PJC General Negligence 2022

PJC 10.10

A GENCY AND S PECIAL R ELATIONSHIPS

PJC 10.10

Respondeat Superior—Nonemployee

QUESTION ______ On the occasion in question, was Tim Thomas operating the vehicle in the furtherance of a mission for the benefit of Don Davis and subject to control by Don Davis as to the details of the mission? Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________ COMMENT When to use. PJC 10.10 should be given if the respondeat superior doctrine is raised in a case not involving an ordinary employee. The key elements are (1) benefit to the defendant and (2) right of control by the defendant. English v. Dhane , 294 S.W.2d 709 (Tex. 1956); Bertrand v. Mutual Motor Co. , 38 S.W.2d 417 (Tex. App.— Eastland 1931, writ ref’d); see also St. Joseph Hospital v. Wolff , 94 S.W.3d 513, 537 & nn.71–72 (Tex. 2002). Omit “subject to control as to details.” If the right to control the details of the mission is undisputed, the phrase “and subject to control by Don Davis as to the details of the mission” may be omitted. Liability for child’s operation of motor vehicle. As to liability arising from a child’s operation of a vehicle on behalf of his parent, see de Anda v. Blake , 562 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1978, no writ); Smith v. Cox , 446 S.W.2d 52 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1969, writ ref’d n.r.e.); and Campbell v. Swinney , 328 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1959, writ ref’d n.r.e.).

138