Ford Motor Co. v. Miles

In Ford Motor Co. v. Miles, 967 S.W.2d 377, 378, 387 (Tex. 1998) (Owen, J., concurring), the error was in the charge's definitions of "proximate cause" and "producing cause," resulting in an erroneous definition of an essential element of all six liability theories submitted to the jury. See id. at 385. Therefore, the taint of which Justice Owen spoke resulted from error in a definition used in all of the liability theories; Justice Owen did not conclude that error in an instruction as to one theory infected all of the other theories, even though the erroneous instruction did not pertain to those theories. See id. at 385-87.