Some states allow a product-liability theory commonly described as strict liability. North Carolina takes a different approach: its Products Liability Act expressly says there is no strict liability in tort in product-liability actions. A claimant must identify a legally recognized theory and prove its required elements.

North Carolina’s rejection of strict liability does not mean an injured person has no possible product claim. Chapter 99B addresses claims involving design or formulation, warnings or instructions, sellers, alterations, product use, and warranty. The viable path depends on the product, chain of distribution, alleged defect, conduct, and evidence.

Chapter 99B defines the product-liability framework

G.S. 99B-1.1 states that there is no strict liability in tort in product-liability actions. G.S. 99B-1.2 preserves product claims that otherwise exist for breach of warranty, subject to the Chapter’s defenses unless a provision says otherwise.

A product-liability action under the Chapter can concern personal injury, death, or property damage associated with the manufacture, design, formulation, preparation, testing, warning, marketing, sale, packaging, or labeling of a product. Calling an event a “defective product case” is only a starting point.

Design claims require more than proof of an injury

G.S. 99B-6 addresses claims based on inadequate design or formulation. Among other requirements, the claimant must address unreasonable design or formulation and proximate causation. Depending on the theory, the statute considers a safer practical and feasible alternative or whether the design was so unreasonable that a reasonable person aware of the relevant facts would not use the product.

The inquiry can include intended and reasonably foreseeable uses, risks, user awareness, applicable standards, product utility, and the technical, economic, and practical feasibility of an alternative at the time of manufacture. A later-developed alternative does not automatically show what was feasible then.

Warning claims focus on knowledge, adequacy, and causation

G.S. 99B-5 addresses inadequate warnings or instructions. The claimant must connect an unreasonable failure to warn or instruct with the harm and satisfy the statute’s knowledge and risk provisions. The statute also addresses open and obvious risks, common knowledge, and prescription-drug warnings.

Useful evidence can include the warning’s wording, placement, size, language, timing, and consistency with the way the product was marketed and expected to be used. The analysis also asks who saw or received the warning and whether an adequate instruction would have changed the relevant conduct.

Seller liability may differ from manufacturer liability

G.S. 99B-2 includes protections for some sellers that received and sold a sealed product without a reasonable opportunity to discover the complained-of condition. Exceptions and warranty theories can matter. Identifying the manufacturer, component makers, distributors, retailers, lessors, repairers, and other participants is therefore an early evidence task.

Alteration and product use can become defenses

G.S. 99B-3 addresses alterations or modifications after a product leaves a manufacturer’s or seller’s control. G.S. 99B-4 addresses instructions, known dangers, and a claimant’s reasonable care in using the product. These provisions make product preservation and documentation of its history particularly important.

Evidence to preserve in a product case

  • The product and every component in its post-incident condition, without destructive testing or repair
  • Packaging, labels, warnings, instructions, manuals, receipts, serial and model numbers, and photographs
  • Maintenance, repair, recall, modification, prior-incident, and chain-of-custody records
  • The circumstances of purchase and use, including who used the product and for what purpose
  • Comparable products, design documents, standards, testing information, and feasible-alternative evidence when obtainable
  • Medical, engineering, fire, incident, and other qualified evidence connecting the alleged defect to the harm

A product deadline may run independently of discovery

G.S. 1-46.1 establishes a 12-year outside limit tied to the product’s initial purchase for use or consumption for specified actions arising from an alleged product defect or failure. Other deadlines and exceptions may also matter, so this article does not calculate a deadline for a particular claim.

Rosensteel Fleishman Car Accident & Injury Lawyers provides information about personal-injury claims in North Carolina. A product-liability review requires the actual product, its history, the applicable theory, qualified evidence, and current law.

Sources