?escape?responsibility?for?his?negligence?on?the?ground?that?identical?harm?would?have?occurred?without?it.?The?proper?rule?for?such?situations?is?that?the?defendant’s?conduct?is?a?cause?of?the?event?because?it?is?a?material?element?and?a?substantial?factor?in?bringing?it?about.”?(Vecchione?v.?Carlin?(1980)?111?Cal.App.3d?351,?359?[168?Cal.Rptr.?571];?see?also?Hart?v.?Browne?(1980)?103?Cal.App.3d?947,?960-962?[163?Cal.Rptr.?356];?Fraijo?v.?Hartland?Hospital?(1979)?99?Cal.App.3d?331,?346-347?[160?Cal.Rptr.?246];?Prosser?&?Keeton?on?Torts?(5th?ed.?1984)???41,?pp.?266-267;?BAJI?Nos.?3.75,?3.76?and?respective?comments.)?The?foregoing?authorities?conclude?that?in?such?a?situation?BAJI?No.?3.76?should?be?given.
[1b]?This?case?presents?the?issue?of?whether?BAJI?No.?3.75?should?be?given?in?any?negligence?action.?[54?Cal.3d?1050]Criticism?of?the?term?”proximate?cause”?has?been?extensive.?Justice?Traynor?once?observed,?”In?all?probability?the?general?expectation?is?the?reasonable?one?that?in?time?courts?will?dispel?the?mists?that?have?settled?on?the?doctrine?of?proximate?cause?in?the?field?of?negligence.”?(Mosley?v.?Arden?Farms?Co.?(1945)?26?Cal.2d?213,?222?[157?P.2d?372,?158?A.L.R.?872]?(conc.?opn.?of?Traynor,?J.).)?Similarly,?while?serving?on?the?Court?of?Appeal,?Justice?Tobriner?commented,?”The?concept?of?proximate?causation?has?given?courts?and?commentators?consummate?difficulty?and?has?in?truth?defied?precise?definition.”?(State?Comp.?Ins.?Fund?v.?Ind.?Acc.?Com.?(1959)?176?Cal.App.2d?10,?20.)
Nor?did?Prosser?and?Keeton?hide?their?dislike?for?the?term:?”The?word?’proximate’?is?a?legacy?of?Lord?Chancellor?Bacon,?who?in?his?time?committed?other?sins.?The?word?means?nothing?more?than?near?or?immediate;?and?when?it?was?first?taken?up?by?the?courts?it?had?connotations?of?proximity?in?time?and?space?which?have?long?since?disappeared.?It?is?an?unfortunate?word,?which?places?an?entirely?wrong?emphasis?upon?the?factor?of?physical?or?mechanical?closeness.”?(Prosser?&?Keeton?on?Torts,?supra,???42,?at?p.?273,?fn.?omitted.)
It?is?reasonably?likely?that?when?jurors?hear?the?term?”proximate?cause”?they?may?misunderstand?its?meaning?or?improperly?limit?their?discussion?of?what?constitutes?a?cause?in?fact.?Prosser?and?Keeton’s?concern?that?the?word?”proximate”?improperly?imputes?a?spatial?or?temporal?connotation?is?well?founded.?Webster’s?Third?New?International?Dictionary?(1981)?page?1828,?defines?proximate?as?”very?near,”?”next,”?”immediately?preceding?or?following.”?Yet,?”[p]roximity?in?point?of?time?or?space?is?no?part?of?the?definition?[of?proximate?cause]?…?except?as?it?may?afford?evidence?for?or?against?proximity?of?causation.?[Citation.]”?(Osborn?v.?City?of?Whittier?(1951)?103?Cal.App.2d?609,?616?[230?P.2d?132].)
Given?the?foregoing?criticism,?it?is?not?surprising?that?a?jury?instruction?incorporating?the?term?”proximate?cause”?would?come?under?attack?from?courts,?litigants,?and?commentators.?In?considering?a?predecessor?to?BAJI?No.?3.75?that?included?language?almost?identical?to?the?current?instruction,fn.?5?Prosser?observed,?”There?are?probably?few?judges?who?would?undertake?to?say?just?what?this?means,?and?fewer?still?who?would?expect?it?to?mean?anything?whatever?to?a?jury.?The?first?sentence?was?lifted?by?a?California?[54?Cal.3d?1051]?opinion?long?since?from?Shearman?and?Redfield?on?Negligence,?a?text?written?for?lawyers?and?not?expected?to?be?comprehensible?to?laymen,?and?none?too?good?a?text?at?that.”?(Prosser,?Proximate?Cause?in?California,?supra,?38?Cal.L.Rev.?369,?424,?fn.?omitted.)
The?misunderstanding?engendered?by?the?term?”proximate?cause”?has?been?documented.fn.?6?In?a?scholarly?study?of?14?jury?instructions,?BAJI?No.?3.75?produced?proportionally?the?most?misunderstanding?among?laypersons.?(Charrow,?Making?Legal?Language?Understandable:?A?Psycholinguistic?Study?of?Jury?Instructions?(1979)?79?Colum.L.Rev.?1306,?1353?(hereafter?Psycholinguistic?Study).)?The?study?noted?two?significant?problems?with?BAJI?No.?3.75.?First,?because?the?phrase?”natural?and?continuous?sequence”?precedes?”the?verb?it?is?intended?to?modify,?the?construction?leaves?the?listener?with?the?impression?that?the?cause?itself?is?in?a?natural?and?continuous?sequence.?Inasmuch?as?a?single?’cause’?cannot?be?in?a?continuous?sequence,?the?listener?is?befuddled.”?(Psycholinguistic?Study,?supra,?79?Colum.L.Rev.?at?p.?1323.)?Second,?in?one?experiment,?”the?term?’proximate?cause’?was?misunderstood?by?23%?of?the?subjects?….?They?interpreted?it?as?’approximate?cause,’?’estimated?cause,’?or?some?fabrication.”?(Id.,?at?p.?1353.)
