Which jury instructions apply to failed civil claims
15
5
When you’re dealing with a civil case in which the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action, the central issue concerns the legal sufficiency of the complaint rather than the facts alleged. The question is not whether the plaintiff’s claims are true, but whether — assuming all allegations are taken as true — they establish a legally recognizable claim for relief.
In simple terms, if the complaint fails to allege facts that support all the essential elements of a valid cause of action, the proper procedural response is for the defendant to file a motion to dismiss (or, in certain jurisdictions such as California, a demurrer) on the ground of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This principle is reflected in Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and its state equivalents.
This issue is decided by the court, not the jury, because it presents a question of law. Jury instructions are only given to guide the jury in determining factual disputes; they are not used to resolve whether a legal claim exists in the first place. Accordingly, if the complaint truly fails to state a cause of action, the matter should be disposed of before trial, and the case should never reach the jury.
However, if the court denies the motion to dismiss and the case proceeds to trial — despite the pleading deficiencies — the defense can still strategically use pattern jury instructions to highlight the plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the legal elements of their claim.
1. No Specific Jury Instruction for “Failure to State a Cause of Action”
There is no standard jury instruction that explicitly directs the jury to find that the plaintiff “failed to state a cause of action.” That concept is purely legal and is addressed exclusively by the court at the pleading stage.
Once the case proceeds to trial, the judge instructs the jury only on legally viable causes of action that have survived pretrial motions. The jury’s function is limited to determining whether the plaintiff has met the burden of proof on each essential element of those claims.
2. What You Can Use Instead
Although you cannot argue to the jury that the plaintiff “failed to state a cause of action,” you can—and should—use the standard burden of proof instruction and the pattern instructions for each alleged claim to demonstrate that the plaintiff failed to prove the required elements.
A typical general burden of proof instruction might read as follows:
“The plaintiff has the burden of proving each element of [insert cause of action] by a preponderance of the evidence.
If the plaintiff has not proven every element, your verdict must be for the defendant.”
This approach allows you to achieve, in practical terms, what the legal deficiency argument would have accomplished: showing that the plaintiff cannot prevail because the evidence does not establish a valid claim under the law as explained to the jury.
Even though you cannot relitigate the sufficiency of the complaint at trial, this strategy enables you to reframe the same issue as a factual failure of proof, which is properly within the jury’s domain.
3. Recommended Approach
Before Trial:
File a motion to dismiss (or demurrer) for failure to state a claim. If you have already filed one and it was denied, consider renewing or reasserting the issue through a motion for summary judgment, particularly if discovery has revealed that the plaintiff lacks evidence to establish the elements of the claim.
During Trial:
If the case proceeds to trial, request pattern jury instructions that outline each element of the alleged cause of action. Emphasize in argument that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving every element by a preponderance of the evidence. Failure to do so requires a defense verdict.
On Appeal:
If judgment is entered against you, you can argue on appeal that the trial court erred in denying your motion to dismiss, as the complaint did not allege a legally sufficient cause of action. Appellate courts review such issues de novo — meaning they reconsider the legal sufficiency of the complaint independently, without deference to the trial court’s ruling.
If you are already in the appellate stage, your argument should focus squarely on that procedural and legal error: that the trial court improperly allowed the case to proceed despite the plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable cause of action.
Upvote if this is a clear answer
Downvote if this is not a clear answer
Full Conversation
Which pattern jury instructions govern a civil action where the plaintiff has failed to properly state a cause of action?
I understand your concern. Have you already filed a response to the plaintiff’s complaint in the civil case?
What pattern jury instructions can I use in a civil case when the plaintiff didn’t state a cause of action?
Are you looking for guidance on how to proceed with the case given the plaintiff’s failure to state a cause of action?
Yes.
Is there anything else the lawyer should know before I connect you? Rest assured, they’ll be able to help with your case.
No.
