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

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-3 (2026)

Alteration or modification of product

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

(a) No manufacturer or seller of a product shall be held liable in any product liability action where a proximate cause of the personal injury, death, or damage to property was either an alteration or modification of the product by a party other than the manufacturer or seller, which alteration or modification occurred after the product left the control of such manufacturer or such seller unless:

(1) The alteration or modification was in accordance with the instructions or specifications of such manufacturer or such seller; or

(2) The alteration or modification was made with the express consent of such manufacturer or such seller.

(b) For the purposes of this section, alteration or modification includes changes in the design, formula, function, or use of the product from that originally designed, tested, or intended by the manufacturer.  It includes failure to observe routine care and maintenance, but does not include ordinary wear and tear. (1979, c. 654, s. 1; 1995, c. 522, s. 1.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1989–2022 · leading case: Stark Ex Rel. Jacobsen v. Ford Motor Co., 723 S.E.2d 753 (N.C. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stark Ex Rel. Jacobsen v. Ford Motor Co., 723 S.E.2d 753 (N.C. 2012). · cites it 272× “Plaintiffs argue that Cheyenne was still entitled to a directed verdict because neither Gordon Stark nor Tonya Stark was "a party" to the action, as required by N.C. Gen.Stat. § 99B-3. N.C.G.S. § 99B-3 provides in pertinent part that: No manufacturer or seller of a product shall…”
Stark Ex Rel. Jacobsen v. Ford Motor Co., 693 S.E.2d 253 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 212× “In their motion, Plaintiffs specifically requested a directed verdict as to Defendant's affirmative defenses of "Alteration or Modification of Product" pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 99B-3, and "Adequate Warnings or Instruction" pursuant to N.”
Edmondson v. MacClesfield LP Gas Co., Inc., 642 S.E.2d 265 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 14× “Empire argued it was not liable to Plaintiff pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-3. Empire’s motion was supported by an affidavit of James E.”
Phillips v. Restaurant Mgmt. of Carolina, L.P., 552 S.E.2d 686 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “However, G.S. § 99B-3 generally abolishes such liability of a manufacturer or seller of a product “where a proximate cause of the personal injury .”
Stark v. Ford Motor Co., 739 S.E.2d 172 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 20× “Ford asserted the affirmative defense provided in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-3 that the seat-belt that caused Cheyenne’s injuries was altered or modified by a party other than the manufacturer or seller such that Ford was relieved of liability for her injuries.”
Hastings for Pratt v. Seegars Fence Co., 493 S.E.2d 782 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 11× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-3 (emphasis added).”
Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc., 423 S.E.2d 444 (N.C. 1992). · cites it 3× “N.C.G.S. § 99B-3 (1989). The next section provides that the manufacturer or seller is not liable in a product liability action if the product is used contrary to instructions, warnings, or, in their absence, common sense: No manufacturer or seller shall be held liable in any…”
Rich v. Shaw, 391 S.E.2d 220 (N.C. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 8× “In response to plaintiff’s complaint, defendant manufacturer denied all allegations of negligence and specifically raised the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-3 (1989) as a defense to this action.”
Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 694 A.2d 1319 (Conn. 1997). “1996); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-3 (a) (1995); S.D. Codified Laws § 20-9-10 (Michie 1995).”
Westover Prods., Inc. v. Gateway Roofing Co., Inc., 380 S.E.2d 369 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 3× “§ 99B-3 reads in pertinent part: (a) No manufacturer or seller of a product shall be held liable in any product liability action where a proximate cause of the personal injury, death or damage to property was either an alteration or modification of the product by a party other…”
Block v. Woo Young Med. Co., 937 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (D. Minnesota 2013). · cites it 2× “Sale for Orthopedic Use First, Woo Young claims that it cannot be held hable for the failure to warn because there is no evidence that it ever sold its pumps to orthopedic surgeons to be used near cartilage. Under North Carolina law, a manufacturer is not liable if its product…”
