How have courts interpreted an instruction in a medical malpractice case?

4 Compare Koenig v. Coe (1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 429, 329 P.2d 721, holding that the court prejudicially erred in giving BAJI No. 138, reciting that one who is exercising ordinary care has a right to assume that others are performing their duty under the law and to act upon that assumption, without also giving the exceptions appearing in brackets in the instruction where there is evidence from which the jury could have found that it was or would have been apparent to a reasonably prudent person that the other person was not going to perform his duty or obey the law.