As you have learned from the evidence in this case, _______________ was actually in charge of the operation of the Defendant's automobile at the time of the mishap. Defendant, _______________, has been sued on the theory that _______________, the driver of the Defendant's vehicle, was acting as the Defendant's agent and was acting within the scope of that authority at the time the mishap occurred. Whether the facts support this theory is an issue you may have to decide, as the Defendant has denied Plaintiff's contentions in this respect.

If, adhering to these instructions, you find that _______________, the driver of Defendant's vehicle, was not negligent or, if negligent, that this negligence was not a proximate cause of any injury to the Plaintiff, then, of course, it would not be necessary to consider the question of agency, because in that event the Defendant could not lawfully be held liable even if agency existed.

But, if you find that _______________, the driver of Defendant's vehicle, was negligent, and that this negligence was a proximate cause of injury to the Plaintiff, then you must decide whether, at the time of the mishap _______________ was acting as agent for the Defendant and within the scope of that authority.

If, adhering to these instructions, you find either that 1) _______________ was not an agent of the Defendant or 2) _______________, if an agent, was not acting within the scope of that authority at the time of the mishap, then you must return a verdict in favor of the Defendant for a dismissal of the Plaintiff's Claim.

But, if you find that _______________ was an agent of the Defendant and was acting within the scope of the agent’s authority when that negligence occurred, you must return a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff for such damages as you shall find the Plaintiff entitled to under all of the evidence and these instructions.

*****