N.C.P.I.—Civil 640.40

This issue reads:

"[Was] [Were] the act(s) of (name co-worker(s)) [expressly

authorized by the defendant employer] [committed within the scope of

[his] [their] employment and in furtherance of the defendant employer's

business] [ratified by the defendant employer]?"2

You are to answer this issue only if you answer the (state number)

issue in favor of the plaintiff.

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] [one of the following]

[That the act(s) of (name co-worker(s)) [was] [were] expressly

authorized by the defendant employer. (An act is expressly authorized

when it has been approved orally or in writing.)]

[That the act(s) of (name co-worker(s)) [was] [were] committed

within the scope of [his] [their] employment and in furtherance of the

defendant employer's business. (An employer is not responsible for the

acts of an employee who departs from his duties to accomplish a purpose

of his own which is not incidental to the work he is employed to do.)3]

[That the act(s) of (name co-worker(s)) [was] [were] ratified by the

defendant employer. (An employer ratifies an act when all material facts

and circumstances concerning the act become known to a [manager]

[person with authority to act on behalf of the employer] who, by words or

conduct, indicates approval of or acquiescence in such act.)4]

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 [the act(s) of

(name co-worker(s)) [was] [were] expressly authorized by the defendant

employer] [the act(s) of (name co-worker(s)) [was] [were] committed

within the scope of [his] [their] employment and in furtherance of the

defendant employer's business] [the act(s) of (name co-worker(s)) [was]

[were] ratified by the defendant employer], 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.