NC · jury_instructions
N.C.P.I.—Civil 805.68
CITY OR COUNTY NEGLIGENCE - DEFENSE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE-SUI JURIS PLAINTIFF.
This issue reads:
"Did the plaintiff by his own negligence, contribute to his [injury]
[damage]?"
You will answer this issue, only if you have answered the issue as
to the defendant's negligence "yes" 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,
that the plaintiff was negligent and that such negligence was a proximate
cause of the plaintiff's own [injury] [damage].
A person traveling on a [street] [sidewalk] [alley] [bridge] [public
way] has a duty to use ordinary care to protect himself from [injury]
[damage].1 He must use his senses to discover and to avoid such
dangerous conditions as would be discovered and avoided by a
reasonable person exercising ordinary care for his own safety under the
same or similar circumstances.2 The failure to exercise such ordinary care
would be negligence.3 When the plaintiff's negligence concurs with the
negligence of the defendant in proximately causing the plaintiff's own
[injury] [damage] it is called contributory negligence, and the plaintiff
cannot recover.
In this case, the defendant contends, and the plaintiff denies, that
the plaintiff was negligent in one or more of the following ways:
(Read all contentions of contributory negligence supported by
the evidence).
The defendant further contends, and the plaintiff denies, that
plaintiff's negligence was a proximate cause of and contributed to the
plaintiff's [injury] [damage].
I instruct you that contributory negligence is not to be presumed
from the mere fact of [injury] [damage].
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
was negligent 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 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 805.68 (May 1990). 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
56d06ca9ac11ebdeb7e6e4c701aadf8aa22b368f7cc2c6f20c66465440754859
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.