N.C.P.I.—Civil 800.65

The (state number) issue reads:

"Did the [negligence of the defendant proximately cause] [wrongful

conduct of the defendant cause] (name claimant)1 to lose the consortium

of his spouse?"

You will answer this issue only if you answer the issue number

____, which is the issue of negligence, "Yes" in favor of the plaintiff.2

(Furthermore, you will answer this issue only if you answer issue number

____, which is the issue of contributory negligence, "No" in favor of the

plaintiff.)3

On this issue the burden of proof is on (name claimant). This

means that (name claimant) must prove, by the greater weight of the

evidence, four things:

First, that (name claimant) and his spouse were legally married at

the time of the plaintiff's injury.4 (All of the evidence tends to show that

(name claimant) and (name claimant's spouse) were married on (state

date).5

Second, that (name claimant's) marital relationship with his spouse

had at least one of the following aspects: marital services, society,

affection, companionship or sexual relations.6 These aspects of a marital

relationship constitute the consortium between a husband and a wife.

You are to give these words their ordinary meanings.

Third, that (name claimant) lost the consortium of his spouse. A

loss of consortium means any loss or disruption of marital services,

society, affection, companionship or sexual relations between a husband

and a wife. (Loss of consortium is not restricted solely to loss of sexual

relations. Therefore, even if you find that there were no sexual relations

between (name claimant) and his spouse prior to the injury, or that there

has been no loss of sexual relations since the injury, a disruption of the

marital relationship exists if there has been a loss of marital services,

society, companionship or affection).7

Fourth,

[that defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the loss of

consortium. As I have previously instructed you, proximate cause is a

cause which in a natural and continuous sequence produces a person's

injury, and is a cause which a reasonable and prudent person could have

foreseen would probably produce such injury or some similar injurious

result. There may be more than one proximate cause of an injury.

Therefore, (name claimant) need not prove that the defendant's

negligence was the sole proximate cause of the loss of consortium.

(Name claimant) must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, only

that the defendant's negligence was a proximate cause].

[that defendant's wrongful conduct was a cause of the loss of

consortium. As I have previously instructed you, a cause is an event,

force or act which in a natural and continuous sequence produces a

person's injury. There may be more than one cause of an injury.

Therefore, (name claimant) need not prove that the defendant's wrongful

conduct was the sole cause of the loss of consortium. (Name claimant)

must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, only that the

defendant's wrongful conduct was a cause.]

Finally, as to this (state number) issue on which (name claimant)

has the burden of proof, if you find by the greater weight of the evidence

that the [negligence of the defendant proximately caused] [wrongful

conduct of the defendant caused] (name claimant) to lose the consortium

of his spouse, then it would be your duty to answer this issue "Yes" in

favor of (name claimant).

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.