PJC General Negligence 2024

W ORKERS ’ C OMPENSATION —D EFENSES AND E XCEPTIONS

PJC 18.5

PJC 18.5 Intentional Act of Another Person—Question PJC 18.5A Intentional Act of Another Person—Question—When Claimant Appeals QUESTION ______ Was Paul Payne ’s injury not caused by the act of another person intended to injure Paul Payne because of a personal reason but rather directed at him as an employee or because of the employment? Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________ PJC 18.5B Intentional Act of Another Person—Question—When Carrier Appeals QUESTION ______ Was Paul Payne ’s injury caused by the act of another person intended to injure Paul Payne because of a personal reason and not directed at him as an employee or because of the employment? Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________ COMMENT When to use. If the evidence raises this statutory exclusion from coverage, PJC 18.5 should be submitted. See Nasser v. Security Insurance Co. , 724 S.W.2d 17, 17–18 (Tex. 1987); Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Hopkins , 422 S.W.2d 203, 207–08 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1967, writ ref’d n.r.e.); see also Walls Regional Hospital v. Bomar , 9 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. 1999); Texas Workers’ Compensation Appeal Nos. 962472 (Jan. 17, 1997); 971539 (Sept. 23, 1997). Burden of proof. The burden of proof should be placed appropriately in accor dance with the decision of the appeals panel. See PJC 15.1. Source of question. PJC 18.5 is based on the “third person’s intentional act” exception of Tex. Lab. Code §406.032(1)(C), which provides that a carrier is not lia ble if the injury “arose out of an act of a third person intended to injure the employee

269