PJC General Negligence 2022

PJC 12.5

N UISANCE

of value even though cost to repair may have been less, because there was no evidence of cost to repair); ExxonMobil Corp. v. Lazy R Ranch, L.P. , 511 S.W.3d 538 at n.5 (Tex. 2017) (citing Hall in connection with discussion on economic feasibility excep tion); Gilbert Wheeler, Inc. , 449 S.W.3d at 479 (citing Hall in connection with the con cept that damage principles apply across all causes of action). Intrinsic value of trees damages. If the reduction in market value caused by a permanent injury is zero or “essentially nominal,” and the injury sustained was to trees, the plaintiff may be able to recover the trees’ “intrinsic value.” Gilbert Wheeler, Inc. , 449 S.W.3d at 482–83 (discussing the “intrinsic value of trees” exception and extending Porras v. Craig , 675 S.W.2d 503, 506 (Tex. 1984)). In such a circumstance, the following question derived from Gilbert Wheeler may be used: What sum of money, if paid now in cash, would fairly and reason ably compensate Paul Payne for the injury resulting from [ insert description ]? Consider only the damaged trees’ ornamental and utilitarian value. Answer in dollars and cents for damages, if any. Answer: _______________ Elements considered separately. Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson , 116 S.W.3d 757, 770 (Tex. 2002), provides an instruction for cases involving undefined or potentially overlapping categories of damages. In those cases, the following language should be substituted for the instruction to consider each element separately: Consider the following elements of damages, if any, and none other. You shall not award any sum of money on any element if you have otherwise, under some other element, awarded a sum of money for the same loss. That is, do not compensate twice for the same loss, if any.

198