Walls v. Ford Motor Co. (M.D.N.C. 2022). · cites it 4× “) Plaintiff argues that sanding the brakes was a foreseeable use and, therefore, did not constitute misuse as a matter of law. (ECF No. 246 at 9–10.) Under North Carolina law, a manufacturer cannot be held liable for injuries proximately caused by “alteration or modification of…”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-3(a) — 5 cases
Stark Ex Rel. Jacobsen v. Ford Motor Co., 723 S.E.2d 753 (N.C. 2012). “Plaintiffs argue that Cheyenne was still entitled to a directed verdict because neither Gordon Stark nor Tonya Stark was "a party" to the action, as required by N.C. Gen.Stat. § 99B-3. N.C.G.S. § 99B-3 provides in pertinent part that: No manufacturer or seller of a product shall…”
Phillips v. Restaurant Mgmt. of Carolina, L.P., 552 S.E.2d 686 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001). “However, G.S. § 99B-3 generally abolishes such liability of a manufacturer or seller of a product “where a proximate cause of the personal injury .”
Block v. Woo Young Med. Co., 937 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (D. Minnesota 2013). “Sale for Orthopedic Use First, Woo Young claims that it cannot be held hable for the failure to warn because there is no evidence that it ever sold its pumps to orthopedic surgeons to be used near cartilage. Under North Carolina law, a manufacturer is not liable if its product…”
Walls v. Ford Motor Co. (M.D.N.C. 2022). “) Plaintiff argues that sanding the brakes was a foreseeable use and, therefore, did not constitute misuse as a matter of law. (ECF No. 246 at 9–10.) Under North Carolina law, a manufacturer cannot be held liable for injuries proximately caused by “alteration or modification of…”
Walls v. Ford Motor Co. (M.D.N.C. 2022).
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-3(a)(1) — 2 cases
Stark Ex Rel. Jacobsen v. Ford Motor Co., 723 S.E.2d 753 (N.C. 2012). “Plaintiffs argue that Cheyenne was still entitled to a directed verdict because neither Gordon Stark nor Tonya Stark was "a party" to the action, as required by N.C. Gen.Stat. § 99B-3. N.C.G.S. § 99B-3 provides in pertinent part that: No manufacturer or seller of a product shall…”
Walls v. Ford Motor Co. (M.D.N.C. 2022).
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-3(a)(2) — 1 case
Stark Ex Rel. Jacobsen v. Ford Motor Co., 723 S.E.2d 753 (N.C. 2012). “Plaintiffs argue that Cheyenne was still entitled to a directed verdict because neither Gordon Stark nor Tonya Stark was "a party" to the action, as required by N.C. Gen.Stat. § 99B-3. N.C.G.S. § 99B-3 provides in pertinent part that: No manufacturer or seller of a product shall…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-3(a)(l) — 1 case
Stark Ex Rel. Jacobsen v. Ford Motor Co., 723 S.E.2d 753 (N.C. 2012). “Plaintiffs argue that Cheyenne was still entitled to a directed verdict because neither Gordon Stark nor Tonya Stark was "a party" to the action, as required by N.C. Gen.Stat. § 99B-3. N.C.G.S. § 99B-3 provides in pertinent part that: No manufacturer or seller of a product shall…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-3(b) — 5 cases
Phillips v. Restaurant Mgmt. of Carolina, L.P., 552 S.E.2d 686 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001). “However, G.S. § 99B-3 generally abolishes such liability of a manufacturer or seller of a product “where a proximate cause of the personal injury .”
Stark Ex Rel. Jacobsen v. Ford Motor Co., 723 S.E.2d 753 (N.C. 2012). “Plaintiffs argue that Cheyenne was still entitled to a directed verdict because neither Gordon Stark nor Tonya Stark was "a party" to the action, as required by N.C. Gen.Stat. § 99B-3. N.C.G.S. § 99B-3 provides in pertinent part that: No manufacturer or seller of a product shall…”
Block v. Woo Young Med. Co., 937 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (D. Minnesota 2013). “Sale for Orthopedic Use First, Woo Young claims that it cannot be held hable for the failure to warn because there is no evidence that it ever sold its pumps to orthopedic surgeons to be used near cartilage. Under North Carolina law, a manufacturer is not liable if its product…”
Walls v. Ford Motor Co. (M.D.N.C. 2022). “) Plaintiff argues that sanding the brakes was a foreseeable use and, therefore, did not constitute misuse as a matter of law. (ECF No. 246 at 9–10.) Under North Carolina law, a manufacturer cannot be held liable for injuries proximately caused by “alteration or modification of…”
Walls v. Ford Motor Co. (M.D.N.C. 2022).
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.