N.C.P.I.—Motor Vehicle 104.21

NOTE WELL: Use in conjunction with and not in lieu of

N.C.P.I.-Civil (MV) 104.20.1

Ordinarily, a guest passenger must exercise that degree of care for

his own safety which a reasonably careful and prudent person would

exercise under all of the circumstances then existing. However, when a

guest passenger voluntarily rides with an operator who is impaired by

[alcohol]2 [(name impairing substance)]3 and the guest passenger knew

or should have known that the operator was impaired, the conduct of the

guest passenger would be negligence within itself.4

The mere fact that a person operates a vehicle after consuming

[alcohol] [(name impairing substance)]5 is not sufficient by itself to

establish that such person was driving while impaired. [A person is

impaired when he is under the influence of an impairing substance. 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 alcohol 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].6 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.]7

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

Schedule I controlled substance] [metabolites8 of a Schedule I controlled

substance] in his blood or urine].9 (State name of substance) is a

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

substance].

The mere fact that a person rides with an operator who is impaired

is not sufficient by itself to establish that he knew or had reason to know

that the operator was impaired. A person “knows” of a thing when he has

actual knowledge of it. A person “has reason to know” of a thing when in

the exercise of ordinary care he should have acquired knowledge of it

under all circumstances existing at the time.10