PJC General Negligence 2024

PJC 29.3

W RONGFUL D EATH D AMAGES

The roles of a will and the law of intestacy. It would seem that in certain cases the jury could not properly answer the loss-of-inheritance question without information concerning the law of wills and intestate succession. The number of variables makes it virtually impossible to arrive at a standard instruction that takes every aspect of this problem into account. Alternative terminology. Problems with a complicated submission of the loss-of inheritance damages element might be avoided by using other terminology. For exam ple, if there is no factual dispute regarding to whom additions to the estate would pass from the deceased, the jury inquiry could be limited to the amount of the additions. If necessary, the laws of inheritance then could be applied to determine the amount of a particular claimant’s recovery, with the following definition substituted for element 7: 7. Loss of addition to the estate. “Loss of addition to the estate” means the loss of the present value of assets that Paul Payne , in reasonable probability, would have added to the estate existing at the end of his natural life. Prejudgment interest not recoverable on loss of inheritance. Prejudgment interest is not recoverable for element 7, loss of inheritance. Yowell , 703 S.W.2d at 636; Tex. Fin. Code § 304.1045. Loss of inheritance and pecuniary loss. If element 7 is not submitted, the phrase excluding loss of inheritance should be omitted from the definition following element 1. See Moore , 722 S.W.2d 683. Remarriage does not diminish recovery. Evidence of a spouse’s ceremonial remarriage is admissible. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §71.005. However, the eco nomic circumstances of a new marriage are not admissible to diminish damages that are recoverable. See Richardson v. Holmes , 525 S.W.2d 293, 299 (Tex. App.—Beau mont 1975, writ ref’d n.r.e.). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that a person is entitled to an instruction that remarriage is not a factor to consider in assessing damages. Conway v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines , 525 F.2d 927, 930 (5th Cir. 1976); see also Bailey v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. , 613 F.2d 1385, 1388 (5th Cir. 1980). Separate answer for each element. For actions filed on or after September 1, 2003, the Code requires economic damages to be determined “separately from the amount of other compensatory damages.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §41.008(a). Also, broad-form submission of multiple elements of damages may lead to harmful error if there is a proper objection raising insufficiency of the evidence to support one or more of the elements submitted. Harris County v. Smith , 96 S.W.3d 230, 233–36 (Tex. 2002). If there is any question about the sufficiency of the evidence to support one or more of the elements, the Committee recommends that the elements of damages be separately submitted to the jury as above.

438