Our?Courts?of?Appeal?have?recognized?the?serious?problems?with?the?language?of?BAJI?No.?3.75.?In?Fraijo?v.?Hartland?Hospital,?supra,?99?Cal.App.3d?331,?the?court?criticized?the?instruction?because?it?appeared?to?place?an?undue?emphasis?on?”nearness.”?Nonetheless,?”despite?the?criticism?of?the?’but?for’?language?in?BAJI?No.?3.75,?the?most?recent?edition?of?California?Jury?Instructions?(Civil)?[citation]?…?allow[s]?the?trial?judge?to?exercise?a?discretion?in?selecting?his?preference?between?…?the?’proximate?cause’?instruction?found?in?BAJI?No.?3.75,?or?the?’legal?cause’?instruction?found?in?BAJI?No.?3.76.”?(Id.,?at?p.?346.)
The?Fraijo?court?said,?”We?agree?that?BAJI?No.?3.75-the?proximate?cause?instruction-is?far?from?constituting?a?model?of?clarity?in?informing?a?jury?as?to?what?is?meant?by?proximate?causation.?…?Nevertheless,?in?view?of?its?long?history?of?being?considered?a?correct?statement?of?the?law?by?the?courts?of?this?state,?we?are?not?inclined?to?hold?that?BAJI?No.?3.75?is?an?erroneous?instruction.?Although?we?believe?such?a?determination?should?be?made,?we?[54?Cal.3d?1052]?consider?that?the?determination?ought?to?be?made?by?our?Supreme?Court?and?not?by?an?intermediate?reviewing?court.”?(Fraijo?v.?Hartland?Hospital,?supra,?99?Cal.App.3d?331,?347;?see?also?Maupin?v.?Widling,?supra,?192?Cal.App.3d?568,?574?[“BAJI?No.?3.75?is?famous?for?causing?juror?confusion.?It?has?been?criticized?for?its?inexact?terminology?and?incorrect?sentence?structure.”];?John?B.?Gunn?Law?Corp.?v.?Maynard?(1987)?189?Cal.App.3d?1565,?1571?[235?Cal.Rptr.?180]?[instruction?misleading,?but?”it?has?never?been?held?error?in?California?to?instruct?in?terms?of?BAJI?No.?3.75?due?to?lack?of?intelligibility.”].)
We?believe?the?foregoing?authorities?properly?criticize?BAJI?No.?3.75?for?being?conceptually?and?grammatically?deficient.?The?deficiencies?may?mislead?jurors,?causing?them,?if?they?can?glean?the?instruction’s?meaning?despite?the?grammatical?flaws,?to?focus?improperly?on?the?cause?that?is?spatially?or?temporally?closest?to?the?harm.
[4]?In?contrast,?the?”substantial?factor”?test,?incorporated?in?BAJI?No.?3.76?and?developed?by?the?Restatement?Second?of?Torts,?section?431?(com.?to?BAJI?No.?3.76)?has?been?comparatively?free?of?criticism?and?has?even?received?praise.?”As?an?instruction?submitting?the?question?of?causation?in?fact?to?the?jury?in?intelligible?form,?it?appears?impossible?to?improve?on?the?Restatement’s?’substantial?factor?[test.]’?”?(Prosser,?Proximate?Cause?in?California,?supra,?38?Cal.L.Rev.?369,?421.)?It?is?”sufficiently?intelligible?to?any?layman?to?furnish?an?adequate?guide?to?the?jury,?and?it?is?neither?possible?nor?desirable?to?reduce?it?to?lower?terms.”?(Id.,?at?p.?379.)fn.?7Moreover,?the?”substantial?factor”?test?subsumes?the?”but?for”?test.?”If?the?conduct?which?is?claimed?to?have?caused?the?injury?had?nothing?at?all?to?do?with?the?injuries,?it?could?not?be?said?that?the?conduct?was?a?factor,?let?alone?a?substantial?factor,?in?the?production?of?the?injuries.”?(Doupnik?v.?General?Motors?Corp.?(1990)?225?Cal.App.3d?849,?861?[275?Cal.Rptr.?715].)
Not?only?does?the?substantial?factor?instruction?assist?in?the?resolution?of?the?problem?of?independent?causes,?as?noted?above,?but?”[i]t?aids?in?the?disposition?…?of?two?other?types?of?situations?which?have?proved?troublesome.?One?is?that?where?a?similar,?but?not?identical?result?would?have?[54?Cal.3d?1053]?followed?without?the?defendant’s?act;?the?other?where?one?defendant?has?made?a?clearly?proved?but?quite?insignificant?contribution?to?the?result,?as?where?he?throws?a?lighted?match?into?a?forest?fire.?But?in?the?great?majority?of?cases,?it?produces?the?same?legal?conclusion?as?the?but-for?test.?Except?in?the?classes?of?cases?indicated,?no?case?has?been?found?where?the?defendant’s?act?could?be?called?a?substantial?factor?when?the?event?would?have?occurred?without?it;?nor?will?cases?very?often?arise?where?it?would?not?be?such?a?factor?when?it?was?so?indispensable?a?cause?that?without?it?the?result?would?not?have?followed.”?(Prosser?&?Keeton?on?Torts,?supra,???41,?at?pp.?267-268,?fns.?omitted,?italics?added.)?Thus,?”[t]he?substantial?factor?language?in?BAJI?No.?3.76?makes?it?the?preferable?instruction?over?BAJI?No.?3.75.?[Citation.]”?(Maupin?v.?Widling,?supra,?192?Cal.App.3d?568,?575.)
