N.C.P.I.—Motor Vehicle 102.83

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 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 is under a duty not to provide an impairing substance2 to

someone whom he knows or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should

know, [is] [is likely to become] under the influence of an impairing

substance and is likely to be operating a motor vehicle shortly

thereafter.3

A violation of this duty is negligence.

[A person is under the influence of an impairing substance when he

has consumed a sufficient quantity of that impairing substance to cause

him to lose the normal control of his physical or mental faculties, or both,

to such an extent that there is an appreciable impairment of either or

both of these faculties. (Name impairing substance) is an impairing

substance.]

[A person is (also) impaired when he has consumed a sufficient

quantity of alcohol4 that at any relevant time after the driving he has an

alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per [210 liters of

breath] [100 milliliters of blood]. A relevant time is any time after the

driving in which the operator still has in his body alcohol consumed before

or during the driving.]5

[A person is (also) impaired when he has any amount of [a

Schedule I controlled substance] [metabolites6 of a Schedule I controlled

substance] in his blood or urine].7 (State name of substance) is a

[Schedule I controlled substance] [metabolite of a Schedule I controlled

substance].

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.

I instruct you that negligence 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, 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.