N.C.P.I.—Civil 103.10

“Was (state name of agent) the agent of the defendant (state

name of defendant) at the time [services were rendered to the plaintiff]

[(describe other occurrence)]?”1

NOTE WELL: If the testimony presented at trial is in

terms of employment rather than agency, the Court

may choose to replace references to “principal” with

“employer” and references to “agent” with “employee.”

You will answer this issue only if you have answered Issue (state

number of issue addressing agent’s act) “Yes” in favor of the plaintiff.

Agency is the relationship which results when one person, called

the principal, authorizes another person, called the agent, to act for the

principal. This relationship may be created by word of mouth, or by

writing, or may be implied from conduct amounting to consent or

acquiescence. A principal is liable to third persons for the [acts]

[negligence] of [his] [her] [its] agent in the transaction of the principal’s

business if the agent [himself] [herself] is liable.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, the

following three things:

First, that there was a principal-agent relationship between (state

name of principal) and (state name of agent) at the time [services were

rendered to the plaintiff] [(describe other occurrence)].

Second, that (state name of agent) was engaged in the work, and

was about the business of (state name of principal) at the time [services

were rendered to the plaintiff] [(describe other occurrence)].

Third, that the business in which (state name of agent) was

engaged at the time was within the course and scope of [his] [her]

authority or employment. It would be within the course and scope of

(state name of agent)’s authority or employment if it was done in

furtherance of the business of (state name of principal), or was incident

to the performance of duties entrusted to (state name of agent), or was

done in carrying out a direction or order of (state name of principal)3, and

was intended to accomplish the purposes of the agency.

Finally, as to this issue on which the plaintiff has the burden of

proof, if you find by the greater weight of the evidence that there was a

principal-agent relationship between (state name of principal) and (state

name of agent) at the time [services were rendered to the plaintiff]

[(describe other occurrence)], that (state name of agent) was engaged in

the work, and was about the business of (state name of principal) at the

time [services were rendered to the plaintiff] [(describe other

occurrence)], and that the business in which (state name of agent) was

engaged at the time was within the course and scope of [his] [her]

authority or employment, 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.