PJC General Negligence 2022

C HAPTER 3

I NFERENTIAL R EBUTTAL I NSTRUCTIONS

PJC 3.1

New and Independent Cause. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

PJC 3.2

Sole Proximate Cause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

PJC 3.3

Emergency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

PJC 3.4

Unavoidable Accident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

PJC 3.5

Act of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Note This chapter contains inferential rebuttal instructions to submit if raised by the evi dence. Unlike the five inferential rebuttal instructions referenced in this chapter, a number of traditional defensive or rebuttal theories once submitted as special issues are now subsumed under the proportionate responsibility question and are no longer submitted to the jury. These include “assumption of risk,” Farley v. MM Cattle Co. , 529 S.W.2d 751, 758 (Tex. 1975), abrogated on other grounds by Parker v. Highland Park, Inc. , 565 S.W.2d 512, 517 (Tex. 1978); “imminent peril” (Comm. on Pattern Jury Charges, 1 State Bar of Tex., Texas Pattern Jury Charges PJC 3.08 (1969)); Davila v. Sanders , 557 S.W.2d 770, 771 (Tex. 1977); “last clear chance” or “discov ered peril” (PJC 3.06 (1969)); French v. Grigsby , 571 S.W.2d 867 (Tex. 1978); and “no duty” and “open and obvious” in premises cases, Parker , 565 S.W.2d at 520–21; Massman-Johnson v. Gundolf , 484 S.W.2d 555, 556–57 (Tex. 1972). The above-noted theories that are now subsumed under the proportionate responsibility question should not be submitted by either question or instruction. The Committee also believes that the traditional doctrine of “rescue” (PJC 3.09 (1969)) is akin to “imminent peril” and is subsumed under proportionate responsibility.

41