What is the test for a jury to interpret jury instructions in a personal injury case?

We review jury instructions de novo. (People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1089, overruled on other grounds in People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 823, fn.1.) "The trial court must give instructions on every theory of the case supported by substantial evidence, including defenses that are not inconsistent with the defendant's theory of the case. [Citation.] Evidence is 'substantial' only if a reasonable jury could find it persuasive. [Citation.]" (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1200.) "In reviewing a challenge to jury instructions, we must consider the instructions as a whole. [Citations.] We assume that the jurors are capable of understanding and correlating all the instructions which are given to them. [Citation.]" (People v. Fitzpatrick (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1294.)

"'[M]utual combat' consists of fighting by mutual intention or consent, as most clearly reflected in an express or implied agreement to fight. The agreement need not have all the characteristics of a legally binding contract; indeed, it necessarily lacks at least one such characteristic: a lawful object. But there must be evidence from which the jury could reasonably find that both combatants actually consented or intended to fight before the claimed occasion for self-defense arose." (People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1046-1047.)