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

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-4 (2026)

Knowledge or reasonable care

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

No manufacturer or seller shall be held liable in any product liability action if:

(1) The use of the product giving rise to the product liability action was contrary to any express and adequate instructions or warnings delivered with, appearing on, or attached to the product or on its original container or wrapping, if the user knew or with the exercise of reasonable and diligent care should have known of such instructions or warnings; or

(2) The user knew of or discovered a defect or dangerous condition of the product that was inconsistent with the safe use of the product, and then unreasonably and voluntarily exposed himself or herself to the danger, and was injured by or caused injury with that product; or

(3) The claimant failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances in the use of the product, and such failure was a proximate cause of the occurrence that caused the injury or damage complained of. (1979, c. 654, s. 1; 1995, c. 522, s. 1.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Champs Convenience Stores, Inc. v. United Chem. Co., 406 S.E.2d 856 (N.C. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Champs Convenience Stores, Inc. v. United Chem. Co., 406 S.E.2d 856 (N.C. 1991). · cites it 42× “N.C.G.S. § 99B-4 (1989). This Court has previously addressed the issue of whether the General Assembly, in enacting § 99B, adopted the doctrine of strict liability in products liability actions in this State, and we concluded that Ch.”
Nicholson v. Am. Saf. Util. Corp., 488 S.E.2d 240 (N.C. 1997). · cites it 32× “§ 99B-4, as it existed at the time of the accident, provided as follows: No manufacturer or seller shall be held liable in any product liability action if: (1) The use of the product giving rise to the product liability action was contrary to any express and adequate…”
Nicholson v. Am. Saf. Util. Corp., 476 S.E.2d 672 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 19× “In N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-4, the Act codifies contributory negligence as it applies to product liability actions and additionally “sets out or explains more specialized fact patterns which would amount to contributory negligence in a products liability action.”
Fontenot Ex Rel. Est. of Turner v. Taser Int'l, Inc., 736 F.3d 318 (4th Cir. 2013). · cites it 7× “N.C.G.S. § 99B-4 concerns the doctrine of contributory negligence in products liability cases.”
Bryant v. Adams, 448 S.E.2d 832 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 6× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-4 (1989). G.S. § 99B-4 “appears to codify a particular form of contributory negligence and makes little change in prior law.”
Smith v. Selco Prods., Inc., 385 S.E.2d 173 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 9× “Selco argues that plaintiff was guilty of negligence under two separate sub-parts of N.C.G.S. § 99B-4: that his failure to obey a cautionary decal affixed to the baler constituted contributory negligence under N.”
Driver v. Burlington Aviation, Inc., 430 S.E.2d 476 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-4; Smith v. Fiber Controls Corp.”
Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc., 423 S.E.2d 444 (N.C. 1992). · cites it 3× “N.C.G.S. § 99B-4 (1989). *26 GMSC contends that any alteration or modification in the ground beef after the product left its control was not in accord with its instructions or specifications and that such a modification must have been the cause of the alleged defect resulting in…”
Lee v. Crest Chem. Co., 583 F. Supp. 131 (M.D.N.C. 1984). · cites it 8× “Defendant asserted that N.C.Gen.Stat. § 99B-4(1) provides it with a complete defense as .”
Stark Ex Rel. Jacobsen v. Ford Motor Co., 693 S.E.2d 253 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “§ 99B-3, and "Adequate Warnings or Instruction" pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 99B-4. With respect to their requested directed verdict based on N.”
Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 130 F.R.D. 260 (D.D.C. 1990). · cites it 2× “1972); N.C.Gen.Stat. § 99B-4. . Gregory v. White Truck & Equip.”
Morgan v. Cavalier Acquisition Corp., 432 S.E.2d 915 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “2d 476, 482 (1993) (“Chapter 99B does not adopt the doctrine of strict liability, as clearly demonstrated by the language in G.S. 99B-4 which codified the common law defense of contributory negligence in products liability actions”); Stiles v.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-4(1) — 10 cases
Champs Convenience Stores, Inc. v. United Chem. Co., 406 S.E.2d 856 (N.C. 1991). “N.C.G.S. § 99B-4 (1989). This Court has previously addressed the issue of whether the General Assembly, in enacting § 99B, adopted the doctrine of strict liability in products liability actions in this State, and we concluded that Ch.”
Nicholson v. Am. Saf. Util. Corp., 488 S.E.2d 240 (N.C. 1997). “§ 99B-4, as it existed at the time of the accident, provided as follows: No manufacturer or seller shall be held liable in any product liability action if: (1) The use of the product giving rise to the product liability action was contrary to any express and adequate…”
Lee v. Crest Chem. Co., 583 F. Supp. 131 (M.D.N.C. 1984). “Defendant asserted that N.C.Gen.Stat. § 99B-4(1) provides it with a complete defense as .”
Fontenot Ex Rel. Est. of Turner v. Taser Int'l, Inc., 736 F.3d 318 (4th Cir. 2013). “N.C.G.S. § 99B-4 concerns the doctrine of contributory negligence in products liability cases.”
Nicholson v. Am. Saf. Util. Corp., 476 S.E.2d 672 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996). “In N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-4, the Act codifies contributory negligence as it applies to product liability actions and additionally “sets out or explains more specialized fact patterns which would amount to contributory negligence in a products liability action.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-4(2) — 3 cases
Nicholson v. Am. Saf. Util. Corp., 488 S.E.2d 240 (N.C. 1997). “§ 99B-4, as it existed at the time of the accident, provided as follows: No manufacturer or seller shall be held liable in any product liability action if: (1) The use of the product giving rise to the product liability action was contrary to any express and adequate…”
Nicholson v. Am. Saf. Util. Corp., 476 S.E.2d 672 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996). “In N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-4, the Act codifies contributory negligence as it applies to product liability actions and additionally “sets out or explains more specialized fact patterns which would amount to contributory negligence in a products liability action.”
Oates v. Jag, Inc., 311 S.E.2d 369 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984).
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-4(3) — 13 cases
Nicholson v. Am. Saf. Util. Corp., 488 S.E.2d 240 (N.C. 1997). “§ 99B-4, as it existed at the time of the accident, provided as follows: No manufacturer or seller shall be held liable in any product liability action if: (1) The use of the product giving rise to the product liability action was contrary to any express and adequate…”
Nicholson v. Am. Saf. Util. Corp., 476 S.E.2d 672 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996). “In N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-4, the Act codifies contributory negligence as it applies to product liability actions and additionally “sets out or explains more specialized fact patterns which would amount to contributory negligence in a products liability action.”
Fontenot Ex Rel. Est. of Turner v. Taser Int'l, Inc., 736 F.3d 318 (4th Cir. 2013). “N.C.G.S. § 99B-4 concerns the doctrine of contributory negligence in products liability cases.”
Smith v. Selco Prods., Inc., 385 S.E.2d 173 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989). “Selco argues that plaintiff was guilty of negligence under two separate sub-parts of N.C.G.S. § 99B-4: that his failure to obey a cautionary decal affixed to the baler constituted contributory negligence under N.”
Champs Convenience Stores, Inc. v. United Chem. Co., 406 S.E.2d 856 (N.C. 1991). “N.C.G.S. § 99B-4 (1989). This Court has previously addressed the issue of whether the General Assembly, in enacting § 99B, adopted the doctrine of strict liability in products liability actions in this State, and we concluded that Ch.”
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.