PJC General Negligence 2022

Introduction

a fact to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, you must find that the fact is more likely true than not true. g. Hypothetical examples. The names of hypothetical parties and facts have been italicized to indicate that the names and facts of the particular case should be substituted. In general, the name Paul Payne has been used for the plaintiff, Don Davis for an indi vidual defendant, Connie Contributor for a contribution defendant (third-party defendant not sued by the plaintiff), Responsible Ray for a responsible third party, and Sam Settlor for a settling person. ABC Company or ABC Corporation is used for an employer in an agency relationship, XYZ Company for a borrowing employer, and Tim Thomas for an employee or agent. Pete Provider is used for a provider of alcoholic beverages in a “dramshop” case, David Driver for a person to whom a vehicle has been entrusted, Edna Entrustor for an owner of a vehicle who has entrusted it to another, Paul and Mary Payne for spouses or parents, and Polly Payne and Paul Payne, Jr. , for children. In wrongful death and survival cases, Mary Payne is also used for the decedent. 5. C OMMENTS AND C ITATIONS OF A UTHORITY The comments to each PJC provide a ready reference to the law that serves as a foun dation for the charge. The primary authority cited herein is Texas case law. In some instances, secondary authority—for example, Restatement (Second) of Torts —is also cited. The Committee wishes to emphasize that secondary authority is cited solely as additional guidance to the reader and not as legal authority for the proposition it follows. Some comments also include variations of the recommended forms and additional ques tions or instructions for special circumstances. 6. S UBMISSION OF N EGLIGENCE P ER S E For cases involving only negligence per se or claims of both negligence per se and common-law negligence, the Committee recommends a single broad-form question accompanied by instructions or definitions informing the jury about both the statutory and common-law standards. In some situations, a broad submission should not be used. When it is uncertain whether violation of a statute, ordinance, or regulation constitutes negligence per se, a question phrased in the factual terms of the statute, along with a single broad-form ques tion on common-law negligence, is preferred. This method may avoid a retrial if an appellate court disagrees with the trial court. The comments to PJC 5.1 provide a more detailed account of the recommended forms of submission in various negligence per se situations. 7. U SING THE P ATTERN C HARGES Matters on which the evidence is undisputed should not be submitted by either instruction or question. Conversely, questions, instructions, and definitions not included

35