N.C.P.I.—Civil 103.50

The defendant (name defendant)1 contends that at the time of [the

collision] [(describe other occurrence)] (name agent) had departed from

the course and scope of his employment and was not then acting as the

defendant's agent.

I have already instructed you as to when an agent is acting within

the course and scope of his employment; and it follows from what I have

said that he is not so acting if he is engaged in some pursuit of his own

or is carrying out some purpose of his own. While not every interruption

of the strict performance of duty is such an interruption of the course and

scope of employment as will suspend the principal's responsibility, if

there is a total departure from the course and scope of employment, the

principal is no longer answerable for the conduct of the agent.

Once there has been such a total departure, the principal does not

again become responsible until the agent returns to the performance of

his duty- that is, returns to the place of his departure or arrives at some

other place where the performance of his duty would take him.

The burden is not on the defendant to prove that (name driver) had

totally departed from the course and scope of his employment and had

not returned to performance of his duty. Rather, the burden is on the

plaintiff to prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, that (name

driver) was acting as the agent of the defendant (name defendant) at the

time of [the collision] [(describe other occurrence)].2