PJC General Negligence 2022

A NIMAL I NJURY

PJC 13.5

PJC 13.5

Wild Animal

QUESTION ______ On the occasion in question, was a dangerous propensity of [ describe animal in question ] a producing cause of Paul Payne ’s injuries? In order to find that a dangerous propensity of [ describe animal in question ] was a producing cause of Paul Payne ’s injuries, you must find that the danger ous propensity was characteristic of its class of wild animals. Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________ COMMENT When to use. PJC 13.5 should be given if the court determines that the animal in question is a wild animal. See, e.g., Powers v. Palacios , 794 S.W.2d 493, 497 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1990), rev’d on other grounds , 813 S.W.2d 489 (Tex. 1991); Pate v. Yeager , 552 S.W.2d 513, 515–17 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.). An animal is wild if it belongs to a category that has not been generally domesticated and that is likely, unless restrained, to cause personal injury. Restatement (Third) of Torts §22(b) (2010); see also Powers , 794 S.W.2d at 497 (cit ing Black’s Law Dictionary definitions for distinguishing between wild and domesti cated animals). If the court determines that the animal is wild, the defendant is strictly liable for injuries caused by the animal. See Marshall v. Ranne , 511 S.W.2d 255 (Tex. 1974); see also Nicholson v. Smith , 986 S.W.2d 54 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.) (discussing rule of strict liability for acts of wild animals that one has reduced to one’s possession or if one has introduced a nonindigenous animal into the area). Producing cause. PJC 13.5 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

213