N.C.P.I.—Civil 102.10A

The (state number) issue reads:

“Was the plaintiff [injured] [damaged] by the negligence of the

defendant?”

Negligence refers to a person’s failure to follow a duty of conduct

imposed by law. The defendant, (state name of defendant), has

stipulated and agreed that he was negligent in (state contention of

negligence), but denies that his negligence was a proximate cause of the

plaintiff’s [injury] [damage].

On this issue the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This means

that the plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, that

the defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s

[injury] [damage].

Proximate cause is a cause which in a natural and continuous

sequence produces a person’s [injury] [damage], and is a cause which a

reasonable and prudent person could have foreseen would probably

produce such [injury] [damage] or some similar injurious result.

There may be more than one proximate cause of [an injury]

[damage]. Therefore, the plaintiff need not prove that the defendant’s

negligence was the sole proximate cause of the [injury] [damage]. The

plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, only that the

defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause.

Finally, as to this (state number) issue on which the plaintiff has

the burden of proof, if you find by the greater weight of the evidence,

that the negligence of the defendant, (state name of defendant), in

(state contention

of negligence) was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s [injury] [damage],

then it would be your duty to answer this issue “Yes” in favor of the

plaintiff.

However, if you fail to so find, then it would be your duty to answer

this issue “No” in favor of the defendant.