We?recognize?that?BAJI?No.?3.76?is?not?perfectly?phrased.?The?term?”legal?cause”?may?be?confusing.?As?part?of?the?psycholinguistic?study?referred?to?above,?the?experimenters?rewrote?BAJI?No.?3.75?to?include?the?term?”legal?cause.”fn.?8?The?study?found?that?”25%?of?the?subjects?who?heard?’legal?cause’?misinterpreted?it?as?the?opposite?of?an?’illegal?cause.’?We?would?therefore?recommend?that?the?term?’legal?cause’?not?be?used?in?jury?instructions;?instead,?the?simple?term?’cause’?should?be?used,?with?the?explanation?that?the?law?defines?’cause’?in?its?own?particular?way.”fn.?9?(Psycholinguistic?Study,?supra,?79?Colum.L.Rev.?at?p.?1353.)
Moreover,?”advocates,?judges,?and?scholars?[have]?capitalized?upon?the?ambiguities?and?nuances?of?’substantial’?”?and?have?created?new?uses?for?the?instruction.?(Prosser?&?Keeton?on?Torts?(5th?ed.,?1988?supp.)???41,?p.?45.)?One?such?use?is?”in?cases?in?which?a?defendant’s?conduct?is?clearly?a?’but?for’?cause?of?plaintiff’s?harm,?and?defense?counsel?contends?that?defendant’s?conduct?made?such?an?insubstantial?contribution?to?the?outcome?that?liability?should?not?be?imposed.?[?]?…?Used?in?this?way,?the?’substantial?factor’?test?becomes?an?additional?barrier?to?liability?….”?(Id.,?at?pp.?43-44.)?Such?a?use?of?the?”substantial?factor”?test?undermines?the?principles?of?comparative?negligence,?under?which?a?party?is?responsible?for?his?or?her?share?of?negligence?and?the?harm?caused?thereby.?We?are?confident,?however,?[54?Cal.3d?1054]?that?proper?argument?by?counsel?and?instruction?by?the?court?will?prevent?any?confusion?from?occurring.fn.?10
[1c]?The?continued?use?of?BAJI?No.?3.75?as?an?instruction?on?cause?in?fact?is?unwise.?The?foregoing?amply?demonstrates?that?BAJI?No.?3.75?is?grammatically?confusing?and?conceptually?misleading.?Continued?use?of?this?instruction?will?likely?cause?needless?appellate?litigation?regarding?the?propriety?of?the?instructions?in?particular?cases.?Use?of?BAJI?No.?3.76?will?avoid?much?of?the?confusion?inherent?in?BAJI?No.?3.75.?It?is?intelligible?and?easily?applied.?We?therefore?conclude?that?BAJI?No.?3.75,?the?so-called?proximate?cause?instruction,?should?be?disapproved?and?that?the?court?erred?when?it?refused?to?give?BAJI?No.?3.76?and?instead?gave?BAJI?No.?3.75.?(See?ante,?p.?1052,?fn.?7.)- Prejudicial?Effect?of?Erroneous?Instruction
Second,?we?consider?whether?the?jury?asked?for?a?rereading?of?the?erroneous?instruction?or?of?related?evidence.?The?jury?did?not?make?such?a?request,?but?we?note?that?jury?received?a?copy?of?the?instructions,?making?such?a?request?unnecessary.
Third,?we?analyze?the?closeness?of?the?jury’s?verdict.?The?jury?found?on?a?vote?of?nine?to?three?that?Jose?Gonzales?and?Luis?were?negligent?(i.e.,?they?breached?a?duty?of?care?to?Damechie).?Likewise,?the?jury?concluded?on?a?vote?of?11?to?1?that?Matilde?Gonzales?was?negligent.?Yet?the?jury?unanimously?concluded?that?neither?the?actions?of?Luis?nor?Jose?Gonzales?caused?Damechie’s?death?and,?on?a?vote?of?10?to?2,?the?jury?found?that?the?actions?of?Matilde?Gonzales?were?not?a?cause?of?the?death.
The?verdict?as?to?causation?was?not?particularly?close.?It?seems?that?the?jury?did?follow?BAJI?No.?3.75?but?was?misled?by?the?instruction’s?flaws:?Having?found?the?defendants?negligent,?it?is?illogical?and?inconsistent?on?this?record?to?conclude?that?they?were?not?a?cause?in?fact?of?Damechie’s?death.?Accordingly,?we?conclude?it?is?reasonably?probable?that?the?jury?was?confused?by?BAJI?No.?3.75?and?overemphasized?the?”but?for”?nature?of?the?instruction,?improperly?focusing?on?the?factor?operative?at?the?closest?temporal?proximity?to?the?time?of?death,?Damechie’s?inability?to?swim.
Fourth,?we?consider?whether?defense?counsel’s?closing?argument?contributed?to?the?instruction’s?misleading?effect.?The?closing?argument?was?replete?with?references?to?Damechie’s?inability?to?swim,?his?own?knowledge?that?he?could?not?swim,?and?his?decision?nevertheless?to?venture?out?on?the?lake.?Counsel?also?argued?that?Damechie’s?parents?knew?he?could?not?swim,?yet?they?permitted?him?to?go?with?the?Gonzaleses?without?determining?whether?the?Gonzaleses?intended?to?take?the?children?swimming,?and?argued?that?but?for?these?facts,?Damechie?would?not?have?drowned.
