N.C.P.I.—Civil 812.02

The (state number) issue reads:

"Was the plaintiff [injured] [damaged] by the defendant's allowing

his (describe livestock animal) to run at large with his knowledge and

consent?"

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, three

things:

First, that the defendant [owned] [kept] the (describe livestock

animal).

Second, that, with the defendant's knowledge and consent, the

(describe livestock animal) ran at large.3 An animal is at large when

wandering, roving, or rambling at will, without restraint, or without being

under control of an owner or keeper.4 A person consents to an animal

running at large when he does not take reasonably prompt action to

restrain its freedom. (The mere fact that an animal is found running at

large is not sufficient by itself to establish that its [owner] [keeper] had

knowledge of and consented to its running at large.5 However, if an

animal is repeatedly found running at large, the knowledge and consent

of the [owner] [keeper] may be inferred.6)

Third, that, the defendant, by allowing the (describe livestock

animal) to run at large with the defendant's knowledge and consent,

proximately caused [injury] [damage] to the plaintiff.7 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 conduct 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 conduct was a proximate cause.

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 allowed his (describe livestock animal) to run at large with his

knowledge and consent and in that way proximately caused [injury]

[damage] to the plaintiff, 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.