What is the standard of instruction on self-defense for a defendant in a civil case?

" 'In criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, a trial court must instruct on general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence and necessary for the jury's understanding of the case.' [Citation.] That duty extends to ' "instructions on the defendant's theory of the case, including instructions as to defenses" ' that the defendant is relying on . . ., or if there is substantial evidence supportive of such a defense and the defense is not inconsistent with the defendant's theory of the case.' " ' " ' " (People v. Anderson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 989, 996.)

"[T]raditional self-defense imports an intentional shooting; it does not apply to an accidental one." (People v. Curtis (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1357.) Thus "[i]t appears to be decided that an accidental shooting is inconsistent with an assertion of self-defense. [Citations.]" (People v. Villanueva (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 41, 50.) In California, where a defendant claims the shooting was by accident, even while defending himself, he is not entitled to an instruction on self-defense. (Curtis, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at p. 1358.) The law requires intentional discharge of the gun.

Page 16