The?argument?thus?highlighted?the?condition?temporally?closest?to?the?death,?Damechie’s?inability?to?swim,?and?factors?related?to?it.?As?discussed?above,?BAJI?No.?3.75?improperly?emphasizes?temporal?and?spatial?proximity.?The?argument?thus?contributed?to?the?instruction’s?misleading?effect.?It?is?reasonably?probable?that?if?the?jury?had?received?the?substantial?factor?instruction,?counsel’s?argument?would?not?have?misled?the?jury.?[54?Cal.3d?1056]
Finally?we?consider?the?effect?of?other?instructions?in?remedying?the?error.?BAJI?No.?3.77?was?requested?by?both?parties?and?given?by?the?court.fn.?11?This?instruction?did?not?remedy?the?confusion?caused?by?instructing?the?jury?under?BAJI?No.?3.75.?By?frequently?repeating?the?term?”proximate?cause”?and?by?emphasizing?that?a?cause?must?be?operating?at?the?moment?of?injury,?the?instruction?buttressed?rather?counteracted?the?restrictions?on?time?and?place?inherent?in?the?word?”proximate.”?Thus,?giving?BAJI?No.?3.77?did?not?cure?the?deficiencies?of?BAJI?No.?3.75.?(Hart?v.?Browne,?supra,?103?Cal.App.3d?947,?961.)
Based?on?the?foregoing?analysis,?we?conclude?that?it?is?reasonably?probable?a?result?more?favorable?to?the?plaintiffs?would?have?resulted?if?BAJI?No.?3.75?had?not?been?given.
Conclusion
We?conclude?that?BAJI?No.?3.75?should?be?disapproved,?that?the?trial?court?erred?when?it?gave?the?instruction,?and?that?such?error?was?prejudicial.?Accordingly,?the?decision?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?reversing?the?judgment?in?favor?of?defendants?is?affirmed.
Mosk,?J.,?Panelli,?J.,?Arabian,?J.,?Baxter,?J.,?and?George,?J.,?concurred.
KENNARD,?J.
I?dissent.
The?majority?invalidates?a?jury?instruction?on?proximate?cause-an?essential?element?of?every?tort?case-that?has?been?used?in?this?state?for?some?50?years?and?embodies?well-established?law.?And,?by?delegating?responsibility?for?defining?proximate?cause?to?the?Committee?on?Standard?Jury?Instructions,?the?majority?neglects?its?duty?to?provide?guidance?to?trial?courts?and?litigants.?This?court?should?give?guidance?to?the?committee,?not?seek?guidance?from?it.
The?majority?proscribes?use?of?BAJI?No.?3.75,?a?standard?jury?instruction?that?defines?proximate?cause?as?”a?cause?which,?in?natural?and?continuous?sequence,?produces?the?injury?and?without?which?the?injury?would?not?have?occurred.”?As?I?shall?explain,?proximate?cause?includes?two?elements:?an?element?of?physical?or?logical?causation,?known?as?cause?in?fact,?and?a?more?normative?or?evaluative?element,?which?the?term?”proximate”?imperfectly?conveys.?The?majority?concedes?that?the?concept?of?proximate?cause?includes?[54?Cal.3d?1057]?these?two?distinct?elements,?yet?it?limits?its?discussion?of?BAJI?No.?3.75?to?that?instruction?”as?it?relates?to?cause?in?fact.”?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?1049,?fn.?4.)?Having?found?BAJI?No.?3.75?fatally?deficient,?the?majority?suggests?that?another?instruction,?BAJI?No.?3.76,?provides?a?satisfactory?alternative?instruction?on?cause?in?fact.?Yet?the?majority?does?not?embrace?this?other?instruction?as?an?adequate?expression?of?the?second,?more?elusive?element?of?proximate?cause.?Because?BAJI?No.?3.75?addresses?both?elements?of?proximate?cause,?the?majority’s?decision?leaves?a?significant?unanswered?question:?Is?there?now?a?standard?jury?instruction?that?trial?courts?can?use?to?convey?the?second?element?
Legal?scholars?have?long?struggled?with?the?complexities?and?subtleties?of?proximate?cause.?(See?e.g.,?Smith,?Legal?Cause?in?Actions?of?Tort?(1911)?25?Harv.L.Rev.?103;?Prosser,?Proximate?Cause?in?California?(1950)?38?Cal.L.Rev.?369.)?But?the?problem?of?proximate?cause-when?and?how?to?limit?liability?when?cause?and?effect?relationships?logically?continue?to?infinity-has?remained?intractable?and?the?riddle?of?proximate?cause?has?remained?unsolved.?(Prosser?&?Keeton?on?Torts?(5th?ed.?1984)???43,?p.?300.)?Although?BAJI?No.?3.75?is?not?a?model?of?clarity,?and?a?better?instruction?would?certainly?be?most?welcome,?this?court?should?not?proscribe?the?use?of?BAJI?No.?3.75?unless?and?until?it?proposes?a?better?instruction?that?includes?both?elements?of?proximate?cause,?or?at?least?provides?meaningful?guidance?on?the?subject.?Because?the?majority?has?done?neither,?I?would?not?hold?in?this?case?that?the?trial?court?erred?in?instructing?the?jury?with?BAJI?No.?3.75.
I
To?understand?the?issue?presented?in?this?case,?it?is?necessary?to?examine?the?concept?of?proximate?cause?and?the?manner?in?which?BAJI?No.?3.75?explains?it?to?the?jury.
