NC · jury_instructions
N.C.P.I.—Civil 814.03
BAILMENTS - BAILEE'S NEGLIGENCE.
The (state number) issue reads:
"Was the plaintiff's (describe property) [lost] [damaged] by the
negligence of the defendant?"
(You will answer this issue only if you have answered the (state
number) issue "Yes" in favor of the plaintiff.)1
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 [loss] [damage].
Negligence refers to a person's failure to follow a duty of conduct
imposed by law. Every person is under a duty to use ordinary care to
protect bailment property from [loss] [damage]. Ordinary care means
that degree of care which a reasonable and prudent person would use
under the same or similar circumstances to protect bailment property
from [loss] [damage]. A person's failure to use ordinary care is
negligence.2
The plaintiff not only has the burden of proving negligence, but also
that such negligence was a proximate cause of the [loss] [damage].
Proximate cause is a cause which in a natural and continuous
sequence produces [loss] [damage], and is a cause which a reasonable
and prudent person could have foreseen would probably produce such
[loss] [damage] or some similar injurious result.
There may be more than one proximate cause of [a loss] [damage].
Therefore, the plaintiff need not prove that the defendant's negligence
was the sole proximate cause of the [loss] [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 way(s):3
(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 [loss]
[damage].
I instruct you that negligence is not to be presumed from the mere
fact of [loss] [damage].
With respect to (each of) the plaintiff's contention(s),
(Give law as to each contention of negligence included
above.)
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 in any one or more of the ways contended by
the plaintiff and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the
plaintiff's [loss] [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.
History
N.C.P.I.—Civil 814.03 (May 1996). Prepared by the North Carolina Conference of Superior Court Judges' Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions, assisted by the UNC School of Government; published by the School of Government.
Provenance
- Source
- sog.unc.edu
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-24
- Edition
- 2026-09-24
- Content hash
f69abff434ce8028c79bf9e03aef4c0b64af4165994f6bff74ed227c90e85dd5
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.