PJC General Negligence 2022

PJC 10.13

A GENCY AND S PECIAL R ELATIONSHIPS

PJC 10.13 Negligent Entrustment—Defective Vehicle As to Edna Entrustor , “negligence” means entrusting a vehicle to another if the entrustor knew or should have known that the vehicle was defective. QUESTION ______ Did the negligence, if any, of those named below proximately cause the occurrence in question? Answer “Yes” or “No” for each of the following: 1. David Driver _______________ 2. Edna Entrustor _______________ 3. Paul Payne _______________ COMMENT When to use. PJC 10.13 submits the common-law doctrine of negligent entrust ment of a defective vehicle. See Russell Construction Co. v. Ponder , 186 S.W.2d 233 (Tex. 1945); Sturtevant v. Pagel , 130 S.W.2d 1017 (Tex. 1939). Like PJC 10.12, PJC 10.13 consists of two parts, an instruction and a question. This instruction should be given immediately after the definition of “negligence.” Owner must be proximate cause of collision. Unlike the doctrine of negligent entrustment to a reckless, incompetent, or unlicensed driver (see PJC 10.12), the entrustor of a defective vehicle must be found to be the proximate cause of the colli sion. If only owner is sued. If only the vehicle’s owner ( Edna Entrustor ) is sued, the negligence of the driver ( David Driver ) should not be submitted to the jury. Modify “negligence” definition to refer only to parties other than entrustor. The basic definition of “negligence,” PJC 2.1, which precedes this instruction, should be modified by adding the phrase “when used with respect to the conduct of [ include names of parties other than the entrustor’s ]” after the first word, “negligence,” to inform the jury that the more specific definition of negligence in PJC 10.13 applies only to the entrustor. See PJC 2.1 comment, “Modify if ‘ordinary care’ not applicable to all.”

146