N.C.P.I.—Civil 813.70

NOTE WELL: A claim for an unfair or deceptive trade

practice stemming from an alleged misrepresentation

requires a plaintiff to demonstrate reliance on the

misrepresentation in order to show the necessary

proximate cause.2

The (state number) issue reads:

"Was the defendant's conduct a proximate cause of the [plaintiff's

injury] [injury to the plaintiff's business]?"

You will answer this issue only if you have found in the plaintiff's

favor on the (state number) issue.

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, two

things:

First, that [the plaintiff has suffered an injury] [the plaintiff's

business has been injured], and

Second, that the defendant's conduct was a proximate cause of

[the plaintiff's injury] [the injury to the plaintiff's business].

Proximate cause is a cause which in a natural and continuous

sequence produces the injury, and is a cause which a reasonable and

prudent person could have foreseen would probably produce such injury or

some similar injurious result.3

There may be more than one proximate cause of an injury.

Therefore, the plaintiff need not prove that the defendant's conduct was

the sole proximate cause of the [plaintiff's injury] [injury to the plaintiff's

business]. The plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of the

evidence, only that the defendant's conduct was a proximate cause.

NOTE WELL: In those cases where the jury has answered

“Yes” to special interrogatories in N.C.P.I.-Civ. 813.21

regarding representations made by the defendant that form

the basis for a N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 claim, the following

language also must be used:

[In (state number) issue,4 if you answered “Yes” that the defendant

represented [identify each representation allegedly made by the

defendant set forth in the special interrogatories that forms the basis for

a N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 claim], then in order to establish that the

defendant’s conduct was the proximate cause of [the plaintiff’s injury]

[the injury to the plaintiff’s business], the plaintiff must show (1) that

[he] [it] actually relied on the representation made by the defendant and

(2) that the plaintiff’s reliance was reasonable.5

“Actual reliance” requires that the plaintiff affirmatively

incorporated the alleged misrepresentation into his decision-making

process; that is, if it were not for the misrepresentation, then the

plaintiff would likely have avoided the injury altogether.6

The plaintiff's reliance would be reasonable if, under the same or

similar circumstances, a reasonable person, in the exercise of ordinary

care for his own interests, would have relied on the misrepresentation.7]

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 has suffered an injury] [the plaintiff's business has been

injured], and that the defendant's conduct proximately caused the

[plaintiff's injury] [injury to it], 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.