Can a police tactical manual pertaining to the use of firearms be used in evidence in a civil case?

The police tactical manual pertaining to the use of firearms, previously received in evidence, was stricken after the issue of the officers' negligence had been excluded from the jury's consideration on the assumption[2 Cal.3d 588] that the manual was no longer relevant to issues remaining in the case. Having determined that the negligence issue was improperly excluded, we hold a fortiori the manual should not have been stricken as being irrelevant. The manual prescribed rules regarding occasions for the limited use of firearms by police officers. In the circumstances of the Grudt incident, the manual justified the use of deadly force by an officer only if it was necessary to save himself, a citizen, a brother officer, or a prisoner from death or grave bodily harm. As we stated in Dillenbeck v. City of Los Angeles (1968) 69 Cal.2d 472, 478, 72 Cal.Rptr. 321, 324, 446 P.2d 129, 132, '(t)he safety rules of an employer are * * * admissible as evidence that due care requires the course of conduct prescribed in the rule. Such rules implicitly represent an informed judgment as to the feasibility of certain precautions without undue frustration of the goals of the particular enterprise.' Also, the manual was admissible 'on the ground that an employee's failure to follow a safety rule promulgated by his employer, regardless of its substance, serves as evidence of negligence.' (Id. at p. 481, 72 Cal.Rptr. at p. 327, 446 P.2d at p. 135.) ⁴