N.C.P.I.—Civil 805.80

The (state number) 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].

Every person is under a duty to follow standards of conduct enacted

as laws for the safety of the public. The North Carolina Vacation Rental

Act 1 imposes upon landlords of vacation rentals a duty to exercise

ordinary care to maintain their vacation rental properties in a fit

condition.2 A standard of conduct established by a safety statute must

be followed. A person's failure to do so is negligence in and of itself.3

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

greater weight of the evidence, five things:

First, that the plaintiff was a tenant of a vacation rental premises

leased from the defendant. (A "vacation rental" is a rental of residential

property for vacation, leisure or recreational purposes for fewer than 90

days by a person who has a place of permanent residence to which he or

she intends to return.)4

Second, that an unfit condition existed on the vacation rental

premises. [This includes not only the vacation rental unit itself, but the

amenities and common areas under the landlord's control and made

available for the tenant's use.]5

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

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

have a duty to make a reasonable inspection of their vacation rental

premises and are responsible for knowing what a reasonable inspection

would reveal.6

Fourth, that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care to

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

[comply with the current applicable building and housing codes

(Read applicable code provisions)7]

[make all repairs and do whatever is reasonably necessary to put

and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition8]

[keep all common areas of the premises in a safe condition]9

[maintain in good and safe working order and reasonably and

promptly repair all [major appliances] [[electrical] [plumbing]

[sanitary] [heating] [ventilating] system(s)] [(name other

system(s))] 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 tenant10]

[provide operable smoke detectors]11

[replace or repair smoke detectors, provided that notification of

needed replacement or repair has been given to the landlord by the

tenant in writing]12

[annually place new batteries in a battery-operated smoke

detector].

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

requirements] is negligence in and of itself.

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

[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 respects:

(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].

Finally, as to the (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 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.