An?essential?element?of?any?cause?of?action?for?negligence?is?that?the?defendant’s?act?or?omission?was?a?cause?of?the?plaintiff’s?injury.?(E.g.,?Prosser?&?Keeton?on?Torts,?supra,???41,?at?p.?263;?6?Witkin,?Summary?of?Cal.?Law?(9th?ed.?1988)?Torts,???965,?p.?354.)?To?simply?say,?however,?that?the?defendant’s?act?or?omission?must?be?a?necessary?antecedent?of?the?plaintiff’s?injury?does?not?resolve?the?question?of?whether?the?defendant?should?be?held?liable.?As?Prosser?and?Keeton?observed:?”The?consequences?of?an?act?go?forward?to?eternity,?and?the?causes?of?an?event?go?back?to?the?dawn?of?human?events,?and?beyond.?But?any?attempt?to?impose?responsibility?upon?such?a?basis?would?result?in?infinite?liability?for?all?wrongful?acts,?and?would?’set?society?on?edge?and?fill?the?courts?with?endless?litigation.’?”?(Prosser?&?Keeton?on?Torts,?supra,???41,?at?p.?264,?quoting?North?v.?Johnson?(1894)?58?Minn.?242?[59?N.W.?1012].)?[54?Cal.3d?1058]
Accordingly,?the?law?must?impose?limitations?on?liability?other?than?simple?causality.?These?additional?limitations?are?related?not?only?to?the?degree?of?connection?between?the?act?or?omission?and?the?injury,?but?also?to?”our?more?or?less?inadequately?expressed?ideas?of?what?justice?demands,?or?of?what?is?administratively?possible?and?convenient.”?(Prosser?&?Keeton?on?Torts,?supra,???41,?at?p.?264.)?Thus,?there?are?two?basic?elements?of?proximate?cause:?cause?in?fact?and?the?limitations?imposed?by?”our?more?or?less?inadequately?expressed?ideas?of?what?justice?demands.”?For?the?sake?of?clarity?and?convenience,?I?shall?refer?to?the?latter?element?as?the?social?evaluative?process.
BAJI?No.?3.75,?the?instruction?invalidated?by?the?majority,?addresses?both?elements?of?proximate?cause.?By?stating?that?a?proximate?cause?is?one?”without?which?the?injury?would?not?have?occurred”?(or,?in?other?words,?that?the?injury?would?not?have?occurred?”but?for”?the?defendant’s?conduct),?the?instruction?addresses?the?element?of?cause?in?fact.?The?term?”natural?and?continuous?sequence”?and?the?word?”proximate,”?on?the?other?hand,?address?the?social?evaluative?process?because?they?require?the?jury,?after?determining?cause?in?fact,?to?reflect?further?on?causation?before?finally?deciding?the?issue?of?liability.
II
The?majority?disapproves?BAJI?No.?3.75?because?it?contains?the?word?”proximate,”?which?connotes?proximity?in?space?or?time.?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?p.?1050.)?The?majority?exaggerates?the?difficulties?presented?by?the?use?of?the?word?”proximate”?and?adopts?a?wholly?inadequate?solution.?Although?proximity?in?time?or?space?is?not?relevant?to?cause?in?fact,?it?is?frequently?an?appropriate?consideration?in?determining?the?second?element?of?proximate?cause,?the?social?evaluative?process.?In?the?absence?of?an?instruction?that?captures?that?element?at?least?as?well,?use?of?BAJI?No.?3.75?should?not?be?forbidden.
The?majority?relies?on?a?statement?from?Prosser?and?Keeton?objecting?to?the?term?”proximate”?as?”an?unfortunate?word,?which?places?an?entirely?wrong?emphasis?upon?the?factor?of?physical?or?mechanical?closeness.”?(Prosser?&?Keeton?on?Torts,?supra,???42,?at?p.?273;?italics?added.)?Yet?by?these?words?Prosser?and?Keeton?do?not?assert?that?proximity?in?space?and?time?is?irrelevant?to?the?ultimate?determination?of?proximate?cause,?but?only?that?it?should?not?be?unduly?emphasized.?This?necessarily?implies?that?temporal?and?spatial?proximity?does?play?some?role?in?the?determination?of?proximate?cause.
Other?authority?supports?the?conclusion?that?temporal?and?spatial?proximity?is?frequently?an?appropriate?consideration?in?determining?the?social?[54?Cal.3d?1059]?evaluative?process?element?of?proximate?cause.?As?a?Court?of?Appeal?recently?remarked,?”The?time?span?between?any?alleged?misconduct?and?the?harm?is?among?the?factors?to?be?considered?in?determining?the?existence?of?proximate?cause.”?(Weissich?v.?County?of?Marin?(1990)?224?Cal.App.3d?1069,?1083?[274?Cal.Rptr.?342];?see?also?Duffy?v.?City?of?Oceanside?(1986)?179?Cal.App.3d?666,?674?[224?Cal.Rptr.?879];?Rest.2d?Torts,???433,?com.?f.)?The?same?is?true?of?proximity?in?space.?Foreseeability?of?injury,?which?is?a?concept?that?includes?spatial?nearness?or?remoteness,?may?be?relevant?to?the?trier?of?fact’s?decision?whether?defendant’s?act?”was?a?proximate?or?legal?cause?of?the?plaintiff’s?injury.”?(Ballard?v.?Uribe?(1986)?41?Cal.3d?564,?572-573,?fn.?6?[224?Cal.Rptr.?664,?715?P.2d?624].)?Indeed,?a?case?the?majority?cites?recognizes?the?potential?relevance?of?temporal?and?spatial?proximity.?In?Osborn?v.?City?of?Whittier?(1951)?103?Cal.App.2d?609,?616?[230?P.2d?132],?the?court?said?that?”[p]roximity?in?point?of?time?or?space?…?is?of?no?importance?except?as?it?may?afford?evidence?for?or?against?proximity?of?causation.”?(Italics?added.)
