How have the courts interpreted jury instructions in a personal injury case?

a grave risk of death to an innocent human being.' " (Ibid.) The defendant contended the instruction misstated the law because the substitution of "whether" indicated to the jury that reckless indifference could exist whether or not defendant knew his acts caused a grave risk of death. (Id. at p. 729.) Rejecting the defendant's argument, our high court focused on the fact that the jury was provided accurate written instructions, reasoning that " '[t]he risk of a discrepancy between the orally delivered and the written instructions exists in every trial, and verdicts are not undermined by the mere fact the trial court misspoke.' " (Ibid., italics added, quoting People v. Mills (2010) 48 Cal.4th 158, 200 (Mills).) The court continued, " '[W]e often have held that when erroneous oral instructions are supplemented by correct written ones, we assume the jury followed the written instructions, particularly when, as here, the jury is instructed that the written version is controlling.' " (Grimes, at p. 729.) In Mills, in a part of the opinion entitled "Misreading Jury Instructions," our high court noted the trial court "misspoke" on three occasions when orally instructing the jury. (Mills, at p. 200.) The court characterized each as a "mistake," and applied the rule that the written instructions control. (Id. at pp. 200-201.)