N.C.P.I.—Civil 102.90

This issue reads:

"Was the plaintiff [injured] [damaged] by the joint negligence of

the defendants?"

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 defendants were jointly negligent, and that such joint negligence was

a proximate cause of the plaintiff's [injury] [damage].

"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 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 and others

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

negligence.

Two or more persons may be jointly negligent in causing [injury]

[damage] to another even though [one of them did not directly cause the

[injury] [damage]] [the identity of the one who directly caused the

[injury] [damage] cannot be determined]. Two or more person(s) are

jointly negligent if one of them

[substantially assists or encourages the other(s) to engage in

conduct that he knows or should know is a breach of a duty of ordinary

care owed to the person claiming the [injury] [damage]]2

[substantially assists the other(s) in breaching a duty of ordinary

care owed to the person claiming the [injury] [damage] while engaging in

such conduct himself]3

[acts together with the other(s) and shares a common intent with

the other person(s) to engage in the conduct which breaches a duty of

ordinary care owed to the person claiming the [injury] [damage]].4

The plaintiff has the burden of proving not only joint negligence,

but also that such joint negligence was a proximate cause of the [injury]

[damage].

Proximate cause is a cause which in a natural and continuous

sequence produces a person's [injury] [damage], and one 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 defendants'

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

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

the defendants' joint negligence was a proximate cause.

In this case, the plaintiff contends, and the defendants deny, that

the defendants were jointly negligent in one or more of the following

ways:

Read all contentions of joint negligence supported by the

evidence.

The plaintiff further contends, and the defendants deny, that the

defendants' joint negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's

[injury] [damage].

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

mere fact of [injury] [damage].

Give law as to each contention of negligence included above.

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 defendants were jointly negligent (in any one or more of the ways

contended by the plaintiff) and that such joint 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.

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 defendants.