The?majority?directs?its?remaining?criticism?of?BAJI?No.?3.75?to?the?statement?in?the?instruction?that?”a?proximate?cause?is?a?cause?which,?in?natural?and?continuous?sequence,?produces?the?injury?….”?(Italics?added.)?Quoting?from?a?psycholinguistic?study,?the?majority?characterizes?the?instruction?as?befuddling?because?the?term?”natural?and?continuous?sequence”?precedes?the?verb?it?modifies,?thus?creating?the?impression?that?the?cause?itself?is?in?a?”natural?and?continuous?sequence.”?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?p.?1051.)?But?this?perceived?problem?with?the?placement?of?the?language?could?be?readily?corrected?by?simply?rearranging?the?sentence?to?read:?”a?proximate?cause?of?the?injury?is?a?cause?without?which?the?injury?would?not?have?occurred?and?which?produces?the?injury?in?natural?and?continuous?sequence.”
There?is?no?immediate?need?to?proscribe?use?of?BAJI?No.?3.75.?Trial?courts?have?been?instructing?juries?in?its?language?since?1969?(BAJI?No.?3.75?(6th?ed.?1977);?BAJI?No.?3.75?(5th?ed.?1969)),?and,?as?the?majority?notes?(maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?p.?1051,?fn.?5),?it?is?almost?identical?to?the?standard?instruction?used?since?1943.?(BAJI?No.?104?(4th?ed.?1943).)?The?courts?of?this?state?have?long?considered?it?a?correct?statement?of?the?law.?(Fraijo?v.?Hartland?Hospital?(1979)?99?Cal.App.3d?331,?347?[160?Cal.Rptr.?246].)?Despite?its?flaws,?BAJI?No.?3.75?ought?to?be?retained?as?an?acceptable?instruction?in?the?absence?of?a?proposed?superior?instruction.
The?majority?asserts?that?disapproval?of?BAJI?No.?3.75?is?justified?because?”[i]ssues?that?are?properly?referred?to?as?questions?of?proximate?or?legal?cause?are?contained?in?other?instructions.?(See?e.g.,?BAJI?No.?3.79?[superseding?causes].)”?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?p.?1044,?fn.?2.)?But?a?review?of?the?[54?Cal.3d?1060]?relevant?instructions?(BAJI?Nos.?3.77,?3.78,?3.79,?and?3.80)?shows?that?each?addresses?a?specialized?situation.fn.?1?None?attempts?a?general?definition?of?the?social?evaluative?process?element?of?proximate?cause,?and?thus?none?will?fill?the?void?resulting?from?the?proscribing?of?BAJI?No.?3.75.
III
The?majority?favors?the?”substantial?factor”?instruction,?BAJI?No.?3.76,?over?the?”but?for”?instruction,?BAJI?No.?3.75,?as?a?definition?of?cause?in?fact.?But?the?majority?makes?no?claim?that?BAJI?No.?3.76?adequately?addresses?the?social?evaluative?process?element,?the?most?critical?and?elusive?aspect?of?proximate?cause.
BAJI?No.?3.76?states?that?”[a]?legal?cause?of?injury?is?a?cause?which?is?a?substantial?factor?in?bringing?about?the?injury.”?The?word?”substantial”?refers?only?to?whether?the?defendant’s?act?was?more?than?a?minimal?element?in?the?plaintiff’s?injury.?(Prosser?&?Keeton?on?Torts,?supra,???41,?at?p.?267;?see?also?Prosser,?Proximate?Cause?in?California,?supra,?38?Cal.L.Rev.?369,?378-382.)?Thus,?BAJI?No.?3.76?is?essentially?a?cause-in-fact?instruction.?Because?it?requires?only?a?single?determination?by?the?jury?(whether?the?defendant’s?conduct?was?a?”substantial?factor”?in?producing?the?plaintiff’s?injury),?BAJI?No.?3.76?does?not?reflect?as?clearly?as?does?BAJI?No.?3.75?the?two?separate?and?distinct?elements?of?proximate?cause.
When?the?”substantial?factor”?test?of?BAJI?No.?3.76?is?used?as?a?means?of?setting?limits?on?liability,?it?is?no?better?than?the?”but?for”?test?of?BAJI?No.?3.75,?the?instruction?invalidated?by?the?majority,?and?it?is?just?as?problematic?as?the?word?”proximate”?in?BAJI?No.?3.75.?As?Prosser?and?Keeton?observed:?”A?number?of?courts?have?[used?substantial?factor?as?a?test?of?proximate?cause,?not?just?cause?in?fact],?apparently?accepting?the?phrase?as?the?answer?to?all?prayers?and?some?sort?of?universal?solvent.?As?applied?to?the?fact?of?causation?alone,?the?test?though?not?ideal,?may?be?thought?useful.?But?when?the?’substantial?factor’?is?made?to?include?all?the?ill-defined?considerations?of?policy?which?go?to?limit?liability?once?causation?in?fact?is?found,?it?has?no?more?definite?meaning?than?’proximate?cause,’?and?it?becomes?a?hindrance?rather?than?a?help.”?(Prosser?&?Keeton?on?Torts,?supra,???42,?at?p.?278.)?[54?Cal.3d?1061]
Because?its?language?is?neither?as?clear?nor?as?helpful?as?it?superficially?appears,?the?”substantial?factor”?(BAJI?No.?3.76)?instruction?is?no?better?than?the?”but?for”?instruction?(BAJI?No.?3.75).?As?Prosser?and?Keeton?explained:?”Even?if?’substantial?factor’?seemed?sufficiently?intelligible?as?a?guide?in?time?past,?however,?the?development?of?several?quite?distinct?and?conflicting?meanings?for?the?term?’substantial?factor’?has?created?risk?of?confusion?and?misunderstanding,?especially?when?a?court,?or?an?advocate?or?scholar,?uses?the?phrase?without?explicit?indication?of?which?of?its?conflicting?meanings?is?intended.”?(Prosser?&?Keeton?on?Torts,?(5th?ed.,?1988?supp.)?at???41,?p.?43.)?For?instance,?the?term?”substantial?factor”?may?impose?an?additional?barrier?to?liability?when?used?to?focus?on?the?respective?degrees?of?the?contribution?of?different?causes?of?any?injury.?It?may?also?be?used?to?focus?the?inquiry?on?an?actor’s?motive?or?purpose?in?the?sense?of?attempting?to?provide?a?means?of?distinguishing?permissible?and?impermissible?motives.?And?it?may?be?confused?with?the?separate?requirement?that?the?plaintiff?prove?the?elements?of?the?case?by?a?preponderance?of?the?evidence.?(Id.?at?pp.?43-45.)
