N.C.P.I.—Civil 812.07

The (state number) issue reads:

"Was the plaintiff [injured] [damaged] by a dangerous dog owned

by 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, three

things:

First, that the defendant was the owner of (identify dog).2 (An

owner is a [person] [legal entity] that has a possessory property right in

a dog.3)

Second, that (identify dog) was a dangerous dog.4 A "dangerous

dog" is one that

[without provocation has killed or inflicted severe injury on a

person.5 ("Severe injury" means any physical injury that results in broken

bones or disfiguring lacerations or requires cosmetic surgery or

hospitalization.)6]

[has been determined by the animal control authority7 to have

inflicted a bite on a person that resulted in broken bones or disfiguring

lacerations or required cosmetic surgery or hospitalization]8

[has been determined by the animal control authority to have killed

or inflicted severe injury upon a domestic animal when not on the (then)9

owner's real property10]11

[has been determined by the animal control authority to have

approached a person when not on the (then)12 owner's property in a

vicious or terrorizing manner in an apparent attitude of attack]13

[is owned or harbored primarily or in part for the purpose of dog

fighting, or is trained for dog fighting].14

Third, that (identify dog) [injured the plaintiff] [damaged the

plaintiff's property] [damaged one of the plaintiff's animals].15

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 plaintiff

was [injured] [damaged] by a dangerous dog owned by the defendant,

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.