Does an attorney have a duty to correct or amend an error in an instruction offered by either side in a civil case?

Moreover, "a trial court has no duty to modify or edit an instruction offered by either side in a civil case and if there is error in the charge proposed, the court may reject the entire instruction." (Green v. County of Riverside (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1370.) Likewise, an attorney has no duty to correct the legal mistakes of opposing counsel for the benefit of the opposing party. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 342, 346 [holding that an attorney does not incur liability for conscious nondisclosure absent a duty of disclosure]; Cal. State Bar Opinion No. 2013-189, at p. *4 <http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Opinions/CAL%202013-189%20%5B11-0002%5D%20v.1.pdf> [as of Nov. 12, 2019], archived at <https://perma.cc/UX8K-Q27M> ["Attorneys generally owe no duties to opposing

Page 11

counsel nor do they have any obligation to correct the mistakes of opposing counsel"].)

Evidence Code section 669 provides in pertinent part: "(a) The failure of a person to exercise due care is presumed if: [] (1) He [or she] violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation of a public entity . . . . [] . . . [] (b) This presumption may be rebutted by proof that: [] (1) The person violating the statute, ordinance, or regulation did what might reasonably be expected of a person of ordinary prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who desired to comply with the law . . . ." (See Norman v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1251 (Norman) [holding that "a regulatory violation is presumed to constitute negligence and that presumption will be conclusive unless the defendant rebuts it"].)

We conclude the trial court properly refused to give the negligence per se jury instruction as proposed by plaintiffs in this case. The proposed jury instruction disallowed any rebuttal of the presumption that failure to follow nursing and health care regulations constitutes negligence. Instead, the proposed instruction informed the jury that proof establishing violation of health care regulations necessarily amounts to negligence by Fremont. Because the proposed instruction omitted the rebuttable presumption of Evidence Code section 669, it was erroneous as a matter of law. The trial court was correct to reject an instruction that omitted an essential qualifier. (Merrill v. Buck (1962) 58 Cal.2d 552, 563.)