In all jury cases the court shall, whenever feasible, submit the cause upon broad-form questions. The court shall submit such instructions and definitions as shall be proper to enable the jury to render a verdict.
Inferential rebuttal questions shall not be submitted in the charge. The placing of the burden of proof may be accomplished by instructions rather than by inclusion in the question.
In any cause in which the jury is required to apportion the loss among the parties the court shall submit a question or questions inquiring what percentage, if any, of the negligence or causation, as the case may be, that caused the occurrence or injury in question is attributable to each of the persons found to have been culpable. The court shall also instruct the jury to answer the damage question or questions without any reduction because of the percentage of negligence or causation, if any, of the person injured. The court may predicate the damage question or questions upon affirmative findings of liability.
In a suit in which termination of the parent-child relationship is requested, the court shall submit separate questions for each parent and each child on (1) each individual statutory ground for termination of the parent-child relationship and (2) whether termination of the parent-child relationship is in the best interest of the child. The court shall predicate the best-interest question upon an affirmative finding of at least one termination ground.
The court may submit a question disjunctively when it is apparent from the evidence that one or the other of the conditions or facts inquired about necessarily exists.
The court shall not in its charge comment directly on the weight of the evidence or advise the jury of the effect of their answers, but the court's charge shall not be objectionable on the ground that it incidentally constitutes a comment on the weight of the evidence or advises the jury of the effect of their answers when it is properly a part of an instruction or definition.
Official Notes and Commentary
Comment to 1988 change: The amendment to paragraph one of Rule 277 would unify the practice of submitting broad form questions to the jury in the form approved by Lemos v. Montez, 680 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. 1984).
Comment to 2020 change: Rule 277 is revised to require a jury question on each individual statutory ground for termination as to each parent and each child without requiring further granulated questions for subparts of an individual ground for termination. Rule 277 is also revised to require a separate question on best interest of the child as to each parent and each child that is predicated on an affirmative answer to at least one termination-ground question. The revisions supersede Texas Department of Human Services v. E.B., 802 S.W.2d 647 (Tex. 1990).