What is the test for following the court's instructions in a civil case?

The jury was instructed that if the "attorneys' comments on the law conflict with my instructions, you must follow my instructions." (CALCRIM No. 200.) We presume the jury followed the court's instructions. (People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 436.) Defendant argues the presumption that a jury follows the court's instructions when they conflict with statements of counsel does not apply here because rather than conflicting, the prosecutor's argument sought to incorrectly define the phrase to "act rashly and without due deliberation." But the same instruction clarified that the objective standard relates to reaction rather than action, telling the jury to "consider whether a

person of average disposition, in the same situation and knowing the same facts, would have reacted from passion rather than from judgment." (CALCRIM No. 570.) Because the court's instruction correctly defined the phrase that the prosecutor incorrectly applied, we presume the jury following the court's instructions. (People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 717 ["When argument runs counter to instructions given a jury, we will ordinarily conclude that the jury followed the latter and disregarded the former, for '[w]e presume that jurors treat the court's instructions as a statement of the law by a judge, and the prosecutor's comments as words spoken by an advocate in an attempt to persuade.' "].)