NC · jury_instructions

N.C.P.I.—Motor Vehicle 102.20

PROXIMATE CAUSE—PECULIAR SUSCEPTIBILITY.

activein force · 2024-02-01 – presentas-observed

In deciding whether the [injury1 to the plaintiff] [death of the decedent]

was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s negligence, you

must determine whether such negligent conduct, under the same or similar

circumstances, could reasonably have been expected to [injure] [cause the

death of] a person of ordinary [physical] [mental] condition.2 If so, the

harmful consequences resulting from the defendant's negligence would be

reasonably foreseeable and, therefore, would be a proximate cause of the

[plaintiff's injury] [decedent's death]. Otherwise, the harmful consequences

resulting from the defendant's negligence would not be reasonably

foreseeable and, therefore, would not be a proximate cause of the [plaintiff's

injury] [decedent's death].

NOTE WELL: Use the below parenthetical language when prior

knowledge of susceptibility to injury is at issue.

(Furthermore, even if a person of ordinary [physical] [mental] condition

would not be reasonably expected to [be injured] [die], you must determine

whether the defendant had knowledge or a reason to know of the plaintiff's

peculiar or abnormal [physical] [mental] condition.3 If so, the harmful

consequences resulting from the defendant's negligence would be reasonably

foreseeable and, therefore, would be a proximate cause of the [plaintiff's

injury] [decedent's death]. Under such circumstance(s), the defendant would

be liable for all the harmful consequences which occur, even though these

harmful consequences may be unusually extensive because of the peculiar or

abnormal [physical] [mental] condition which [happens] [happened] to be

present in the [plaintiff] [decedent].4

On the other hand, if you determine that the defendant did not have

knowledge or a reason to know of the plaintiff’s peculiar or abnormal

[physical] [mental] condition, the harmful consequences resulting from the

defendant’s negligence would not be reasonably foreseeable and, therefore,

would not be a proximate cause of the [plaintiff's injury] [decedent's death].)

History

N.C.P.I.—Motor Vehicle 102.20 (Replacement February 2024). 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: 2026-09-25
Edition: 2026-09-24
Content hash: 9b1b8dd99bfa91d93ab466dd83f64d24132627ebbfed5332460c5021964eec02

View the official source →

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.

Coverage · API docs