N.C.P.I.—Motor Vehicle 102.30

In deciding whether the defendant's alleged negligence was a

cause which in a natural and continuous sequence produced the plaintiff's

[injury] [damage], you may consider the defendant's contention that his

sudden incapacitation, rather than his alleged negligence, was the cause

of the plaintiff's [injury] [damage]. If you so find, the defendant would

not be liable to the plaintiff under this (state number) issue.

On the matter of the defendant's sudden incapacitation, the burden

of proof is on the defendant. This means the defendant must prove, by

the greater weight of the evidence, four things:

First, that the defendant was stricken by a sudden incapacitation.

Second, that this sudden incapacitation was unforeseeable to the

defendant.

Third, that, as a result of this sudden incapacitation, the defendant

was unable to control the motor vehicle he was operating.

Fourth, that this sudden incapacitation caused the accident which,

in turn, caused the plaintiff's [injury] [damage].

Thus, as to the matter of the defendant's sudden incapacitation on

which the defendant has the burden of proof, if you find by the greater

weight of the evidence the four things I have explained to you, then it

would be your duty to find that the defendant's alleged negligence was

not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's [injury] [damage] and answer the

(state number) issue "No" in favor of the defendant.

If, on the other hand, you fail to so find, then it would be your duty

to continue your deliberations on whether the plaintiff's [injury] [damage]

was proximately caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant.