10 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1971–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Nicholson v. American Safety Utility Corp.green2 sentences2025See Nicholson, 346 N.C. at 773 , 488 S.E.2d at 244 (“[C]ontributory negligence also bars a products liability claim against a manufacturer or seller based on breach of implied warranty.” (citing N.C. 2025See Nicholson, 346 N.C. at 773 , 488 S.E.2d at 244 (“[C]ontributory negligence also bars a products liability claim against a manufacturer or seller based on breach of implied warranty.” (citing N.C. | 2 | 2 |
Morrison v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.green2 sentences2003Stat. § 25-2-314 (Implied Warranty, Merchantability) was fully explained in Red Hill I: A products liability claim grounded in warranty requires the plaintiff prove (1) the defendant warranted the product (express or implied) to plaintiff, (2) there was a breach of that warranty in that the product was defective at the time it left the control of the defendant, and (3) the defect proximately caused plaintiff damage. 1 Products Liability § 2.7, at 32-33; Morrison v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 319 N.C. 298, 301 , 354 S.E.2d 495, 497 (1987). *141 Thus, a products liability claim based on breach of war 2003Stat. § 25-2-314 (Implied Warranty, Merchantability) was fully explained in Red Hill I: A products liability claim grounded in warranty requires the plaintiff prove (1) the defendant warranted the product (express or implied) to plaintiff, (2) there was a breach of that warranty in that the product was defective at the time it left the control of the defendant, and (3) the defect proximately caused plaintiff damage. 1 Products Liability § 2.7, at 32-33; Morrison v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 319 N.C. 298, 301 , 354 S.E.2d 495, 497 (1987). *141 Thus, a products liability claim based on breach of war | 2 | 2 |
Red Hill Hosiery Mill, Inc. v. Magnetek, Inc.green2 sentences2001Red Hill, 138 N.C.App. at 75 , 530 S.E.2d at 326 ; Reid v. Eckerds Drugs, 40 N.C.App. 476, 480 , 253 S.E.2d 344, 347 , disc. review denied, 297 N.C. 612 , 257 S.E.2d 219 (1979). "[C]ontributory negligence ... bars a products liability claim against a manufacturer or seller based on breach of implied warranty." Nicholson v. American Safety Utility Corp., 346 N.C. 767, 773 , 488 S.E.2d 240, 244 (1997); N.C.G.S. § 99-4 (1999). 2001Red Hill, 138 N.C.App. at 75 , 530 S.E.2d at 326 ; Reid v. Eckerds Drugs, 40 N.C.App. 476, 480 , 253 S.E.2d 344, 347 , disc. review denied, 297 N.C. 612 , 257 S.E.2d 219 (1979). "[C]ontributory negligence ... bars a products liability claim against a manufacturer or seller based on breach of implied warranty." Nicholson v. American Safety Utility Corp., 346 N.C. 767, 773 , 488 S.E.2d 240, 244 (1997); N.C.G.S. § 99-4 (1999). | 1 | 3 |
Smith v. Fiber Controls Corp.green2 sentences2025Stat. § 99B-4(1) and (3) codify the defense of contributory negligence, applying § 99B-4(3) to the plaintiff’s products liability claim, and providing § 99B-4(3) “does not create a different rule for products liability actions”); Smith, 300 N.C. at 678 , 268 S.E.2d at 510 (finding the application of contributory negligence as a defense in product liability actions under N.C. 2025Stat. § 99B-4(1) and (3) codify the defense of contributory negligence, applying § 99B-4(3) to the plaintiff’s products liability claim, and providing § 99B-4(3) “does not create a different rule for products liability actions”); Smith, 300 N.C. at 678 , 268 S.E.2d at 510 (finding the application of contributory negligence as a defense in product liability actions under N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Newton v. New Hanover County Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2001"A plaintiff is contributorily negligent when he fails to exercise such care as an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under the circumstances in order to avoid injury." Newton v. New Hanover County Bd. of Education, 342 N.C. 554, 564 , 467 S.E.2d 58, 65 (1996). 2001"A plaintiff is contributorily negligent when he fails to exercise such care as an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under the circumstances in order to avoid injury." Newton v. New Hanover County Bd. of Education, 342 N.C. 554, 564 , 467 S.E.2d 58, 65 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
