PJC General Negligence 2022

PJC 13.3

A NIMAL I NJURY

PJC 13.3

Abnormally Dangerous Domesticated Animal

QUESTION ______ On the occasion in question, were [ describe animal in question ]’s dangerous propensities a producing cause of Paul Payne ’s injuries? Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________ COMMENT When to use. PJC 13.3 should be used when the animal in question is found to have abnormally dangerous propensities that allegedly caused the injuries. See Mar shall v. Ranne , 511 S.W.2d 255, 258–59 (Tex. 1974) (suits for damages caused by vicious animals are governed by principles of strict liability). Conditioning instruction. A party may choose to submit the issues under both strict liability and negligence liability standards regardless of the jury’s finding regard ing the alleged dangerous propensities of the animal in question. In such circum stances, no conditioning instruction would be submitted as part of either PJC 13.3 or PJC 13.4. However, if a party prefers that the jury make a single liability finding, the following instruction may be submitted as a predicate to PJC 13.3: If, in answer to Question ______ [ question regarding dangerous propensities ], you found that [ describe animal in question ] had dan gerous propensities abnormal to its class, then answer the following question. Otherwise, do not answer the following question. Producing cause. PJC 13.3 should be submitted with the definition of producing cause: “Producing cause” means a cause that was a substantial factor in bringing about the [ injury ] [ occurrence ], and without which the [ injury ] [ occurrence ] would not have occurred. There may be more than one producing cause. See the current edition of State Bar of Texas, Texas Pattern Jury Charges—Malprac tice, Premises & Products PJC 70.1. Plaintiff’s negligence/assumption of risk. The plaintiff’s conduct in relation to the animal in question might be subject to a comparative responsibility allocation. But see Marshall , 511 S.W.2d at 258 (negligence in failing to discover dangerous animal or take precautions against possible harm will not reduce plaintiff’s recovery, but vol untary assumption of risk of harm might be valid defense to liability); see also Moore

210