What is the standard of review in the context of jury instructions in a civil case?

We address the argument on the merits, applying a de novo standard of review. We determine "whether the trial court ' "fully and fairly instructed on the applicable law." [Citation.]' [Citation.] [] ' "When reviewing a supposedly ambiguous [i.e., potentially misleading] jury instruction, ' "we inquire 'whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way' that violates the Constitution." ' " [Citation.]' [Citation.] The same test applies under California law. [Citation.] We look to the instructions as a whole and the entire record of trial, including the arguments of counsel. [Citations.] We assume that the ' " 'jurors [were] intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions . . . given.' [Citation.]" [Citation.]' [Citation.] Instructions should be interpreted, if possible, to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation." (People v. Lopez (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 698, 708.)