WPC<$ 2~ ZBVXj\  P6;XPHa1DocumentDocument StyleF *  ׃  a2DocumentDocument Style*    a3DocumentDocument Style0     2Zpe epa4DocumentDocument Style . a5DocumentDocument Style   a6DocumentDocument Style   a7DocumentDocument Style ` ` ` 2p   Ha8DocumentDocument Style` ` ` a1TechnicalTechnical Document Style 4!     a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style *    a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style '    2/  'a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style &    a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style &  . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style&  . a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style&  . 2 a  w  a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style&   . a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers8!"@   a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersA#$@` `  ` ` ` a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersJ%&@  ` `  2  K  a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersS'(@  a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers\)*@hh# hhh a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numberse+,@( hh# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersn-.@- ( 2a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw/0@pp2 -ppp X0Í ÍX0Í ÍRoman 12ptRoman Courier 12pt'12#x6X@@#Op. DraftOpinion -- Draft34  (X   3 1, 4 @&D R A F T` APage  _______________________________________________________ 2BMnaZItalic 12ptItalics Courier 12pt type'56'#x6NhH##x6NhH#BibliogrphyBibliography78 Doc InitInitialize Document Style9:    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentҲTech InitInitialize Technical Style;< 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2g t !*"PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper=>   , X  y*dddyy*dddy H\1 H\2 H\3 H\4 H\5 H\6 H\7 H\8 H\9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   ӕHome PtrSets codes for printing opinions on Sperry Laser Q?@ X #Xx6X@X@#  EnvelopeEnvelope!AB '3 II    Xp,  p,p, Letter 2Personal stationery with standard margins"bCD#XN\  PXP#   p,  3 1, 4 2$#$S0Letter 3Personal stationery with narrow margins#bEF#&R2P&P#     3 1, 4 Letter 1Court stationery$PGH#XZ2PXP# * 3 1, 4 ؃ j\  P6;XPH%\  `$Times New RomanXX P7XP{L  Z(CG Times RegularXx6X@@H  9`("Courier NewTTx6NhHH  9`(.Courier NewItalicTTx6NhHH  9`(.Courier NewItalicTTXx6X@X@<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXN\  PXP% [  `*Times New RomanTTX&R2P&P7|A`$ArialTT&XZ2PXP& A`ArialTTX22$:$3|j    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ă & &No. 960545ă & Ford Motor Company, Petitioner  *v.ă Susan Renae Miles, individually and a/n/f of Willie Searcy and Jermaine Searcy, minors, and Kenneth Miles, Respondents   On Application for Writ of Error to the _ Court of Appeals for the Sixth District of Texasă   Argued on November 21, 1996 ă  Justice Gonzalez, joined by Justice Hecht and Justice Abbott, concurring. I agree with the Courts judgment and opinion. However, I write separately to draw attention to an issue the Court does not reach because of its disposition of the case: whether an appellate court may affirm the trial courts judgment for actual damages based on negligence, but remand for a new trial only the issue of punitive damages. The trial courts judgment against Ford Motor Company included actual damages for negligence and punitive damages for gross negligence. The court of appeals sustained the award for negligence, but reversed and remanded the gross negligence, malice, and punitive damages issues.   922 S.W.2d 572, 599. It concluded that negligence and gross negligence requires entirely different proof and therefore a separate trial on gross negligence is proper. I disagree. Our appellate rules allow a partial new trial only if the part affected by error is separable without unfairness to the parties. Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(b) (formerly Tex R. App. P. 81(b)(1)). However, negligence and gross negligence are not separable causes of action but are inextricably intertwined. Negligence is a liability finding, involving duty, breach, and causation. Gross negligence presumes a negligent act or omission and includes two further elements: (1) viewed objectively from the standpoint of the actor, the act or omission [i.e., harmcausing negligence] must involve an extreme degree of risk, and considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others, and (2) the actor must have actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless proceed in conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others. Transportation Ins. Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10, 23 (Tex. 1994). The trial court in this case followed standard practice and instructed the jury not to answer the gross negligence and malice issues unless it found harmcausing negligence. See Comm. Of Pattern Jury Charges, State Bar of Texas, Texas Pattern Jury Charges"General Negligence and Motor Vehicles PJC 4.2A, 4.2B (1996) (conditioning gross negligence and malice issues on affirmative findings of negligence and causation). It would not be fair to have a new trial simply on the defendants state of mind. The second jury would lack the context to differentiate between negligence and gross negligence. The trial court properly submitted the charge in broad form; consequently, the next jury would not even know what act or omission the first jury found was negligent. In all fairness, the court of appeals could not remand the punitive damages issues alone. Accordingly, for this additional reason, I would reverse and remand the entire cause to the trial court.#X P7XP# ___________________________ Raul A. Gonzalez Justice OPINION DELIVERED: March 19, 1998