N.C.P.I.—Civil 805.55

The (state number) issue reads:

"Was the plaintiff1 [injured] [damaged] by the negligence of the

defendant?"

(You will answer this issue only if you have answered the (state

number) issue "Yes" in favor of the plaintiff. If you answered the (state

number) issue "No" in favor of the defendant, you will not answer this

issue but go on to the (state next issue).)2

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, that

the defendant was negligent and that such negligence was a proximate

cause of the plaintiff's [injury] [damage].

Negligence refers to a person's failure to follow a duty of conduct

imposed by law. The law requires every [owner]3 [person in possession]4

to use ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition

for lawful visitors who use them in a reasonable and ordinary manner.5

Ordinary care means that degree of care which a reasonable and prudent

person would use under the same or similar circumstances to

protect [himself] [herself] and others from [injury] [damage]. A person's

failure to use ordinary care is negligence.

The plaintiff not only has the burden of proving negligence, but also

that such negligence was a proximate cause of the [injury] [damage].

Proximate cause is a cause which in a natural and continuous

sequence produces a person's [injury] [damage], and is a cause which a

reasonable and prudent person could have foreseen would probably

produce such [injury] [damage] or some similar injurious result.

There may be more than one proximate cause of [an injury]

[damage]. Therefore, the plaintiff need not prove that the defendant's

negligence was the sole proximate cause of the [injury] [damage]. The

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

defendant's negligence was a proximate cause.

In this case, the plaintiff contends, and the defendant denies, that

the defendant was negligent in one or more of the following ways:

(Read all contentions of negligence supported by the evidence.)

The plaintiff further contends, and the defendant denies, that the

defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's [injury]

[damage].

I instruct you that negligence is not to be presumed from the mere

fact of [injury] [damage].

(Give law as to each contention of negligence included above. Set

forth below are standard statements of law that may apply to given

contentions of negligence. The jury should be charged only as to

statements of law applicable to the contentions.):

[An [owner] [person in possession] is required to give adequate

warning to lawful visitors of any hidden or concealed dangerous condition

about which the [owner] [person in possession] knows or, in the exercise

of ordinary care, should have known. (A warning is adequate when, by

placement, size and content, it would bring the existence of the

dangerous condition to the attention of a reasonably prudent person.)

However, an [owner] [person in possession] does not have to warn about

concealed conditions of which that person has no knowledge and could

not have learned by reasonable inspection and supervision.6 An [owner]

[person in possession] is held responsible for knowing of any condition

which a reasonable inspection and supervision of the premises would

reveal and is also responsible for knowing of any hidden or concealed

dangerous condition which that person’s own conduct (or that of agents

or employees) has created.]7

[A dangerous condition can be caused by a third party or some

outside force rather than the [owner] [person in possession]. In such

case, if the dangerous condition exists long enough for the [owner]

[person in possession] to have discovered it through reasonable

inspection or supervision, failure to use ordinary care to remedy the

condition or to give adequate warning of it would be negligence.]8

[The [owner] [person in possession] does not have to take

precautions against unusual or out-of-the-ordinary use of the premises by

lawful visitors.]9

[The [owner] [person in possession] is not required to warn of

obvious dangers or conditions, nor warn of dangerous conditions about

which a lawful visitor has equal or superior knowledge.]10

[The [owner] [person in possession] is not an insurer of a lawful

visitor's safety.]11

[Usually, the [owner] [person in possession] does not have a duty

to protect lawful visitors from the criminal acts of others on the [owner’s]

[person in possession’s] premises.12 But when, in the exercise of

reasonable care, the [owner] [person in possession] would have realized

that criminal acts of others on the premises were foreseeable, the

[owner] [person in possession] has a duty to provide adequate security

measures to protect lawful visitors.13 A breach of this duty is negligence.

To determine whether criminal acts of others on the [owner’s] [person in

possession’s] premises were foreseeable, you should consider the

evidence, if any, of the amount of prior criminal activity, the type of that

prior criminal activity and the location of that prior criminal activity with

respect to the premises.13]

Finally, as to this (state number) issue on which the plaintiff has

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

that the defendant was negligent (in any one or more ways contended by

the plaintiff) and that such negligence was a proximate cause of

plaintiff's [injury] [damage], 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.