N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 99B
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-1.1 (2026)

Strict liability

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 99B CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

There shall be no strict liability in tort in product liability actions. (1995, c. 522, s. 1.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: DeWitt v. Eveready Battery Co., Inc., 565 S.E.2d 140 (N.C. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
DeWitt v. Eveready Battery Co., Inc., 565 S.E.2d 140 (N.C. 2002). · cites it 6× “1 (2001), and we cite these cases from other jurisdictions for the sole purpose of establishing that the use of circumstantial evidence has been found proper in cases involving warranty issues. Thus, even though Dansak applied the malfunction theory to products liability claims…”
Burrell v. Bayer Corp., 260 F. Supp. 3d 485 (W.D.N.C. 2017). · cites it 4× “If the court were to apply state law to the second claim of products liability,' the court would need to apply N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-1.1. This short statute simply states, “There shall be no- strict liability in tort in product liability actions.”
Kelly v. Georgia-Pac. LLC, 671 F. Supp. 2d 785 (E.D.N.C. 2009). · cites it 2× “, N.C. Gen. Stat § 99B-1.1; Smith v. Fiber Controls Corp.”
Stoddard v. Wyeth, Inc., 630 F. Supp. 2d 631 (E.D.N.C. 2009). · cites it 2× “2d 504 (1980) (refusing to adopt the rule of strict liability in product liability cases); N.C. Gen.Stat. § 99B-1.1 (“There shall be no strict liability in tort in product liability actions.”
Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 2000 MT 55 (Mont. 2000). “2d 1375, 1379 (observing that Montana has adopted strict liability in tort for product liability), with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-1.1 (disallowing strict liability in product liability actions).”
Gbye v. Gbye, 503 S.E.2d 434 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “Moreover, because application of the parental immunity doctrine to the particular facts of this case does not, in our opinion, go against the good morals or natural justice of this State, or work an injustice against the citizens of North Carolina, we find no merit in the…”
Manley v. Doe, 849 F. Supp. 2d 594 (D.N.C. 2012). · cites it 3× “North Carolina, however, does not recognize strict liability in products liability actions, N.C. Gen.Stat. Ann. § 99B-1.1, and a claim for breach of an implied warranty of merchantability is a products liability claim.”
Brewer v. Dodson Aviation, 447 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (W.D. Wash. 2006). “”) with N.C. Gen.Stat. § 99B-1.1 (“There shall be no strict liability in tort in product liability actions.”
Johnson v. Johnson & Johnson, 263 F.R.D. 312 (E.D.N.C. 2009). · cites it 2× “See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 99B-1.1 (2008) (“There shall be no strict liability in tort in product liability actions.”
Gruenwald v. Toro Co., The (D. Minnesota 2019). “Given the Court’s conclusion above that North Carolina’s interest in this litigation surpasses Minnesota’s, North Carolina’s prohibition on strict-liability claims, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-1.1, applies and Brooks’s strict- liability claim must be dismissed.”
Bond v. Johnson & Johnson (D.N.J. 2021). “” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-1.1. As such, none of Bond’s strict liability claims in Counts One through Three and Five through Seven are cognizable under North Carolina law, and Bond’s negligence claim under Count Four is not cognizable under New Jersey law.”
Cohen v. Subaru Corp. (D.N.J. 2022). “See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-1.1 (“There shall be no strict liability in tort in product 13 As the chart of Plaintiffs above demonstrates, several Plaintiffs purchased their vehicles in states other than where they live.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.