N.C.P.I.—Motor Vehicle 102.68

The (state number) issue reads:

Was the plaintiff [injured] [damaged] by the negligence of the

defendant in giving possession of his motor vehicle to (name driver).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, five

things:

First, that the defendant [owned] [leased] [was responsible for] the

motor vehicle operated by (name driver).

Second, that the defendant voluntarily gave possession of his

motor vehicle to (name driver).

Third, that (name driver) was [an incompetent] [an habitually

careless] [a reckless] driver and likely to cause injury to others in

operating a motor vehicle.

Fourth, that the defendant was negligent in giving possession of

his motor vehicle to (name driver). "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 himself and others from [injury]

[damage]. Ordinary care means that degree of care which a reasonable

and prudent person would use under the same or similar circumstances to

protect himself and others from [injury] [damage]. A person's failure to

use ordinary care is negligence.

The law imposes a duty on every person who [owns] [leases] [is

responsible for] a motor vehicle to exercise ordinary care in giving

possession of his vehicle to another. Thus, a person would be negligent

if, at the time he gave possession of his motor vehicle to another, he

knew or, in the exercise of ordinary care he should have known, that the

other person was [an incompetent] [an habitually careless] [a reckless]

driver and likely to cause injuries to others in operating the motor

vehicle.2

Fifth, that (name driver's) [incompetent] [habitually careless]

[reckless] driving was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's [injury]

[damage]. Proximate cause is a cause which in a natural and continuous

sequence produces a person's [injury] [damage], and is a cause which a

reasonable and prudent person could have foreseen would probably

produce such [injury] [damage] or some similar injurious result.

There may be more than one proximate cause of [an injury]

[damage]. Therefore, the plaintiff need not prove that (name driver's)

[incompetent] [habitually careless] [reckless] driving was the sole

proximate cause of the [injury] [damage]. The plaintiff must prove, by

the greater weight of the evidence, only that the (name driver's)

[incompetence] [habitual carelessness] [recklessness] was a proximate

cause.

I instruct you that [incompetence] [habitual carelessness]

[recklessness] is not to be presumed from the mere fact of [injury]

[damage].

Finally, as to this (state number) 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 giving possession of his motor

vehicle to (name driver) and that (name driver's) [incompetence]

[habitual carelessness] [recklessness] was a proximate cause of the

plaintiff's [injury] [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.