What is the test for a jury to accept arguments of counsel in a personal injury trial where the argument runs counter to instructions from the court?

It is long-accepted that arguments of counsel carry less weight with a jury than do instructions from the court because the former are usually billed in advance to the jury as matters of argument, and are likely viewed as the statements of advocates, whereas the latter are viewed as definitive and binding statements of the law. (See People v. Mendoza (2007) 42 Cal.4th 686, 703.) When argument runs counter to instructions given a jury, a reviewing court "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.' [Citation.]" (People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 717; see also People v. Morales, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 47 [it is presumed that the jury understood and followed the instructions].)