Greetings! I hope this message finds you well. I’m thrilled to have the opportunity to assist you with your situation and provide you with the support you need. Thank you for your patience, and I look forward to working with you.
Hi.
When you’re dealing with a civil case in which the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action, the central issue concerns the legal sufficiency of the complaint rather than the facts alleged. The question is not whether the plaintiff’s claims are true, but whether — assuming all allegations are taken as true — they establish a legally recognizable claim for relief.
In simple terms, if the complaint fails to allege facts that support all the essential elements of a valid cause of action, the proper procedural response is for the defendant to file a motion to dismiss (or, in certain jurisdictions such as California, a demurrer) on the ground of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This principle is reflected in Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and its state equivalents.
This issue is decided by the court, not the jury, because it presents a question of law. Jury instructions are only given to guide the jury in determining factual disputes; they are not used to resolve whether a legal claim exists in the first place. Accordingly, if the complaint truly fails to state a cause of action, the matter should be disposed of before trial, and the case should never reach the jury.
However, if the court denies the motion to dismiss and the case proceeds to trial — despite the pleading deficiencies — the defense can still strategically use pattern jury instructions to highlight the plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the legal elements of their claim.
1. No Specific Jury Instruction for “Failure to State a Cause of Action”
There is no standard jury instruction that explicitly directs the jury to find that the plaintiff “failed to state a cause of action.” That concept is purely legal and is addressed exclusively by the court at the pleading stage.
Once the case proceeds to trial, the judge instructs the jury only on legally viable causes of action that have survived pretrial motions. The jury’s function is limited to determining whether the plaintiff has met the burden of proof on each essential element of those claims.
2. What You Can Use Instead
Although you cannot argue to the jury that the plaintiff “failed to state a cause of action,” you can—and should—use the standard burden of proof instruction and the pattern instructions for each alleged claim to demonstrate that the plaintiff failed to prove the required elements.
A typical general burden of proof instruction might read as follows:
“The plaintiff has the burden of proving each element of [insert cause of action] by a preponderance of the evidence.
If the plaintiff has not proven every element, your verdict must be for the defendant.”
This approach allows you to achieve, in practical terms, what the legal deficiency argument would have accomplished: showing that the plaintiff cannot prevail because the evidence does not establish a valid claim under the law as explained to the jury.
Even though you cannot relitigate the sufficiency of the complaint at trial, this strategy enables you to reframe the same issue as a factual failure of proof, which is properly within the jury’s domain.
3. Recommended Approach
Before Trial:
File a motion to dismiss (or demurrer) for failure to state a claim. If you have already filed one and it was denied, consider renewing or reasserting the issue through a motion for summary judgment, particularly if discovery has revealed that the plaintiff lacks evidence to establish the elements of the claim.
During Trial:
If the case proceeds to trial, request pattern jury instructions that outline each element of the alleged cause of action. Emphasize in argument that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving every element by a preponderance of the evidence. Failure to do so requires a defense verdict.
On Appeal:
If judgment is entered against you, you can argue on appeal that the trial court erred in denying your motion to dismiss, as the complaint did not allege a legally sufficient cause of action. Appellate courts review such issues de novo — meaning they reconsider the legal sufficiency of the complaint independently, without deference to the trial court’s ruling.
If you are already in the appellate stage, your argument should focus squarely on that procedural and legal error: that the trial court improperly allowed the case to proceed despite the plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable cause of action.
I hope that clarifies things. Is there any part of my response you’d like me to expand on or any other questions about this issue?
This was very detailed. The JP court denied my motion to dismiss, it went to trial, so now I’m in appeal. They set the trial date on the same date they’ll hear my motion to dismiss.
Understood — that’s an important procedural point. Your appeal can focus on the court’s error in denying the motion to dismiss before trial, as that was the proper time to address whether a valid cause of action was stated.
No further questions, thank you.
You’re very welcome! Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to assist you. Please don’t hesitate to reach out again if you have further questions or need clarification in the future.
