N.C.P.I.—Civil 805.71

NOTE WELL: Use this instruction only where

the Residential Rental Agreement Act, N.C.G.S. §§ 42-

38, et seq., applies.

This issue reads:

“Was the plaintiff [injured] [damaged] by the negligence of the

defendant?”

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].

The Residential Rental Agreement Act imposes upon landlords a

duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain their residential properties in a

safe condition.1 A violation of this duty is negligence.

In order to prevail on this issue, the plaintiff must prove, by the

greater weight of the evidence, the following five things:

First, the plaintiff was a tenant under a rental agreement for a

dwelling unit leased from the defendant.

Second, that an unsafe condition existed on the premises. [This

includes not only the dwelling unit itself, but the amenities and common

areas under the landlord's control and made available for the tenant's

use.]2

Third, that the defendant knew or, in the exercise of ordinary care,

should have known of the existence of the unsafe condition. Landlords

have a duty to make a reasonable inspection of their residential premises

and are responsible for knowing what a reasonable inspection would

reveal.3

Fourth, that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care to

remove or remedy the unsafe condition.4 Landlords are required by law to

[comply with the current applicable building and housing codes to

the extent required by such codes (Read applicable code provisions)]5

[make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the

premises in a fit and habitable condition]6

[keep all common areas of the premises in a safe condition]7

[maintain in good and safe working order all [electrical] [plumbing]

[sanitary] [heating] [ventilating] [air conditioning] [appliances] [(name

other facility)] supplied by or required to be supplied by the

landlord, provided that notification of needed repairs has been given to

the landlord in writing by the tenant, except in emergency situations].8

A landlord's failure to comply with [this requirement] [any of these

requirements] may be considered by you as evidence of the

landlord’s failure to use ordinary care to maintain the leased premises in

a safe condition.9

Fifth, that such failure was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's

[injury] [damage]. Proximate cause is a real cause- a cause without which

the claimed [injury] [damage] would not have occurred, and one which a

reasonably careful and prudent person could foresee 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 respects:

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

The plaintiff further contends, and the defendant denies, that

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

[damage].

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

fact of [injury] [damage].

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

defendant 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 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.