Thus,?the?majority?fails?to?recognize?that?BAJI?No.?3.76?is?no?better?than?BAJI?No.?3.75?as?a?comprehensive?proximate?cause?instruction.
IV
By?delegating?to?the?Committee?on?Standard?Jury?Instructionsfn.?2?the?responsibility?for?defining?proximate?cause,?the?court?neglects?its?duty,?as?the?highest?court?in?this?state,?to?provide?guidance?to?the?state’s?trial?courts.
It?is?easy,?as?the?majority?has?done,?to?find?fault?with?existing?formulations?of?proximate?cause.?It?is?quite?another?matter,?however,?to?actually?address?and?resolve?the?subtle?and?complex?issues?presented?by?the?concept?of?proximate?cause.?The?Committee?on?Standard?Jury?Instructions?will?necessarily?be?in?the?same?situation?as?are?trial?judges:?”The?trial?judge?is?in?the?dilemma?that?a?failure?to?instruct?at?all?on?proximate?cause?is?very?likely?to?be?error,?while?any?instruction?he?[or?she]?gives?runs?the?risk?of?being?so?complicated?and?vulnerable?to?attack?in?its?ideas?or?language?that?it?invites?[54?Cal.3d?1062]?appeal.”?(Prosser,?Proximate?Cause?in?California,?supra,?38?Cal.L.Rev.?at?pp.?423-424.)
Unless?and?until?this?court?is?prepared?to?offer?a?better?alternative?or?provide?meaningful?guidance?on?both?elements?of?proximate?cause,?I?would?not?invalidate?BAJI?No.?3.75.?Accordingly,?I?would?hold?that?the?trial?court?did?not?err?when?it?instructed?the?jury?in?the?terms?of?BAJI?No.?3.75.
FN?*.?Retired?judge?of?the?San?Bernardino?Superior?Court?sitting?under?assignment?by?the?Chairperson?of?the?Judicial?Council.
FN?1.?All?BAJI?instructions?referred?to?are?from?the?bound?volume?of?the?seventh?edition?(1986)?unless?otherwise?noted.
FN?2.?BAJI?No.?3.75,?requested?by?defendants?and?given?by?the?trial?court,?provides:?”A?proximate?cause?of?[injury]?[damage]?[loss]?[or]?[harm]?is?a?cause?which,?in?natural?and?continuous?sequence,?produces?the?[injury]?[damage]?[loss]?[or]?[harm]?and?without?which?the?[injury]?[damage]?[loss]?[or]?[harm]?would?not?have?occurred.”?Because?of?the?”without?which”?language,?courts?often?refer?to?this?instruction?as?the?”but?for”?instruction?of?causation.
BAJI?No.?3.76,?requested?by?plaintiffs?and?refused?by?the?trial?court,?provides:?”A?legal?cause?of?[injury]?[damage]?[loss]?[or]?[harm]?is?a?cause?which?is?a?substantial?factor?in?bringing?about?the?[injury]?[damage]?[loss]?[or]?[harm].”
We?emphasize?that?despite?the?use?of?the?terms?proximate?cause?and?legal?cause,?BAJI?Nos.?3.75?and?3.76?are?instructions?on?cause?in?fact.?Issues?that?are?properly?referred?to?as?questions?of?proximate?or?legal?cause?are?contained?in?other?instructions.?(See,?e.g.,?BAJI?No.?3.79?[superseding?causes].)
FN?3.?In?addition?to?the?issue?of?causation?in?fact,?Prosser?lists?the?following?issues?that?have?at?various?times?been?included?in?the?proximate?cause?rubric:?apportionment?of?damages?among?causes,?liability?for?unforeseeable?consequences,?superseding?causes,?shifted?responsibility,?duty?to?the?plaintiff,?and?plaintiff’s?fault.?(Prosser,?Proximate?Cause?in?California,?supra,?38?Cal.L.Rev.?369,?374.)
FN?4.?Although?the?dissent?embarks?upon?a?general?discussion?of?proximate?cause,?the?discussion?is?misplaced.?We?do?not?dispute?the?dissent’s?claim?that?there?is?more?than?one?concept?included?in?the?term?”proximate?cause.”?(Dis.?opn.,?post,?at?p.?1056.)?For?purposes?of?this?case,?however,?we?focus?on?the?jury’s?consideration?of?BAJI?No.?3.75?as?it?relates?to?cause?in?fact.
FN?5.?”The?proximate?cause?of?an?injury?is?that?cause?which,?in?natural?and?continuous?sequence,?unbroken?by?any?efficient?intervening?cause,?produces?the?injury,?and?without?which?the?result?would?not?have?occurred.?It?is?the?efficient?cause-the?one?that?necessarily?sets?in?operation?the?factors?that?accomplish?the?injury.?It?may?operate?directly?or?through?intermediate?agencies?or?through?conditions?created?by?such?agencies.”?(BAJI?No.?104?(4th?ed.?1943?bound?vol.),?italics?added.)
