PJC General Negligence 2022

N EGLIGENCE P ER S E

PJC 5.3

PJC 5.3 Negligence Per Se—Simple Standard—Broad Form “Negligence” means driving on a street in a direction other than the direc tion designated and signposted as one-way . QUESTION ______ Did the negligence, if any, of Don Davis proximately cause the occurrence in question? Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________ COMMENT When to use. The unexcused violation of a legislative enactment designed to pre vent injury to the class of persons to which the injured party belongs constitutes negli gence per se, also known as negligence as a matter of law. See Murray v. O&A Express, Inc. , 630 S.W.2d 633, 636 (Tex. 1982); Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Ameri can Statesman , 552 S.W.2d 99, 102 (Tex. 1977). PJC 5.3 should be given if the negli gence per se standard can be stated simply and there is no claim of common-law negligence. In that case, negligence can simply be defined in the factual terms of the negligence per se standard, because the violation of that standard is the only question the jury will have to determine as to negligence. Thus, the first part of PJC 5.3, which consists of the above instruction on negligence, should be given in lieu of the usual definition of “negligence” if the case involves only negligence per se. If the case also involves a claim of common-law negligence, the statutory definition should be given immediately after the usual definition. Also in that case, the word “means” in the defi nition should be replaced with “also means.” If different negligence per se claims are made by each party against the other, broad-form submission accompanied by an instruction may still be used. The defini tion may need to combine the two standards.

[PJC 5.4 is reserved for expansion.]

73