Red Hill Hosiery Mill, Inc. v. Magnetek, Inc. (2000)
green
· 154 citation events
across 11 courts.
Showing the 25 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200120132026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
Under North Carolina law, which the parties agree applies to the claims before us, a plaintiff bringing a products liability action based on negligence must “prove (1) the product was defective at the time it left the control of the defendant, (2) the defect was the result of defendant’s negligence, and (3) the defect proximately caused plaintiff damage.” Red Hill Hosiery Mill, Inc. v. MagneTek, Inc., 138 N.C.App. 70 , 530 S.E.2d 321, 326 (2000).
green
Maraman v. Cooper Steel Fabricators (2001)
Particularly as bearing upon the factors of intent and knowledge, see Nadeau v. Employment Security Commission, 97 N.C.App. 272, 276 , 388 S.E.2d 145, 147 (1990) (repeated personal telephone calls on company time and company expense constituted "misconduct" justifying discharge of employee for good cause, and evidence of subsequent discovery of employee's tampering with company phone system to subvert prohibition against long distance calls "relevant to show [employee's] sta…
"party's intentional destruction of evidence in its control before it is made available to the adverse party can give rise to an inference that the evidence destroyed would injure its (the party who destroyed the evidence) case"
green
Dewitt v. Eveready Battery Co., Inc. (2001)
Red Hill Hosiery Mill, Inc. v. MagneTek Inc., 138 N.C.App. 70, 75 , 530 S.E.2d 321, 325-26 (2000); N.C.G.S. § 99B-1.2 (1999).
green
Janet Foster, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Alan Foster, Deceased v. Kia Corporation, K… (2025)
To proceed under this statute in negligence, a plaintiff must “prove (1) the product was defective at the time it left the control of the defendant, (2) the defect was the result of defendant’s negligence, and (3) the defect proximately caused plaintiff damage.” Red Hill Hosiery Mill, Inc. v. MagneTek, Inc., 530 S.E.2d 321, 326 , 138 N.C.
green
Cahoon v. Edward Orton Jr. Ceramic Foundation (2020)
App. 70, 75 , 530 S.E.2d 321, 325-26 (2000); cf. Crews v. W.A.
green
Aqua North Carolina, Inc. v. Corteva, Inc. (2024)
App. 70, 74-75 , 530 S.E.2d 321, 325-26 (2000); Crews, 106 N.C.
green
Burgess v. Rugby Laboratories, Inc. (2023)
Those elements are satisfied as to a design or manufacturing defect if the plaintiff demonstrates “(1) the product was defective at the time it left the control of the defendant, (2) the defect was the result of defendant’s negligence, and (3) the defect proximately caused plaintiff damage.” Red Hill Hosiery Mill, Inc. v. MagneTek, Inc., 530 S.E.2d 321, 326 (N.C.
App. at 75 , 530 S.E.2d at 326 (“An inference of a manufacturer’s negligence arises upon proof of an actual defect in the product.”).
“An inference of a manufacturer’s negligence arises upon proof of an actual defect in the product.”
green
Kixsports, LLC v. Munn (2019)
App. 70, 78 , 530 S.E.2d 321, 328 (2000); McLain, 137 N.C.
green
Express Gene LLC v. Tecan US, Inc. (2024)
App. 70, 75 , 530 S.E.2d 321, 326 (2000) (citations omitted).
citations omitted
green
Beaver v. Pfizer Incorporated (2024)
App. 70, 75 , 530 S.E.2d 321, 326 (2000)).
green
KING v. ETHICON, INC. (2022)
To satisfy those elements, the plaintiff must plausibly allege that “‘(1) the product was defective at the time it left the control of the defendant, (2) the defect was the result of defendant’s negligence, and (3) the defect proximately caused . . . damage [to the plaintiff].’” Sparks v. Oxy- Health, LLC, 134 F. Supp. 3d 961, 986 (E.D.N.C. 2015) (quoting Red Hill Hosiery Mill, Inc. v. MagneTek, Inc., 530 S.E.2d 321, 326 (N.C.
