PJC General Negligence 2024

W ORKERS ’ C OMPENSATION —D EFENSES AND E XCEPTIONS

PJC 18.6

PJC 18.6

Employee’s Intention to Injure Another—Question

PJC 18.6A Employee’s Intention to Injure Another—Question— When Claimant Appeals QUESTION ______ Was Paul Payne ’s injury not caused by his willful attempt to unlawfully injure another person? Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________ PJC 18.6B Employee’s Intention to Injure Another—Question— When Carrier Appeals QUESTION ______ Was Paul Payne ’s injury caused by his willful attempt to unlawfully injure another person? Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________ COMMENT When to use. If the evidence raises this statutory exclusion from coverage, PJC 18.6 should be submitted. See Federal Underwriters Exchange v. Samuel , 160 S.W.2d 61, 63–64 (Tex. 1942); 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 Hos pital v. Bomar , 9 S.W.3d 805, 807–08 (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 18.6 is based on the “employee’s intention to injure another” exception of Tex. Lab. Code § 406.032(1)(B), which provides that there is no liability if the injury “was caused by the employee’s wilful attempt to... unlawfully injure another person.”

271