N.C.P.I.—Civil 102.84

The (state number) issue reads:

“Did the plaintiff suffer severe emotional distress as a proximate result

of the negligence of the defendant?” 2

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, three things:

First, that the defendant was negligent. 3 “Negligence” refers to a

person's failure to follow a duty of conduct imposed by law.

[Every person is under a duty to use ordinary care to protect [himself]

[herself] and others from [injury] [damage]. Ordinary care means that degree

of care which a reasonable and prudent person would use under the same or

similar circumstances to protect [himself] [herself] and others from [injury]

[damage]. A person's failure to use ordinary care is negligence.]

[Every person is (also) under a duty to follow standards of conduct

enacted as laws for the safety of the public. A standard of conduct established

by a safety statute must be followed. 4 A person's failure to do so is negligence

in and of itself. 5]

Second, that the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress.

“Severe emotional distress” means [neurosis] [psychosis] [chronic

depression] [phobia] [any type of severe and disabling emotional or mental

condition which may be generally recognized and diagnosed by professionals

trained to do so]. 6 [Mere temporary fright or anxiety, disappointment or regret

is not severe emotional distress. 7]

And third, that the defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the

plaintiff's severe emotional distress.

Proximate cause is a cause which in a natural and continuous sequence

produces a person’s severe emotional distress, and one which a reasonable

and prudent person could have foreseen would probably produce such severe

emotional distress.

There may be more than one proximate cause of severe emotional

distress. Therefore, the plaintiff need not prove that the defendant’s

negligence was the sole proximate cause of the plaintiff’s severe emotional

distress. The plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, only

that the defendant's negligence was a proximate cause.

(Use the below bracketed language where a plaintiff’s severe emotional

distress arises due to concern for another person. 8)

[The plaintiff may recover for severe emotional distress due to concern

for another person if it was a reasonably foreseeable result of, and was in fact

caused by, the defendant’s negligence. 9 You are to make this determination

from all the evidence, including how close the plaintiff was to the negligent

act when it occurred, the nature of the relationship between the plaintiff and

the person for whose welfare the plaintiff was concerned, whether the plaintiff

personally observed the negligent act, and any other factor supported by the

evidence. 10]

In this case, the plaintiff contends, and the defendant denies, that the

defendant was negligent in one or more of the following ways:

(Read all contentions of negligence supported by the evidence and give

law as to each as applicable.)

I instruct you that negligence is not to be presumed from the mere fact

of severe emotional distress.

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

defendant was negligent, that the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress

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

severe emotional distress, then it would be your duty to answer this issue

“Yes” in favor of the plaintiff.

If, on the other hand, you fail to so find, then it would be your duty to

answer this issue “No” in favor of the defendant.