N.C.P.I.—Civil 800.10

The (state number) issue reads:

“Was the plaintiff financially damaged by a negligent

misrepresentation of the defendant?”

A person who obtains or communicates information to other

persons knowing or intending that it be relied upon has a duty to exercise

reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating that

information.2 A breach of this duty is a negligent misrepresentation.

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, six

things:

First, that in the course of [the defendant’s [business] [profession]

[employment]] [a transaction in which the defendant had a financial

interest], the defendant supplied information to [the plaintiff] [a limited

group of persons of which the plaintiff was a member] [the defendant’s

client with the knowledge that the client intended to supply the

information to the plaintiff].

Second, that the defendant

[intended for the plaintiff]

[intended for a person within a limited group of which the plaintiff

was a member]

[knew that the defendant’s client intended for [the plaintiff] [a

person within a limited group of which the plaintiff was a member]]

to rely on that information for guidance or benefit in a particular

business transaction (or one substantially similar to it).

Third, that the information supplied by the defendant was false.

Fourth, that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care or

competence in obtaining or communicating the false information.

[Reasonable care or competence means that degree of care, knowledge,

intelligence or judgment which a prudent person would use under the

same or similar circumstances.]3 [Reasonable care or competence in the

case of a (state category of business person or professional, e.g., lawyer,

accountant, appraiser, engineer) is (state standard of care applicable to

the particular profession).4

Fifth, that the plaintiff actually relied on the false information

supplied by the defendant, and that the plaintiff's reliance was justifiable.5 Actual reliance is direct reliance upon false information. 6 Reliance

is justifiable if, under the same or similar circumstances, a reasonable

person, in the exercise of ordinary care, [would have relied on the false

information] [would not have discovered the information was false].7

And sixth, that such reliance proximately caused the plaintiff to

incur financial damage.8 Proximate cause is a cause which in a natural

and continuous sequence produces a person’s damage, and is a cause

which a reasonable and prudent person could have foreseen would

probably produce such damage or some similar injurious result.

There may be more than one proximate cause of damage.

Therefore, the plaintiff need not prove that the defendant’s [false

representation] [concealment] was the sole proximate cause of the

plaintiff’s damages. The plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of the

evidence, only that the defendant’s [false representation] [concealment]

was a proximate cause.

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 plaintiff

was financially damaged by a negligent misrepresentation of the

defendant, 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.