green
Hill v. Biomet, Inc. (2022)
App. 70, 74-75 , 530 S.E.2d 321, 325-26 (2000) (emphasis added; quotation omitted); see Moore v. Coachmen Indus., Inc., 129N.C.
emphasis added; quotation omitted
green
Dunhill Holdings (2022)
App. 70, 78 , 530 S.E.2d 321, 328 (2000)). ¶ 144 All these purposes, as defined by the June 2018 Order, related to issues of liability between the parties.
green
Dunhill Holdings (2022)
App. 70, 78 , 530 S.E.2d 321, 328 (2000)). ¶ 142 All these purposes, as defined by the June 2018 Order, related to issues of liability between the parties.
green
Dunhill Holdings v. Tisha Lindberg (2022)
App. 70, 78 , 530 S.E.2d 321, 328 (2000)). - 96 - DUNHILL HOLDINGS, LLC V.
green
WALLS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY (2022)
A manufacturer has a duty to inspect or test its products, “which includes [the] duty to inspect products manufactured by another which are component parts of the product produced by the manufacturer.” Red Hill Hosiery Mill, Inc. v. MagneTek, Inc., 530 S.E.2d 321, 326 (N.C.
green
Teague v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc. (2022)
Accordingly, “[u]nder North Carolina law, . . . a plaintiff bringing a products liability action based on negligence must prove (1) the product was defective at the time it left the control of the defendant, (2) the defect was the result of defendant’s negligence, and (3) the defect proximately caused plaintiff damage.” Farrar & Farrar Farms v. Miller-St.Nazianz, Inc., 477 F. App’x 981, 984 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Red Hill Hosiery Mill, Inc. v. MagneTek, Inc., 138 N.C.
green
Lightfoot v. Georgia-Pacific Wood Products LLC (2020)
App. 615, 623 , (1980), the court stated that a “manufacturer has . . . [a] duty in properly constructing the article and in not placing upon the market a commodity which is defective and likely to inflict injury.” In Red Hill Hosiery Mill, Inc. v. MagneTek, Inc., 138 N.C.
green
Manley v. Doe (2012)
See Goodman, 333 N.C. at 9-17 , 423 S.E.2d at 447-52 (hamburger); Morrison, 319 N.C. at 301-02 , 354 S.E.2d at 497-98 (shoe); Rose, 288 N.C. at 60-61 , 215 S.E.2d at 577-78 (car); Evans v. Evans, 153 N.C.App. 54, 61 , 569 S.E.2d 303, 307-08 (2002) (clamp on irrigation system); Red Hill Hosiery Mill, Inc. v. MagneTek, Inc. (Red Hill I), 138 N.C.App. 70, 71-74 , 530 S.E.2d 321, 325-26 (2000) (fluorescent light fixture), appealed after remand, Red Hill Hosiery Mill, Inc. v. Mag…
fluorescent light fixture
green
Durkee v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (2011)
Red Hill Hosiery Mill, Inc. v. MagneTek, Inc., 138 N.C.App. 70 , 530 S.E.2d 321, 326 (N.C.Ct.App.2000).
green
Carlton v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2005)
Red Hill Hosiery Mill, Inc. v. MagneTek, Inc., 138 N.C.App. 70, 75 , 530 S.E.2d 321, 326 (2000).
green
Sparks v. Oxy-Health, LLC (2015)
See Red Hill, 138 N.C.App. at 77 n. 7, 530 S.E.2d 321 ; see also McLaurin v. E.
green
Weaver v. AMV Holdings, LLC (2026)
Stat. § 99B-1(3); see also Red Hill, 138 N.C.
green
Grant v. High Point Regional Health System (2007)
See, e.g., Red Hill Hosiery Mill, Inc. v. MagneTek, Inc., 138 N.C.