FN?6.?Contrary?to?the?dissenting?opinion,?we?think?it?unwise?to?underestimate?the?problems?associated?with?the?term?”proximate?cause.”?(Dis.?opn.,?post,?at?p.?1060.)?The?preceding?examples?clearly?establish?the?likelihood?that?jurors?will?be?misled?by?the?term.?It?is?in?the?face?of?a?flurry?of?criticism?that?the?dissent?recognizes?the?instruction?is?not?a?”model?of?clarity.”?(Dis.?opn.,?post,?at?p.?1057.)?Yet,?the?dissent?advocates?retention?of?the?flawed?instruction?without?explaining?what?mysterious?meritorious?aspect?of?the?instruction?overcomes?its?readily?apparent?shortcomings.?The?dissent?fails?to?articulate?any?compelling?reason?for?this?court?to?embrace?an?admittedly?confusing?instruction.
FN?7.?Although?the?dissent?recognizes?that?BAJI?No.?3.76?(embodying?the?”substantial?factor”?test)?is?”essentially?a?cause-in-fact?instruction,”?it?criticizes?the?test?on?grounds?unrelated?to?its?use?with?regard?to?cause-in-fact?considerations.?The?dissent?prefaces?its?discussion?with?the?qualification,?”When?the?’substantial?factor’?test?of?BAJI?No.?3.76?is?used?as?a?means?of?setting?limits?on?liability?….”?(Dis.?opn.,?post,?at?p.?1060.)?Without?articulating?any?reason?to?believe?the?test?would?be?so?applied,?the?dissent?claims?the?test?does?not?work?well?for?the?liability?limiting?considerations?that?are?distinct?from?a?finding?of?cause?in?fact.?Although?the?dissent?further?details?the?shortcomings?of?the?”substantial?factor”?test?when?the?test?is?used?for?other?purposes,?it?does?not?demonstrate?any?deficiencies?of?the?”substantial?factor”?test?when?used?for?cause-in-fact?determinations.
FN?8.?The?modified?instruction?read,?”A?legal?cause?of?an?injury?is?something?that?triggers?a?natural?chain?of?events?that?ultimately?produces?the?injury.?[?]?Without?the?legal?cause,?the?injury?would?not?occur.”?(Psycholinguistic?Study,?supra,?79?Colum.L.Rev.?at?p.?1352.)
FN?9.?Although?we?need?not?decide?whether?BAJI?No.?3.76?should?be?rewritten?to?eliminate?the?term?”legal?cause,”?we?do?suggest?that?the?Committee?on?Standard?Jury?Instructions?consider?whether?the?instruction?could?be?improved?by?adopting?the?suggestion?of?the?Psycholinguistic?Study?or?by?otherwise?modifying?the?instruction.
FN?10.?Although?we?disapprove?BAJI?No.?3.75,?nothing?in?this?opinion?should?be?read?to?discourage?the?Committee?on?Standard?Jury?Instructions?from?drafting?a?new?and?proper?”but?for”?instruction.
FN?11.?BAJI?No.?3.77?provides:?”There?may?be?more?than?one?[proximate]?[legal]?cause?of?an?injury.?When?negligent?conduct?of?two?or?more?persons?contributes?concurrently?as?[proximate]?[legal]?causes?of?an?injury,?the?conduct?of?each?of?said?persons?is?a?[proximate]?[legal]?cause?of?the?injury?regardless?of?the?extent?to?which?each?contributes?to?the?injury.?A?cause?is?concurrent?if?it?was?operative?at?the?moment?of?injury?and?acted?with?another?cause?to?produce?the?injury.?[It?is?no?defense?that?the?negligent?conduct?of?a?person?not?joined?as?a?party?was?also?a?[proximate]?[legal]?cause?of?the?injury.]”?As?read,?the?instruction?included?the?term?”proximate”?and?the?last?sentence.
FN?1.?BAJI?No.?3.77?states?that?there?may?be?concurrent?causes.?BAJI?No.?3.78?says?that?a?defendant?is?not?relieved?of?liability?when?there?are?two?independent?causes.?BAJI?No.?3.79?explains?that?a?defendant?is?not?relieved?of?liability?by?the?negligence?of?a?third?party?if?the?defendant?should?have?realized?that?the?third?party?might?act?as?it?did,?or?a?reasonable?person?would?not?have?regarded?the?third?party’s?acts?as?highly?extraordinary,?or?the?conduct?of?the?third?party?was?not?extraordinarily?negligent?and?was?a?normal?consequence?of?the?situation?created?by?the?defendant.?BAJI?No.?3.80?addresses?the?situation?when?all?of?the?defendants?were?negligent?but?the?plaintiff?cannot?prove?causation.
FN?2.?The?committee’s?full?name?is?The?Committee?on?Standard?Jury?Instructions,?Civil,?of?the?Superior?Court?of?Los?Angeles?County,?California.?Formed?in?1938,?the?committee?includes?among?its?members?attorneys?as?well?as?superior?court?judges.?The?committee?has?performed?invaluable?service?by?drafting?standard?or?pattern?jury?instructions,?based?primarily?on?published?appellate?decisions,?for?use?in?civil?jury?trials.?Although?no?statute?mandates?the?use?of?the?instructions,?the?Judicial?Council?has?recommended?their?use,?when?applicable,?”unless?[the?trial?judge]?finds?that?a?different?instruction?would?more?adequately,?accurately?or?clearly?state?the?law.”?(Cal.?Standards?Jud.?Admin.,???5.)?The?Judicial?Council?has?cautioned?that?trial?judges?should?give?jury?instructions?proposed?by?the?parties’?attorneys?”no?less?consideration”?than?the?committee’s?standard?instructions.?(Ibid.)