Texas PJC Malpractice 2022

PJC 65.1

P REMISES L IABILITY —D EFINITIONS AND I NSTRUCTIONS

the particular theory. In United Scaffolding , the court held that, if a plaintiff fails to secure findings on a correct theory, the proper remedy on appeal is reversal and rendi tion of a take-nothing judgment—even if the defendant does not object to the submis sion of the incorrect theory, or request the submission of the correct theory, at trial. United Scaffolding , 537 S.W.3d at 467. Therefore: • In negligent-activity cases, the questions, instructions, and definitions in the current edition of State Bar of Texas, Texas Pattern Jury Charges—General Negligence, Intentional Personal Torts & Workers’ Compensation should be used. If right-to-control issues are present in either a negligent activity case or a premises defect case, PJC 66.3 in this volume should precede the applicable liability ques tions. • In premises-defect cases, the questions, instructions, and definitions in chapters 65 and 66 in this volume should be used. • In both negligent-activity and premises-defect cases governed by Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapter 95, PJC 66.14 in this volume should be used. See Abutahoun v. Dow Chemical Co. , 463 S.W.3d 42, 51–52 (Tex. 2015). • In a case against a nonsubscribing employer that involves an alleged breach of the duties owed by a nonsubscribing employer to its employees, the gen eral definition of negligence should be used. Austin , 465 S.W.3d at 215–17; Mila nes , 474 S.W.3d at 335. For an instruction providing a general definition of negligence, see PJC 2.1 in Texas Pattern Jury Charges—General Negligence, Inten tional Personal Torts & Workers’ Compensation .

162