402.14 Defense Issues If, however, the greater weight of the evidence supports [(claimant)'s claim] [one or more of (claimant)'s claims], then you shall consider the defense(s) raised by (defendant). On the [first]* defense, the issue[s] for you to decide [is] [are]: a. Statute of limitations: whether (claimant)** knew, or by the use of reasonable care should have known, before [date] that [he] [she] [(person for whose injury the claim is made)] had been injured or damaged and that there was a reasonable possibility that the injury or damage was caused by [medical] [legal] [(other profession)] negligence. If the greater weight of the evidence supports (defendant)'s defense on this issue, the plaintiff's claim is time barred and your verdict is for the defendant. If, however, the greater weight of the evidence does not support (defendant)'s defense on this issue [you shall consider the following additional defenses] [your verdict should be for (claimant) in the full amount of [his] [her] damages]. b. Comparative negligence generally: whether (claimant or person for whose injury or death claim is made) was [himself] [herself] negligent in (describe conduct in question) and, if so, whether that negligence was a contributing legal cause of the injury or damage to (claimant). c. Comparative negligence of parent predicated on other parent's negligence (claim for death of child): whether (parent) was negligent in caring for and supervising (child), and if so, whether that negligence was a contributing legal cause of the death of (child); and, if so, whether [other parent], in the exercise of reasonable care, should have anticipated such negligence on the part of (parent). d. Comparative negligence of custodian of child other than parent: whether, before the incident in this case, (claimant) placed (child) in the care and custody of (custodian), and if so, whether (custodian) was negligent in caring for and supervising the child, (name); and, if so, whether that negligence was a contributing legal cause of the [injury] [and] [death] of (child). e. Apportionment of fault: whether (identify additional person(s) or entit(y)(ies)) [was] [were] also [negligent] in [(specify other type of conduct)]; and, if so, whether that [negligence] [fault] [responsibility] was a contributing legal cause of the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant, decedent or person for whose injury claim is made). [f. Apportionment of fault:] whether (claimant) would reasonably, under all the circumstances, have undergone such treatment or procedure had [he] [she] been advised by (defendant) of the substantial risks and hazards inherent in the proposed treatment or procedure which are recognized by *The order in which the defenses are listed below is not necessarily the order in which the instruction should be given; see Notes on Use. **In some cases, it may be necessary to insert the name of a person other than the claimant; see Notes on Use. other [physicians] [health care providers] in the same or similar community who perform similar treatments or procedures. *The order in which the defenses are listed below is not necessarily the order in which the instruction should be given; see Notes on Use. **In some cases, it may be necessary to insert the name of a person other than the claimant; see Notes on Use.