Johnson v. City of Santa Rosa et al

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
JOHN PAUL JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SANTA ROSA, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-02478-JSC
ORDER RE: JURY INSTRUCTIONS
ON COMPARATIVE FAULT
Before the Court are the parties’ proposed jury instructions and verdict forms. (Dkt. Nos.
92, 93, 96, 97, 98.) With regards to Plaintiff’s Count IV for negligence, Defendants’ proposed
verdict form twice asks the question:
“What percentage of the plaintiff’s harm do you assign to the following:
Plaintiff John Paul Johnson ____%
Defendant Christopher O’Neill ____%”
(Dkt. No. 92 at 3, 5.) The Court’s understands these questions relate to Defendants’ affirmative
defenses that Plaintiff’s damages award should be reduced based on his percentage of fault. (See,
e.g., Dkt. No. 34 ¶¶ 81-86.) Defendants, however, did not submit proposed jury instructions
regarding this defense or raise this defense in their trial brief.
//
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer regarding jury instructions
on comparative fault. If Defendants intend for the jury to reach a verdict on comparative fault if
they find for Plaintiff, then Defendants shall file proposed jury instructions by noon on
Wednesday, January 7, 2026. If Defendants do not so desire, then Defendants shall file a response
to this Order, by the same deadline, stating they withdraw questions 10 and 22 on their proposed
Case 3:23-cv-02478-JSC Document 115 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 2

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
verdict form and inform Plaintiff of the same.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 6, 2026
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-02478-JSC Document 115 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 2