Jolley v. General Motors Corp.green2 sentences2000A products liability claim grounded in negligence requires the plaintiff 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. 5 1 Products Liability § 2.3, at 26; Jolley v. General Motors Corp., 55 N.C. 2000App. 383, 385-86 , 285 S.E.2d 301, 303 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Carolina Power & Light Co.green2 sentences1981These facts, standing alone, would not, however, support plaintiff’s products liability claim because, even if Du Pont did not exercise due care in disseminating this information earlier, there is no evidence *160 anywhere in this record tending to establish a causal connection between such an omission of care and the resulting injury. 8 In sum, we hold that plaintiff substantiated a products liability claim against the defendant manufacturer on three grounds: (1) its negligent manufacture and packaging of Vydate L; (2) its failure to provide adequate warnings on the product’s label to notify 1981These facts, standing alone, would not, however, support plaintiff’s products liability claim because, even if Du Pont did not exercise due care in disseminating this information earlier, there is no evidence *160 anywhere in this record tending to establish a causal connection between such an omission of care and the resulting injury. 8 In sum, we hold that plaintiff substantiated a products liability claim against the defendant manufacturer on three grounds: (1) its negligent manufacture and packaging of Vydate L; (2) its failure to provide adequate warnings on the product’s label to notify | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wilson v. McLeod Oil Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2006Id. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Reid v. Eckerds Drugs, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001Red Hill, 138 N.C.App. at 75 , 530 S.E.2d at 326 ; Reid v. Eckerds Drugs, 40 N.C.App. 476, 480 , 253 S.E.2d 344, 347 , disc. review denied, 297 N.C. 612 , 257 S.E.2d 219 (1979). "[C]ontributory negligence ... bars a products liability claim against a manufacturer or seller based on breach of implied warranty." Nicholson v. American Safety Utility Corp., 346 N.C. 767, 773 , 488 S.E.2d 240, 244 (1997); N.C.G.S. § 99-4 (1999). 2001Red Hill, 138 N.C.App. at 75 , 530 S.E.2d at 326 ; Reid v. Eckerds Drugs, 40 N.C.App. 476, 480 , 253 S.E.2d 344, 347 , disc. review denied, 297 N.C. 612 , 257 S.E.2d 219 (1979). "[C]ontributory negligence ... bars a products liability claim against a manufacturer or seller based on breach of implied warranty." Nicholson v. American Safety Utility Corp., 346 N.C. 767, 773 , 488 S.E.2d 240, 244 (1997); N.C.G.S. § 99-4 (1999). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Reid v. Eckerds Drugs, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001Red Hill, 138 N.C.App. at 75 , 530 S.E.2d at 326 ; Reid v. Eckerds Drugs, 40 N.C.App. 476, 480 , 253 S.E.2d 344, 347 , disc. review denied, 297 N.C. 612 , 257 S.E.2d 219 (1979). "[C]ontributory negligence ... bars a products liability claim against a manufacturer or seller based on breach of implied warranty." Nicholson v. American Safety Utility Corp., 346 N.C. 767, 773 , 488 S.E.2d 240, 244 (1997); N.C.G.S. § 99-4 (1999). 2001Red Hill, 138 N.C.App. at 75 , 530 S.E.2d at 326 ; Reid v. Eckerds Drugs, 40 N.C.App. 476, 480 , 253 S.E.2d 344, 347 , disc. review denied, 297 N.C. 612 , 257 S.E.2d 219 (1979). "[C]ontributory negligence ... bars a products liability claim against a manufacturer or seller based on breach of implied warranty." Nicholson v. American Safety Utility Corp., 346 N.C. 767, 773 , 488 S.E.2d 240, 244 (1997); N.C.G.S. § 99-4 (1999). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Crews v. W. A. Brown & Son, Inc.
green
1 sentence2000Stuart Madden, *75 Products Liability § 1.1, at 5 (2d ed. 1988) [hereinafter 1 Products Liability], and recovery is premised on either negligence or on the contract principles of warranty, id. at 6; Crews, 106 N.C. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Gillespie v. American Motors Corp.
green
1 sentence1997N.C.G.S. § 99B-4 (“No manufacturer or seller shall be held liable in any product liability action if [plaintiff is contributorily negligent.]”) (emphasis added); Gillespie v. American Motors Corp., 69 N.C. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
H. Rosenblum, Inc. v. Adler
green
2 sentences1988Rosenblum v. Adler, 93 N.J. at 341 , 461 A. 2d at 147 . 1988Rosenblum v. Adler, 93 N.J. at 341 , 461 A. 2d at 147 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Dealers Transport Co. v. Battery Distributing Co.
green
2 sentences1971In a later Kentucky case, Dealers Transport Co. v. Battery Distributing Co. (Ky.), 402 S.W. 2d 441 (1966) the following is said: “The Berger case actually involved an express warranty, and is not authority for the rule applicable to an implied warranty.” In the same case it was also stated: “We are unable to perceive a valid basis for requiring privity of contract in a products liability claim based on breach of implied warranty and disregarding privity in such claims based on negligence.” In the case sub judice the allegations of the complaint seem to allege an implied warranty and for that r 1971In a later Kentucky case, Dealers Transport Co. v. Battery Distributing Co. (Ky.), 402 S.W.2d 441 (1966) the following is said: "The Berger case actually involved an express warranty, and is not authority for the rule applicable to an implied warranty." In the same case it was also stated: "We are unable to perceive a valid basis for requiring privity of contract in a products liability claim based on breach of implied warranty and disregarding privity in such claims based on negligence." In the case sub judice the allegations of the complaint seem to allege an implied warranty and for that re | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.