NC · jury_instructions
N.C.P.I.—Civil 744.09
PRODUCTS LIABILITY - SELLER'S AND MANUFACTURER'S DEFENSE OF UNREASONABLE USE IN LIGHT OF KNOWLEDGE OF UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PRODUCT.
NOTE WELL: Use this instruction only with causes of
action arising on or after January 1, 1996. For causes
of action arising before January 1, 1996, use N.C.P.I.-
Civil 743.09.
The (state number) issue reads:
"Was the plaintiff's [injury] [death] [damage] caused by (name
product) after the [plaintiff] [name user]4 knew of or discovered a
[defect] [dangerous condition] of the (name product) that was
inconsistent with its safe use and then unreasonably and voluntarily
exposed [himself] [the plaintiff] to the [defect] [dangerous condition]?"
You will answer this issue only if you have answered the (state
number) issue in favor of the plaintiff.
On this issue the burden of proof is on the defendant. This means
that the defendant must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence,
three things:
First, that [the plaintiff] [name user] knew of or discovered a
[defect] [dangerous condition] of the (name product) that was
inconsistent with its safe use.
Second, that [the plaintiff] [name user] unreasonably and
voluntarily exposed [himself] [the plaintiff] to the [defect] [dangerous
condition]. (A person acts unreasonably when, under the same or similar
circumstances, a reasonable and prudent person would not have done so.
A person acts voluntarily when he does so of his own free will and not
under compulsion.)
Third, that the plaintiff's [injury] [death] [damage] was caused by
the (name product). Cause is a real cause- a cause which in a natural
and continuous sequence produces a person's [injury] [death] [damage].5
There may be more than one cause of [an injury] [a death] [damage].
Therefore, the defendant need not prove that [the plaintiff's] (name
user's) use of the (name product) was the sole cause of the [injury]
[death] [damage]. The defendant must prove, by the greater weight of
the evidence, only that [the plaintiff's] [name user's] use of the (name
product) was a cause.
Finally, as to this issue on which the defendant has the burden of
proof, if you find by the greater weight of the evidence that the plaintiff's
[injury] [death] [damage] was caused by the (name product) after the
[plaintiff] [(name user)] knew of or discovered a [defect] [dangerous
condition] of the (name product) that was inconsistent with its safe use
and then unreasonably and voluntarily exposed [himself] [the plaintiff] to
the [defect] [dangerous condition], then it would be your duty to answer
this issue "Yes" in favor of the defendant.
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 plaintiff.
History
N.C.P.I.—Civil 744.09 (May 1999). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-4(2). Prepared by the North Carolina Conference of Superior Court Judges' Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions, assisted by the UNC School of Government; published by the School of Government.
Provenance
- Source
- sog.unc.edu
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-24
- Edition
- 2026-09-24
- Content hash
7b339de8c713b1d98833139b653de6f67bca06351f1c39167eb205ab1b7a5037
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.