N.C.P.I.—Motor Vehicle 102.81

NOTE WELL: For statutory dram shop cases under N.C.

Gen. Stat. § 18B-121, see N.C.P.I.-Civil 102.70.

The (state number) issue reads:

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

defendant?"

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 [injury] [damage].

"Negligence" refers to a person's failure to follow a duty of conduct

imposed by law. Every person is under a duty to follow standards of

conduct enacted as laws for the safety of the public. A standard of

conduct set forth in a safety statute is absolute and must be followed. A

person's failure to do so is negligence in and of itself.

The plaintiff not only has the burden of proving negligence, but also

that such negligence was a proximate cause of the [injury] [damage].

Proximate cause is a cause which in a natural and continuous

sequence produces a person's [injury] [damage], and one 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 the defendant's

negligence was the sole proximate cause of the [injury] [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 that he [sold] [gave] (specify beverage)

to a person he knew or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have

known was intoxicated.

The plaintiff further contends, and the defendant denies, that the

defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's [injury]

[damage].

I instruct you that negligence is not to be presumed from the mere

fact of [injury] [damage].

A law enacted for the safety of the public provides that it is

unlawful for a [person] [corporation] who is licensed to sell (specify

beverage) to knowingly [sell] [give] alcoholic beverages to any person

who is intoxicated.2

A violation of this safety law is negligence in and of itself.

A person violates this law when he [sells] [gives] (specify

beverage) to a person who he knows or, in the exercise of ordinary care,

should know is intoxicated.3 "Intoxicated" means that a person's mental

or physical functioning is substantially, that is materially, impaired as a

result of the use of alcohol.4

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 any one or more of the ways

contended by the plaintiff) and that such negligence 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.