Texas PJC Malpractice 2022

PJC 70.2

P RODUCTS L IABILITY —D EFINITIONS , I NSTRUCTIONS & Q UESTIONS

2014)). Under such a circumstance, “the correct approach is to consider whether each provider’s individual negligence was a substantial factor in [causing the plaintiff’s injury] and whether the providers’ combined negligence was a but-for cause of [the plaintiff’s injury].” Pediatrics Cool Care , 649 S.W.3d at 160. To date, no Texas case analyzes the integration of an “aggregate-level” but-for causation test into the jury charge. Causation in toxic tort cases. If the evidence shows that exposure to a toxic product was a cause of the injury or death in question, the plaintiff must prove that the exposure was a substantial factor in causing the injury or death but is not required to prove that the injury or death would not have occurred but for such exposure. See Bos tic , 439 S.W.3d 332; Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores , 232 S.W.3d 765 (Tex. 2007). In such cases, the following definition of “proximate cause” should be submitted: “Proximate cause” means a cause that was a substantial factor in bringing about an [ injury ] [ occurrence ]. In order to be a proximate cause, the act or omission complained of must be such that a person using ordinary care would have foreseen that the [ injury ] [ occur rence ], or some similar [ injury ] [ occurrence ], might reasonably result therefrom. There may be more than one proximate cause of an [ injury ] [ occurrence ]. “New and independent cause” or “sole proximate cause.” In an appropriate case, the definition of “new and independent cause” or “sole proximate cause” may be submitted instead of or in addition to PJC 70.2. For definitions of “new and indepen dent cause” and “sole proximate cause,” see PJC 70.3 and 50.5, which may be modi fied as necessary.

214