PJC Business

PJC 115.33

D AMAGES

required, depending on whether the case involves public or private speech. For exam ple, as a matter of common law and constitutional law damages are recoverable only for false and defamatory statements. See Hancock , 400 S.W.3d at 65; Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps , 475 U.S. 767, 777 (1986) (libel plaintiff “must bear the burden of showing that the speech at issue is false before recovering damages for def amation from a media defendant”); NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. , 458 U.S. 886, 918 (1982) (no damages can be awarded for economic losses caused by expression protected by First Amendment); Bell Publishing Co. v. Garrett Engineering Co. , 170 S.W.2d 197, 206 (Tex. 1943) (under common law, where affirmative defense of sub stantial truth has been submitted to jury, damages are recoverable only for defamatory statements that are not found to be true: “[W]here some of the defamatory charges are found to be true and others false, the jury should be instructed to consider only such damages as resulted from the false....”). For further discussion, see PJC 116.2 regarding broad-form issues and the Casteel doctrine. Elements considered separately. The instruction not to compensate twice for the same loss is taken from Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson , 116 S.W.3d 757, 770 (Tex. 2003), and is proper in cases involving undefined or potentially overlapping cat egories of damages. In other cases, the following instruction may be substituted: Consider the following elements of damages, if any, and none other. Past and future damages submitted separately. Separation of past and future damages is required because “[p]rejudgment interest may not be assessed or recovered on an award of future damages.” Tex. Fin. Code § 304.1045 (wrongful death, personal injury, or property damage cases).

494